Dot product of 4-force and 4-velocity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical derivation of the relationship between the 4-force and 4-velocity in the context of special relativity, specifically examining the expression for the derivative of the Lorentz factor, γ, with respect to time. Participants explore the implications of the dot product of 3-acceleration and 3-velocity, and the conditions under which these quantities interact in the framework of relativistic mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation leading to the expression for the derivative of γ, questioning how it relates to the dot product of acceleration and velocity.
  • Another participant points out a missing factor in the derivative calculation, suggesting a correction to the expression.
  • A participant raises a question about the directionality of acceleration relative to velocity when an arbitrary force is applied, indicating uncertainty about the relationship between these vectors.
  • Another participant clarifies the distinction between the magnitude of acceleration and its vector form, suggesting that the approach taken in the derivation may not be valid.
  • Further discussion highlights the misunderstanding regarding the substitution of vector quantities for their magnitudes in the derivation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between acceleration and velocity, particularly regarding their directional properties and the validity of certain mathematical steps. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the derivation and its implications.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the directionality of vectors involved, as well as potential dependencies on the definitions of the quantities used in the derivation. Unresolved mathematical steps contribute to the ongoing debate.

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
In what follows, I'll use bold for 4-vectors and an arrow over a letter to denote a 3-vector. I'll use a dot both for the Minkowski dot product and the Euclidean one, and multiplication of real numbers; the meaning in each case should be clear from the symbols on either side. [itex]\vec{v}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{a}[/itex] are 3-veclocity and 3-acceleration. The same letters without the arrow are their magnitudes.

I've been working through the [itex]E=mc^2[/itex] derivation at the Shady Crypt Observatory site, which someone posted in a recent thread. I've got up to the detour establishing that [itex]\mathbf{F} \cdot \mathbf{U} = 0[/itex], equation 18. I'm with them for the first three lines of the derivation that follows this equation, but I don't yet see how

[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d} \gamma}{\mathrm{d} t} = \frac{\gamma^3}{c^2} \, \vec{a} \cdot \vec{v}.[/tex]

I get

[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d} \gamma}{\mathrm{d} t} = \frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} t}\left ( \left [ 1-\left ( \frac{v}{c} \right )^2 \right ]^{1/2} \right )[/tex]

[tex]=-\left [ 1-\left ( \frac{v}{c} \right )^2 \right ]^{-3/2}\cdot\left ( \frac{-2v}{c} \right )\cdot\frac{1}{c}\cdot a[/tex]

[tex]=\frac{2av}{c^2\left [ 1-\left ( \frac{v}{c} \right )^2 \right ]^{3/2}} = \frac{2av \gamma^3}{c^2}=\frac{2av\gamma}{c^2-v^2}.[/tex]

But [itex]\vec{a} \cdot \vec{v} = a \, v\, \cos{\theta}[/itex] and, whatever the angle, [itex]\cos{\theta} \neq 2[/itex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rasalhague said:
In what follows, I'll use bold for 4-vectors and an arrow over a letter to denote a 3-vector. I'll use a dot both for the Minkowski dot product and the Euclidean one, and multiplication of real numbers; the meaning in each case should be clear from the symbols on either side. [itex]\vec{v}[/itex] and [itex]\vec{a}[/itex] are 3-veclocity and 3-acceleration. The same letters without the arrow are their magnitudes.

I've been working through the [itex]E=mc^2[/itex] derivation at the Shady Crypt Observatory site, which someone posted in a recent thread. I've got up to the detour establishing that [itex]\mathbf{F} \cdot \mathbf{U} = 0[/itex], equation 18. I'm with them for the first three lines of the derivation that follows this equation, but I don't yet see how

[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d} \gamma}{\mathrm{d} t} = \frac{\gamma^3}{c^2} \, \vec{a} \cdot \vec{v}.[/tex]

I get

[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d} \gamma}{\mathrm{d} t} = \frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} t}\left ( \left [ 1-\left ( \frac{v}{c} \right )^2 \right ]^{1/2} \right )[/tex]

[tex]=-\left [ 1-\left ( \frac{v}{c} \right )^2 \right ]^{-3/2}\cdot\left ( \frac{-2v}{c} \right )\cdot\frac{1}{c}\cdot a[/tex]

[tex]=\frac{2av}{c^2\left [ 1-\left ( \frac{v}{c} \right )^2 \right ]^{3/2}} = \frac{2av \gamma^3}{c^2}=\frac{2av\gamma}{c^2-v^2}.[/tex]

But [itex]\vec{a} \cdot \vec{v} = a \, v\, \cos{\theta}[/itex] and, whatever the angle, [itex]\cos{\theta} \neq 2[/itex].

You forgot to put a 2 in the denominator of the derivative of [tex]\gamma[/tex].

AB
 
Ah, yes, so I did. Thanks, Altabeh. But how do we know that acceleration due to this arbitrary force will be in the same direction as the velocity of the object experiencing the force?
 
In your argument you have taken

[tex]a = \frac{d|\vec{v}|}{dt}[/tex]​

when in fact it is

[tex]a = \left|\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}\right|[/tex]​

To get the result you want, differentiate

[tex]v^2 = \vec{v} \cdot \vec{v}[/tex]​
 
Rasalhague said:
Ah, yes, so I did. Thanks, Altabeh. But how do we know that acceleration due to this arbitrary force will be in the same direction as the velocity of the object experiencing the force?

We don't need to know how a and v vectors are directed if there is a force acting on an object! Why are you asking this?

AB
 
Got it! Thanks, DrGreg.

Altabeh said:
We don't need to know how a and v vectors are directed if there is a force acting on an object! Why are you asking this?

I see that now. I asked because I thought they'd just substituted [itex]\vec{a}\cdot \vec{v}[/itex] for [itex]av[/itex]. But as DrGreg pointed out,

[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left(\vec{v}\cdot \vec{v}\right)^{1/2}=\frac{1}{2v} \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{v}}{\mathrm{d}t} \cdot \vec{v} + \vec{v} \cdot \frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{v}}{\mathrm{d}t} \right)[/tex]

is not the same thing as

[tex]\vec{a} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\vec{v}}{\mathrm{d}t}.[/tex]

So

[tex]\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{\vec{a}\cdot \vec{v}}{c^2}\gamma^3.[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K