Have You Seen this Transformation Equation Before?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformation
jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
Consider a following problem. A particle is moving with a velocity \boldsymbol{v}, and is experiencing a force \boldsymbol{F}. By the force I mean time rate change of the momentum. If we boost into a different frame, which is moving with a velocity \boldsymbol{u} in the original frame, then what is the force that this particle experiences in this new frame?

A correct answer, I believe, is
<br /> \boldsymbol{F}&#039; = \frac{\boldsymbol{F}\sqrt{1-|u|^2/c^2} - \boldsymbol{F}\cdot(\boldsymbol{v}/c^2 - (1-\sqrt{1-|u|^2/c^2})\boldsymbol{u} / |u|^2)\boldsymbol{u}}{1-\boldsymbol{v}\cdot\boldsymbol{u}/c^2}<br />

My question to you is, that have you seen this equation anywhere?

I have not, except in my own notes. I derived this myself, and used it to derive an expression of an electromagnetic force that one moving particle exerts on another one, so that the result agreed (in the special case of no acceleration) with the one that is usually obtained using retarted potentials (the Green's function stuff and the Lienard-Wiechert potentials). So I believe I made no mistake in this.

My derivation went through first solving transformations of location, velocity and momentum in a similar three-vector formalism, which to my understanding doesn't seem to be very popular. Usually texts about relativity always proceed straight into the tensor formalism after the first basic equations (dilation and contraction stuff).

This is related to an earlier post of mine in the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=175438

pervect, since the underlying principles in this calculation are quite different than those in the potential approach, which is actually based on finding solutions of some PDE (Maxwell's equations) instead of transforming a time derivative of momentum, I'm not yet fully convinced that this was a perfectly standard calculation. Or maybe it was? I don't know. That's why I'm asking about this :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A simpler formula for the transformation of "force" (if defined as dp/dt)
is given in arXiv:physics/0603110 for the case v=0.
 
Last edited:
robphy said:
Compare with (roughly) p.73 of Moller's 1952 text
http://www.archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi029229mbp

Very nice robphy! I wish I had had this source when I was accused of coming up with my "own theories", when I was deriving these three-vector equations. How unfortunate, that the pdf seems to be of horrible quality :frown:
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top