Gain Formulas in Physics with the Correct Computation | F=ma, m=m0√(1-v²/c²)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Gain
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of using classical physics formulas, specifically F=ma, in the context of special relativity by substituting mass with its relativistic form. Participants also explore how coefficients in physical formulas, such as the gravitational constant G, are determined.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether substituting mass in F=ma with the relativistic mass m_0 / √(1 - v²/c²) yields a correct formula.
  • Another participant argues that this substitution is not generally valid and provides counterexamples, noting that the correct form depends on the direction of force and acceleration.
  • It is suggested that understanding the underlying principles of the equations is crucial before making substitutions.
  • Several participants inquire about how the gravitational constant G in Newton's law of gravitation is determined, with one stating it is found empirically through measurements of force between known masses.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the empirical determination of G, prompting further explanation about the measurement process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the substitution of mass in the context of special relativity, with multiple competing views presented. There is also a lack of agreement on the clarity of the empirical determination of G, as some participants seek further clarification.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of applying classical physics concepts in relativistic contexts and the need for careful consideration of the assumptions involved in physical formulas.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
[tex]\left \begin{array} \mbox{F=ma} \\ \mbox{m=\frac{m_{0},\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2,c^2}}}} \right\{ \Rightarrow F=\frac{m_{0} a,\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2,c^2}}}[/tex]

Is the above computation a right way to gain formulas in physics and is the gained formula from above computation a right one?
thanks a lot
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The LaTeX does not render, but I assume you mean: take a classical formula (like F = ma) and replace m by the special relativistic version [itex]m_0 / \sqrt{1 - v^2 / c^2}[/itex] - does that give you a correct formula again?

The answer would be: "no, not in general", and actually F = m a is a counterexample. Indeed, if we define [itex]\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}[/itex], then the correct formula is only [itex]F = \gamma m a[/itex] when the force and acceleration are perpendicular to the direction of motion. When they are parallel to it, the correct formula is [itex]F = \gamma^3 m a[/itex].
This only follows when you derive the formula from basic principles (in this case, the relativistic postulates); you cannot find it in such an ad-hoc way.
 
You mean it is not a proper way for gaining a formula in all cases?
 
Shyan said:
You mean it is not a proper way for gaining a formula in all cases?
Indeed, in general one cannot simply slip a gamma term in front of any mass terms than appear to obtain a relativistically correct equation. This can be done in some cases, but you need to know a little bit about the equation you are using. For example, the classical Newton's Second law assumes constant mass. That is, we start for the general form of Newton's Second Law

[tex]F = \frac{dp}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt}\left(mv\right)[/tex]

and then assume that m is constant leaving

[tex]F = \frac{dp}{dt} = m\frac{dv}{dt} = ma[/tex]

However, if we assume that the mass is not constant, then we cannot take it outside the derivative. However, we can place a gamma inside the derivative

[tex]F = \frac{d}{dt}\left(\gamma m\boldsymbol{u}\right)[/tex]

If you then take the derivative and follow it through to the end, you will arrive at the correct formula the CompuChip posted.

The moral of the story is that you need to understand the formula you are dealing with, before trying to play with it.
 
Another question.
How one finds a proper coefficient for a formula.
For example we have [tex]G[/tex] in formula [tex]F=G \frac{m1.m2}{r^2}[/tex].How the value of this [tex]G[/tex] where found?
thanks
 
Last edited:
Shyan said:
Another question.
How one finds a proper coefficient for a formula.
For example we have [tex]G[/tex] in formula [tex]F=G frac_{m1m2,r^2}[/tex].How the value of this [tex]G[/tex] where found?
thanks
Newton's gravitational constant is found empirically, that is, through measurement.
 
But how?
that doesn't make sense.
 
Shyan said:
But how?
that doesn't make sense.
We take two objects of known masses, m1 and m2, and place them a distance of r apart. We then measure the force between them F. Now the only unknown in Newton's law of gravitation is the constant G, we can therefore find G by plugging the above measurements into the equation.

See here for more information: http://www.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~rkritzer/grav.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K