B Misuse of Velocity Addition: Troubleshooting

Click For Summary
The discussion addresses a misunderstanding in the application of velocity addition in special relativity, particularly regarding the mass of a fly moving on a train. It clarifies that rest mass is invariant and should not be confused with relativistic mass, which is a deprecated concept. The key issue is the incorrect expectation that gamma factors multiply when transitioning between reference frames. Instead, rapidities add, which is a fundamental aspect of Minkowski geometry. The participant acknowledges the need to recalculate their expression for energy using the correct velocity composition formula.
Kairos
Messages
182
Reaction score
16
Something seems wrong with my use of velocity addition:

A fly of rest mass ## m_{0} ## in your reference frame (say a platform) is posed in a train passing with a velocity ## v ## relative to the platform. The fly mass is now for you ## m_{1} = m_{0} \gamma(v) ##. Now in the train the fly is flying towards the front of the train with a velocity ## v ## relative to the reference frame of the train, so ## m_{2} = m_{1} \gamma (v) = m_{0} \gamma^2 (v) =\frac{m_{0}}{1-(v/c)^2} ##. This result is different from ## m_{2} = m_{0} \gamma(V) ## where ## V ## is the composition of the train and fly velocities ## V=\frac{2 v}{1+(v/c)^2} ##, which gives if I am not mistaken ## m_{2} = m_{0} \sqrt{\frac{1+(v/c)^2}{1-(v/c)^2}} ##. What is wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, a couple of points:
Kairos said:
A fly of rest mass ## m_{0} ## in your reference frame
Rest mass is an invariant. You do not need to specify a frame - everyone will agree it.
Kairos said:
The fly mass is now for you ## m_{1} = m_{0} \gamma(v) ##.
"Mass" without any qualifier is usually taken to mean the invariant mass. I can infer here that you mean the relativistic mass, but strictly this statement is wrong as you've written it. The fly's mass is ##m_0##, full stop. You should write "the fly's relativistic mass" if you want to talk about relativistic mass. It's also worth noting that relativistic mass has been a deprecated concept in mainstream physics for many decades now, and it's better not to use it. However, you could observe that the total energy of the fly is ##E_1=E_0\gamma(v)=m_0c^2\gamma(v)##.
Kairos said:
This result is different from ## m_{2} = m_{0} \gamma(V) ## where ## V ## is the composition of the train and fly velocities ## V=\frac{2 v}{1+(v/c)^2} ##, which gives if I am not mistaken ## m_{2} = m_{0} \sqrt{\frac{1+(v/c)^2}{1-(v/c)^2}} ##. What is wrong?
Getting to your question, what's wrong is your expectation that gamma factors should multiply. The energy of an object is the ##t## component of its four momentum (give or take a factor of ##c##). In its rest frame, the four momentum is a four vector ##(E_0/c,0,0,0)## - that is, it has rest energy and its three momentum is zero. If I then boost the fly to some speed ##v## I can apply the Lorentz transforms to the four momentum and deduce that, in the frame of the train where the fly is doing ##v##, the fly's four momentum is ##(\gamma E_0/c,-\gamma v E_0/c^2,0,0)##. To get the fly's four momentum in my (platform) frame I need to boost again - but this time the ##x## component of the four momentum is already non-zero, so the ##t## component of the resulting vector is not simply ##\gamma## times what it was in the train frame.

The underlying reason for this is that rapidities add, not velocity or gamma. This turns out to be the Minkowski geometry equivalent of the Euclidean statement that angles add but gradients of lines don't.
 
  • Like
Likes Kairos, PeterDonis, Dale and 1 other person
Thank you for your recommendations on the appropriate terms to use and for the explanation. Concerning my question, is the solution obtained with the velocity composition correct? that is ## E_{2} = m_{0} c^2 \gamma (V)= m_{0} c^2 \sqrt{\frac{1+(v/c)^2}{1-(v/c)^2}} ##
 
Last edited:
I agree your expression for ##V## but I don't get the square root in the expression for ##\gamma(V)## (i.e., I think you've written ##\sqrt{\gamma(V)}##).
 
OK I'll redo the calculation
thanks a lot!
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads