Choosing the Correct Momentum Equation: Newtonian vs Relativistic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Einstein's Cat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the distinction between Newtonian and relativistic equations for momentum, with the classical equation p = mv being suitable for everyday speeds, while the relativistic equation p = mv / √(1 - v²/c²) is necessary for particles moving at speeds close to the speed of light. For objects traveling at velocities much smaller than the speed of light, the Newtonian approximation is accurate and often preferred. Participants suggest comparing results from both equations for various speeds to see their similarities. The conversation also emphasizes the importance of clear notation when writing equations. Understanding when to use each equation is crucial for accurate momentum calculations.
Einstein's Cat
Messages
182
Reaction score
2
I have come to notice that there are two equations for calculating momentum and I am under the impression that both equations provide different answers.

There is the Newtonian, classical equation of p = mv, where p, is momentum, m is mass, and v is velocity.

Yet also there is the relativistic equation for calculating momentum of p= mv / √ 1 - v squared / c squared, where c is the speed of light.

Therefore, what equation would you recommend to use, and which equation is more accurate?

Thank you for your help and happy holidays!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends. If you are working with particles traveling at relativistic speeds, then you would need to use the relativistic equation. For particles traveling at velocities much smaller than the speed of light, then you can use the Newtonian approximation. If you want, you can compare the results of two equations for slow moving particles and see for yourself that the results are pretty much exactly the same.
 
The Newtonian p = mv is an approximation of the relativistic result and is accurate for velocities much smaller than the speed of light. If you are not dealing with objects traveling at relativistic velocities, you will do just fine applying the Newtonian version.

Einstein's Cat said:
p= mv / √ 1 - v squared / c squared
Just as a heads-up, writing "squared" in an equation tends to severely limit the readability. If you are not yet familiar with writing equations in LaTeX, I suggest you simply use ^ when referring to an exponent. You could also do with a few parentheses. This expression would be much more readable if you wrote it as "p = mv/√(1- v^2/c^2)".
 
@Einstein's Cat It would be a good exercise to try calculating the momentum both ways for a few different objects:
- a thrown stone: v=30 meters/sec
- a cannonball: v=300 meters/sec
- a spaceship in orbit: v=9000 meters/sec
- mass-extinction meteorite: v=30000 meters/second

Do this and you'll understand why we still use and teach Newtonian physics. :smile:
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top