Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Force at relativistic speed

  1. Jan 22, 2016 #1
    I came up with this problem, which is non-trivial at least for me:

    Train accelerates with constant proper acceleration. When the speed of the train relative to rails is zero, rails feel the train exerting 1000N force on the rails.

    What force do rails feel the train exerting on the rails when the speed of the train is 0.87 c, relative to the rails?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 22, 2016 #2

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The quick answer is 500N, i.e., the force felt by the train (which by assumption is constant, since its proper acceleration is constant) divided by the gamma factor corresponding to the train's velocity relative to the rails (which is 2 for a speed of 0.87 c).

    The easiest way I know of to understand why this is the answer is to observe that the force felt by the train is equal to the rate of change of the train's momentum in its momentarily comoving inertial frame, i.e., with respect to the train's proper time. In the rest frame of the rails, the train's proper time runs slow by the gamma factor; so a change in the train's momentum that takes 1 unit of the train's proper time will take gamma units of the rails' time. That is, the rate of change with respect to the rails will be the rate of change with respect to the train, divided by gamma.
     
  4. Jan 22, 2016 #3

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    But the force the train is exerting on the rail is perpendicular to the direction of motion. I don't see why gamma should come into this.
     
  5. Jan 22, 2016 #4

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The train's weight is, but that is not how I was interpreting the OP's question. I was interpreting the OP's question as asking about the force that is accelerating the train, which must be in the horizontal direction, i.e., parallel to the rails, since the train is accelerating horizontally.

    Of course that raises the obvious question: how, if at all, does the train's weight change as it accelerates? This has been discussed on previous PF threads, but it's been a while; IIRC the answer we arrived at was that, somewhat counterintuitively, the train's weight increases by the factor gamma. I'll see if I can find any of those previous threads.
     
  6. Jan 22, 2016 #5
    No, it isn't. There's a component of that contact force parallel to the motion. That's the one being discussed because that's the one responsible for the train's acceleration.
     
  7. Jan 22, 2016 #6

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think the problem is pretty straightforward using the concept of proper velocity. My impression from previous discussions is that Jartsa doesn't use this concept. But I'll go through an analysis anyway as I'm getting different answers than some of the other posters to this thread.

    We solve the problem by considering the conservation of momentum.

    To solve the problem, we introduce the time coordinate t for time in the track frame, and the position coordinate x for position in the track frame. We introduce x mainly to define the proper velocity ##u##, which is the rate of change of proper distance (x) with respect to proper time ##\tau##, ##u = dx/d\tau##. u is one component of the 4-velocity - but for this post I will only talk about the proper velocity and not the 4-velocity. We'll also introduce the non-proper velocity v = dx/dt, though we won't use it very much.

    The proper acceleration ##\alpha## is ##\alpha = du/d\tau## by the definition of proper acceleration.

    We can write the momentum of the train in the track frame as ##p = m u = \gamma m v##, ##\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}##. The 3-force on the train is dp/dt. We know that in the track frame, the 3-force on the track is equal and opposite to the 3-force on the train, due to the conservation of momentum. Any momentum gained by the train must come from the track, this exchange of momentum is what is meant by the concept of force.

    Thus we can write the 3-force f on the track as:
    $$
    f = \frac{d \,(m u)}{dt} = m \frac{du}{dt} = m \frac{du}{d\tau} \frac{d\tau}{dt} = \frac{m \alpha}{\gamma}
    $$
    where ##\alpha## is the proper acceleration as we noted previously.

    If one wants to find ##u(\tau)## or ##v(t)## for constant proper acceleration, the solution is well known and I won't go through it here unless someone has a question. The well-known solution (see for instance http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html)is [Broken] that ##u = \sinh \alpha \tau##, which implies ##\gamma(\tau) = \cosh \alpha \tau##.

    Note that the sci.physics.faq webpage just gives the solution, it doesn't derive it. My approach to deriving the solution would be based on using 4-velocitie (as in MTW's textbook). I've found through experience that people don't seem to be willing to learn about 4-velocities in order to answer their questions, so I won't bother to go through such a soultion unless someone is actually interested in it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  8. Jan 22, 2016 #7

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Is it? I thought the force mentioned was the force accelerating the train, which is parallel to the direction of motion, right?
     
  9. Jan 22, 2016 #8
    Thank you guys. So force felt by rails decreases as gamma increases. In the rail frame that decreasing force is the force that is accelerating the train (or maybe not, as we will find out later).

