B Misuse of Velocity Addition: Troubleshooting

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 this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
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...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top