Gamma factor when doing four momentum problems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the gamma factor in four-momentum problems, particularly when squaring a four-momentum vector. A correction is made regarding the gamma factor's definition, clarifying it should be γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). The conversation explores scenarios involving particle collisions, emphasizing that the gamma factor may not always be present in certain terms, particularly when one particle is stationary. It is highlighted that neglecting the gamma factor could lead to violations of conservation laws, specifically momentum conservation. The overall consensus is that understanding the algebraic manipulation of four-momentum is crucial for accurate calculations.
bonbon22
Messages
92
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Why does the gamma factor drop off when doing a four momentum problem?
Relevant Equations
ϒ = gamma factor = lorentz factor = 1-( v^2/c^2)
So if i had this problem where i am squaring a four momentum vector with itself which gives

P2 = (##\gamma mc## )2 - ##\gamma##2## m ##2##\vec v## *##\vec v##

I have been told that the gamma factor is not considered at all. why would the gamma factor drop off? Does this rule apply to any four momentum problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, you have the wrong expression for the gamma factor, i.e., you have written ##\gamma = 1 - v^2/c^2## when it should be ##\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}##. That it falls out from the expression for ##P^2## is basic algebra from there.
 
  • Like
Likes bonbon22
Orodruin said:
First of all, you have the wrong expression for the gamma factor, i.e., you have written ##\gamma = 1 - v^2/c^2## when it should be ##\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}##. That it falls out from the expression for ##P^2## is basic algebra from there.
If i had this other scenario where one proton is smashing into another which is stationary. Which creates a new particle, also stationary. Then balancing the four momentum i get P1 + P2 = P3 squaring i get P1^2 + P2^2 +P1.P2 =P3^2 . Since particle 2 let's say in this case is stationary the v2 becomes zero so using the Lorentz factor equation plugging in i get gamma 2 = 1. So is it possible then for the P1.P2 term to lose the gamma1 factor?
 
bonbon22 said:
If i had this other scenario where one proton is smashing into another which is stationary. Which creates a new particle, also stationary.
This would violate conservation of momentum as you would have non-zero momentum before the collision and zero momentum after.

bonbon22 said:
P1^2 + P2^2 +P1.P2 =P3^2
It should be ##p_1^2 + p_2^2 + 2p_1 \cdot p_2 = p_3^2##.
bonbon22 said:
So is it possible then for the P1.P2 term to lose the gamma1 factor?
It is not clear to me exactly what you are asking here.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top