Derivation of relativistic acceleration and momentum

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of relativistic acceleration and momentum, emphasizing the relationship between force, mass, and velocity in the context of special relativity. Key equations include the relativistic mass formula, \( m = \gamma m_0 \), where \( \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} \), and the momentum equation \( p = \frac{m_0 v}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} \). The conversation also highlights the importance of using implicit differentiation to derive acceleration and momentum equations, ultimately leading to the expression \( \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{F(1 - v^2/c^2)^{3/2}}{m} \). The discussion critiques the concept of relativistic mass and its implications on mainstream physics theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity concepts, including Lorentz transformations
  • Familiarity with the equations of motion in classical mechanics
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly implicit differentiation
  • Basic grasp of vector calculus as it applies to physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Lorentz transformations in special relativity
  • Learn about the implications of relativistic mass versus invariant mass
  • Explore the concept of four-vectors and their application in relativistic physics
  • Investigate the relationship between force and relativistic momentum in detail
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of physics, and anyone interested in advanced mechanics, particularly those studying special relativity and its applications in modern physics.

phys23
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

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

Many thanks n
happy eqtns
R
 
Physics news on Phys.org
phys23 said:
Dear all,

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

Many thanks n
happy eqtns
R
Welcome to PF,

Have you tried searching the internet?
 
In relativity, mass is dependent of velocity such that,
m=\gamma m_0=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}.
m_0[/tex] is the mass of the object at rest, c is the 299 792 458 m/s.<br /> Most equations still hold true in relativity, the major exception being F=ma.<br /> The following are still true:<br /> p=mv, F=p&amp;#039;, a=v&amp;#039;, v=x&amp;#039;.<br /> Using these, we easily find that,<br /> p=\frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}<br /> and<br /> F=p&amp;#039;=(mv)&amp;#039;=m&amp;#039;v+v&amp;#039;m.<br /> Now we need to express m&#039; in terms of only v.<br /> m&amp;#039;=\left(\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\right)&amp;#039;=\frac{-1/2m_0}{(1-v^2/c^2)^{3/2}}(-2v/c^2)(v&amp;#039;)=v\frac{m_0v&amp;#039;}{c^2(1-v^2/c^2)^{3/2}}.<br /> Combining this with the above equation for force,<br /> F=v^2\frac{m_0v&amp;#039;}{c^2(1-v^2/c^2)^{3/2}}+\frac{m_0v&amp;#039;}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}.<br /> Now you can just factor and solve for a, v&amp;#039;.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jan Nebec
You result is for parallel to v. With vectors, there are other terms.
 
Newton's second law F/m = a Also recall a = dv/dt Also force is related to relativistic momentum by F = dp/dt
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
 
F=ma does work in both SR and GR as long as you are using the 4-vector (tensorial) version.
 
genesis1 said:
Newton's second law F/m = a Also recall a = dv/dt Also force is related to relativistic momentum by F = dp/dt
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
That result is only valid for a parallel to v.
 
clem said:
You result is for parallel to v. With vectors, there are other terms.
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 dervn
 
vin300 said:
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 dervn
Use the fact that
v\frac{dv}{dt}=\vec{v}\cdot \vec{a}
 
  • #10
gamesguru said:
Use the fact that
v\frac{dv}{dt}=\vec{v}\cdot \vec{a}
do it
 
  • #11
vin300 said:
do it
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):
\vec{F}=m_o \vec{v}\frac{d\gamma}{dt}+m_o\gamma\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}
and using my above post,
\frac{d\gamma}{dt}=\gamma^3\frac{|\vec{a}||\vec{v}|}{c^2},
\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}
So,
m_o\gamma\vec{a}=\vec{F}-[(m_o\gamma^3\vec{a})\cdot\frac{\vec{v}}{c}]\frac{\vec{v}}{c}.
According to your author, the following must be true,
m_o\gamma^3\vec{a}=\vec{F}.
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
As I just posted in the other thread, dotting your m\gamma a equation with v
shows the result v.F=m\gamma^3(v.a).
Either you or I are confused about what "mainstream theory" is.
 
  • #13
So I've been told that the speed of light remains constant despite length contraction and dime dilation because they each decrease proportionately. So a velocity of 4 meters/2 seconds in a relativistic scenario might see a halving of values of length and time so it may only traverse 2 meters but only 1 second of time elapses. My question is what happens with acceleration if it is measured in distance per time-squared...Shouldn't it decrease proportionately to square root-t? If time dilates, shouldn't time-squared dilate even more? Or is this too linear of an approach?
 
  • #14
phys23 said:
Dear all,

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

Many thanks n
happy eqtns
R

a \equiv \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}

p \equiv \frac{\partial L}{\partial v}

with L the relativistic Lagrangian and v velocity
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
852
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
5K