    I guess we are all assuming the composition of the train stays constant. No change of amount of fuel occurs. One way to achieve that is a device that shoots small fuel pellets at the train at speed close to the train's speed. Overhead electric wires I don't consider good for this purpose, it's a bit like aiming a laser beam at the train.

    So at very high speed it's the pellet shooter that is doing almost all the work when a train is accelerated.

    The pellet shooter also exerts a large reaction force on the ground it's standing on.

    I would guess the recoil force is 500N when the speed of the train is 0.87 c.

    As rails are fixed on the ground and pellet shooter is fixed on the ground, ground feels a 1000N force when the speed of the train is zero and also when the speed of the train is 0.87 c. So every second the ground gains the same amount of momentum, and the train gains the same amount of opposite momentum.
     
  10. Jan 22, 2016 #9

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, that was assumed. One way to realize this would be to put an electrified third rail between the two rails the train runs on, and transfer power to the train that way.

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Overhead wires might have trouble making good contact, but a third rail, as I described above, should work fine.

    500N is the force felt by the rail because of the train pushing on it in order to accelerate. By Newton's Third Law, 500N is also the force the rail exerts back on the train, evaluated in the rail frame.
     
  11. Jan 23, 2016 #10
    I suspect that the energy might push the train. Basically a power plant that delivers energy to a train feels a force away from the train, and the train feels a force away from the power plant, assuming straight power lines. Even if you don't buy this, just to be really sure, let's deliver the energy as pellets. :smile: And let's say pellets are fully converted to energy in the train, so that I can say that it's just pure energy that is shot at the train by a pellet shooter.

    Ah but it doesn't work like that at all. :smile: At very high speeds trains accelerate by accelerating some energy in the backwards direction. In the train frame what the energy of the fuel does is to increase the kinetic energy of the ground, and the force felt on the train is the result of accelerating said energy from train speed to ground speed, like a rocket.

    Seriously. I have thought about it, and something like that seems to be happening.

    Increasing the kinetic energy of the ground involves pushing the ground, but the pushing consists mostly of pushing the kinetic energy, ground will not feel any of that part of the pushing.

    1 MW photon rocket at speed 0.99 c, in ground frame: Pushes itself with a small force, pushes the ground that the photons hit with a very small force.

    1 MW train at speed 0.99 c, in rail frame: Pushes itself with small force, pushes the rails with a very small force.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  12. Jan 23, 2016 #11
    The simplest self-contained derivation of the constant acceleration equations I have seen can be found here. If you know a shorter way, I for one would be interested to see it.
     
  13. Jan 23, 2016 #12

    DrGreg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I disagree with the answer of 500 N. I reckon that (surprisingly) the answer is 1000 N -- the force in the rail frame remains constant if we assume the train's mass remains constant.

    For a particle undergoing constant proper acceleration ##\alpha## in a straight line, we have, in inertial coordinates in units where ##c = 1##,$$\begin{align*}
    t &= \frac{1}{\alpha} \sinh \alpha \tau \\
    x &= \frac{1}{\alpha} \cosh \alpha \tau \\
    \gamma &= dt/d\tau = \cosh \alpha \tau \\
    \text{celerity} &= dx/d\tau = \sinh \alpha \tau \\
    v &= \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dx/d\tau}{dt/d\tau} = \tanh \alpha \tau \\
    p &= \gamma m v = m \sinh \alpha \tau \\
    f &= \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{dp/d\tau}{dt/d\tau} = \frac{ m \alpha \cosh \alpha \tau}{ \cosh \alpha \tau} = m \alpha
    \end{align*}$$assuming ##m## is constant. (That assumption would be wrong if the train is burning fuel carried by the train.)

    That's one of the reasons why I don't like calling ##dx/d\tau## "proper velocity" and would rather use the alternative name "celerity". It's not true that ##(d/d\tau) (\text{celerity}) ## is proper acceleration, as the above calculation shows. (What is true is that proper acceleration is the magnitude of the 4-force, but for objects not at rest in the coordinate system, the 4-force has a temporal component as well as spatial components.)
     
  14. Jan 23, 2016 #13

    DrGreg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Long ago, I once gave a derivation in this thread.

    (There's a typo in equation 5: delete the symbol ##v_0##.)
     
