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!
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
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

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top