Change in relativistic momentum

kurious
Messages
633
Reaction score
0
Is it alright to say that force = rate of change of relativistic momentum

F = [ m0 v2 / (1 - v2^2/c^2)^1/2 - m0 v1/(1 - v1^2/c^2)^1/2 )] / (t2 - t1)

and can this relation be used to get sensible results for particles?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
kurious said:
Is it alright to say that force = rate of change of relativistic momentum

F = [ m0 v2 / (1 - v2^2/c^2)^1/2 - m0 v1/(1 - v1^2/c^2)^1/2 )] / (t2 - t1)

and can this relation be used to get sensible results for particles?
Thats close to ordinary force f. To be precise ordinary force f involves the limit of that as t2-t1 becomes infinitesimal dt in a calculus limit. Also, you shouldn't subscript the mass with a zero as it is invariant.
 
DW is right, your notation is wrond. You must let t2-t1 approach 0, it must be alimit.
Here is the wau you want to write it:

F = \frac {d(\frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-v^2 / c^2}})}{dt}
 
Yes, but in general, you gain nothing in writing the differential equation in terms of velocity. Just leave it in momentum; equations are far simpler.
 
kurious said:
Is it alright to say that force = rate of change of relativistic momentum..
Yes. Force is defined as

\bold F = \frac{d\bold p}{dt}
F = [ m0 v2 / (1 - v2^2/c^2)^1/2 - m0 v1/(1 - v1^2/c^2)^1/2 )] / (t2 - t1)

and can this relation be used to get sensible results for particles?
That is the average force. The instantaneous force is F = dp/dt.

Pete
 
pmb_phy said:
Yes. Force is defined as

\bold F = \frac{d\bold p}{dt}
That is the average force. The instantaneous force is F = dp/dt.

Pete
Just to be clear to you, in light of the notation having been used here for a while, it is an expression for ordinary force f, not the four-vector force F.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top