  15. Jan 23, 2016 #14
    Thanks, still trying to work my way through it . . .

    I can't help feeling (units) that the ##dx## term equation 5 should also be divided by c rather than ##c^2##.

    Is there another typo re. eqns. 7 & 8 (I suspect you must mean substituting 5 & 7 into 4 at the start of the second post (rather than 2 & 3) but I don't see the pattern of what you are doing here yet).
     
  16. Jan 23, 2016 #15

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Hm, you're right. :wideeyed:

    Just to be sure, I'll first write down what the proper acceleration 4-vector looks like. It has components:

    $$
    \frac{d\gamma}{d\tau} = \alpha \sinh \alpha \tau = \alpha \gamma v
    $$
    $$
    \frac{d\gamma v}{d\tau} = \alpha \cosh \alpha \tau = \alpha \gamma
    $$

    The magnitude of this vector is clearly ##\alpha##, so it is indeed the proper acceleration. And multiplying it by ##m## gives the 4-force, whose components are ##dE / d\tau## and ##dp / d\tau##. Then dividing by ##\cosh \alpha \tau = \gamma = dt / d\tau## gives ##dE / dt## and ##dp / dt##, the latter of which is the 3-force in the rail frame, as derived by DrGreg.

    So where did my reasoning in post #2 go wrong? Well, I said:

    I then adjusted the "rate of change" part by ##\gamma## to account for the change from the train's proper time to the time in the rail frame. But I forgot to take into account that the train's momentum is also frame-dependent! In the MCIF, the train's momentum after a small impulse has been applied is smaller by a factor of ##\gamma## than it is in the rail frame. So a given impulse applied over a time that is shorter by ##\gamma## gives a result that is smaller by ##\gamma##; the two factors of ##\gamma## cancel, leaving the force the same.

    So what does change between the train frame and the rail frame? Obviously what changes is ##dE / dt##, i.e., the rate of change of the train's energy. In the train's MCIF, the 4-force is purely spatial; it doesn't change the train's energy at all (only its momentum). But in the rail frame, as DrGreg pointed out, the 4-force has a temporal component:

    $$
    \frac{dE}{dt} = m \alpha v
    $$

    This is a manifestation of what used to be thought of as "relativistic mass"--the force applied to the train, as seen in the rail frame, goes more and more into increasing the train's mass (a better word might be "inertia" here, since it's really "resistance to increase in velocity" that is going up) instead of its velocity, as its velocity gets closer to the speed of light. Another way of seeing this is to calculate the train's 3-acceleration in the rail frame:

    $$
    \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{dv / d\tau}{dt / d\tau} = \frac{\alpha / \cosh^2 \alpha \tau}{\cosh \alpha \tau} = \frac{\alpha}{\gamma^3}
    $$

    This obviously goes to zero as ##v## approaches ##1## (and ##\gamma## increases without bound).

    Sorry to beat this to death, but I wanted to make up for having given the wrong answer earlier. :oops:
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  17. Jan 23, 2016 #16

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Of course it does; applying a force to the train takes energy. We have been assuming that the energy is stored in the rails, or something attached to the rails, so that it is at rest in the rail frame. It then gets converted, as seen in the rail frame, to the energy of the train, at the rate ##dE / dt## which I gave in my previous post. Note that ##dE / dt = f v## in the train frame, where ##f## is the 3-force ##dp / dt##; this is exactly what we would expect for the power required from whatever energy source is pushing the train.
     
  18. Jan 23, 2016 #17

    DrGreg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oops, yes you are right. It's ##(v_0/c)## that should be deleted!

    Actually, you substitute (2) and (3) into (5) and (6). (4) isn't used at all at this step.

    P.S. Just noticed I previously spotted most of these typos in post #28 of that same thread!)
     
  19. Jan 23, 2016 #18
    Cheers, I should be OK with the rest now, might go and read that whole thread too ;)
     
  20. Jan 23, 2016 #19

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I can't argue with your derivation, 1000 newtons it is.
     
  21. Jan 23, 2016 #20

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Aside from the derivations, isn't it there a simple argument for this: The forward force, that a strain gauge would measure at the axle, and the proper acceleration an accelerometer on the train would measure, are both frame invariant and proportional to each other.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Force at relativistic speed
  1. Relativistic force (Replies: 1)

  2. Relativistic forces (Replies: 6)

Loading...