- #1

- 1

- 0

could anyone please show the full derivation of relativistic acceleration and momentum.

Many thanks n

happy eqtns

R

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter phys23
- Start date

In summary, the author of this summary believes that mainstream theory is wrong and that relativistic mass does not exist. He goes against this by stating that relativistic momentum does not exist, only velocity. He suggests that this is because relativistic mass does not exist and that velocity is all that remains. He also claims that mainstream theory is too linear in its understanding and that this might be why people are confused about it.f

- #1

- 1

- 0

could anyone please show the full derivation of relativistic acceleration and momentum.

Many thanks n

happy eqtns

R

- #2

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 9,625

- 8

Welcome to PF,

could anyone please show the full derivation of relativistic acceleration and momentum.

Many thanks n

happy eqtns

R

Have you tried searching the internet?

- #3

- 85

- 2

[tex]m=\gamma m_0=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/tex].

[itex]m_0[/tex] is the mass of the object at rest, [itex]c[/itex] is the 299 792 458 m/s.

Most equations still hold true in relativity, the major exception being F=ma.

The following are still true:

[tex]p=mv, F=p', a=v', v=x'.[/tex]

Using these, we easily find that,

[tex]p=\frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/tex]

and

[tex]F=p'=(mv)'=m'v+v'm[/tex].

Now we need to express m' in terms of only v.

[tex]m'=\left(\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\right)'=\frac{-1/2m_0}{(1-v^2/c^2)^{3/2}}(-2v/c^2)(v')=v\frac{m_0v'}{c^2(1-v^2/c^2)^{3/2}}[/tex].

Combining this with the above equation for force,

[tex]F=v^2\frac{m_0v'}{c^2(1-v^2/c^2)^{3/2}}+\frac{m_0v'}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/tex].

Now you can just factor and solve for [itex]a, v'[/itex].

- #4

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 3,656

- 203

You result is for parallel to v. With vectors, there are other terms.

- #5

- 2

- 0

Relativistic momentum is defined by p = mv(1 - v^2/c^2)^-.5 You need to use implicit derivation to take the derivative of this with respect to t. Thus you should have dp/dt and dv/dt term. Once you are finished getting the derivative and combining terms you should end up with dv/dt = F(1-v^2/c^2)^3/2 /m

- #6

- 26

- 1

F=ma does work in both SR and GR as long as you are using the 4-vector (tensorial) version.

- #7

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 3,656

- 203

That result is only valid for a parallel to v.

Relativistic momentum is defined by p = mv(1 - v^2/c^2)^-.5 You need to use implicit derivation to take the derivative of this with respect to t. Thus you should have dp/dt and dv/dt term. Once you are finished getting the derivative and combining terms you should end up with dv/dt = F(1-v^2/c^2)^3/2 /m

- #8

- 602

- 4

Yes, the actual equation is (gamma)ma=(F-F.v/c)v/c as i mentioned in the new thread. What I am waiting for is its dervnYou result is for parallel to v. With vectors, there are other terms.

- #9

- 85

- 2

Use the fact thatYes, the actual equation is (gamma)ma=(F-F.v/c)v/c as i mentioned in the new thread. What I am waiting for is its dervn

[tex]v\frac{dv}{dt}=\vec{v}\cdot \vec{a}[/tex]

- #10

- 602

- 4

do itUse the fact that

[tex]v\frac{dv}{dt}=\vec{v}\cdot \vec{a}[/tex]

- #11

- 85

- 2

If you carry out the same calculations I did in the first post I made in this thread, but use vectors, you get this result (you can do it yourself, it's very easy, esp. since I already did it):do it

[tex]\vec{F}=m_o \vec{v}\frac{d\gamma}{dt}+m_o\gamma\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/tex]

and using my above post,

[tex]\frac{d\gamma}{dt}=\gamma^3\frac{|\vec{a}||\vec{v}|}{c^2}[/tex],

[tex]\vec{F}=m_o\gamma^3\vec{v}\frac{|\vec{a}||\vec{v}|}{c^2}+m_o\gamma \vec{a}=m_o\gamma^3\vec{v}\frac{\vec{a}\cdot \vec{v}}{c^2}+m_o\gamma \vec{a}[/tex]

So,

[tex]m_o\gamma\vec{a}=\vec{F}-[(m_o\gamma^3\vec{a})\cdot\frac{\vec{v}}{c}]\frac{\vec{v}}{c}[/tex].

According to your author, the following must be true,

[tex]m_o\gamma^3\vec{a}=\vec{F}[/tex].

This suggests relativistic mass does not exist and that this author goes against mainstream theory. The only guy I know who goes against this is Levvy. We don't like to trust that guy around here. (Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Controversy)

I wouldn't trust this author if I were you, only if you assume relativistic mass does not exist do you get the result you posted.

- #12

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 3,656

- 203

shows the result v.F=m\gamma^3(v.a).

Either you or I are confused about what "mainstream theory" is.

- #13

- 2

- 0

- #14

- 476

- 0

could anyone please show the full derivation of relativistic acceleration and momentum.

Many thanks n

happy eqtns

R

[tex]a \equiv \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}[/tex]

[tex]p \equiv \frac{\partial L}{\partial v}[/tex]

with [itex]L[/itex] the relativistic Lagrangian and [itex]v[/itex] velocity

Share:

- Replies
- 36

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 906

- Replies
- 28

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 455

- Replies
- 60

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 822

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 999

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 990