Physicist Needed to Verify Relativistic Derivations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManyNames
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicist
ManyNames
Messages
136
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I need a physicist to look over these derivations and help me see if there are any mistakes. Thank you in advance, it is much appreciated.

Homework Equations



- reltivistic math derivations

The Attempt at a Solution



The First Part

E^2-(pc)^2=(Mc^2)^2 where the expression (Mc^2)^2 is by definition, the squared mathematical precision of an ''invariant mass'', hence, Mc^4.

\rightarrow Mv(\frac{E}{M})=Mc^2(v)

allow v=c then this simplifies to Mv^3=Mc^2 (Just to show that these are relativistic equivalances without the need of gamma function. This now leads me to calculate:

Mv(E)(\frac{D}{v})=Mc^2.v

The Second Part

my equation, albiet as simple as it is, will show its importance throughout the metric work:

[1] M(1+M)=2M if

[2] -(\frac{E}{c})^2+mv^2=p^2

then combine by division of [1] and [2] equations, allowing the relativistic proof:

\frac{\eta^{\mu v}p_{\mu}p_{\mu}}{2m}=\frac{p^2}{2m}=\frac{p^2}{2}\frac{E}{c^2}

which then follows

p^2=\eta^{\mu v}p_{mu}p_{v}=-(\frac{E}{c^2})^2+p^2

I need to go the now, i will finish this later, but sooner than later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
ManyNames said:
E^2-(pc)^2=(Mc^2)^2
That is true

ManyNames said:
\frac{\eta^{\mu v}p_{\mu}p_{\mu}}{2m}=\frac{p^2}{2m}
That is true.

ManyNames said:
I need a physicist to look over these derivations
No you need a mathematician. Because those are also the only equations I could find that don't have (mathematical) errors in them.
 
CompuChip said:
That is true

No you need a mathematician. Because those are also the only equations I could find that don't have (mathematical) errors in them.

That is true, friend.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top