Please explain what is wrong with my relativistic momentum problem

Virous
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Hello!

First, please, zoom in the attached file and take a look on it. Image 1 demonstrates the situation: two identical balls collide, horizontal component of velocity of both remains unchanged and vertical component becomes opposite as a result of the collision. Table in image 3 shows all the velocities in terms of a (horizontal component) and b (vertical).

Now we change the frame of reference into the one, which moves to the right on the speed of a. It is demonstrated on Image 2. New velocities are calculated via the relativistic velocity addition formula and are shown in the table on image 4.

Finally I calculated total momentum before (image 5) and total momentum after (image 6). Results are not equal! What did I do wrong?

http://stg704.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/7/40730757_3_1176191.png

Deep thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Virous said:
Hello!

First, please, zoom in the attached file and take a look on it. Image 1 demonstrates the situation: two identical balls collide, horizontal component of velocity of both remains unchanged and vertical component becomes opposite as a result of the collision. Table in image 3 shows all the velocities in terms of a (horizontal component) and b (vertical).

Now we change the frame of reference into the one, which moves to the right on the speed of a. It is demonstrated on Image 2. New velocities are calculated via the relativistic velocity addition formula and are shown in the table on image 4.

Finally I calculated total momentum before (image 5) and total momentum after (image 6). Results are not equal! What did I do wrong?

http://stg704.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/7/40730757_3_1176191.png

Deep thanks!

Relativistic momentum is \vec{p}=\gamma(v)m \vec{v}. You seem to be missing the "gammas" in your formulas.
 
No, I don`t. On images 5-6 y - is gamma with respect to a.

Other gammas (with respect to other things) are already expanded.
 
The velocities of the balls won't be the same in the new reference frame, so the betas are different for the different particles.

It would help to see how you derived those expressions for the momenta.
 
Virous said:
No, I don`t. On images 5-6 y - is gamma with respect to a.

Other gammas (with respect to other things) are already expanded.

OK, try writing by components:

\gamma(v_A) \vec{v_A}+\gamma(v_B) \vec{v_B}=\gamma(v'_A) \vec{v'_A}+\gamma(v'_B) \vec{v'_B}

It is difficult to decipher from your formulas.
 
True, I`m sorry. I have to expand a little bit more.

mfb, I did :)

So:

Hopefully the table on Image 4 is clear. It is just the velocity addition formula as follows:

http://stg660.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/2/40731152_3_1176206.jpg

I used the "x" one for "a" calculations, since "a" is parallel to frame motion and "y" one for "b" calculations since it is perpendicular. Anyway, no doubt in that table, since it is given in the book :)

Now, to calculate momentum used this one:

http://stg741.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/2/40731162_3_1176207.jpg

Then a simple substitution of what was in the table instead of velocity there :)
 
And, of course, I summed up initial momenta of balls on image 5 and finals of image 6
 
You have to use conservation of momentum to find the final velocities in either case.
The only way you can violate conservation of momentum is by making an error..
 
No, I`m doing an opposite thing. I took an experimental fact, which is the case, and want to make sure, that my momentum is conserved. The book says, that it is so streight forward, so they let me to do this on my own. I spent a day, but it is not conserved :)

That is why I`m here trying to figure out, what did I do wrong.
 
  • #10
what are you using for the γ and β in the expression for the velocities?
 
  • #11
Virous said:
True, I`m sorry. I have to expand a little bit more.

mfb, I did :)

So:

Hopefully the table on Image 4 is clear. It is just the velocity addition formula as follows:

http://stg660.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/2/40731152_3_1176206.jpg

I used the "x" one for "a" calculations, since "a" is parallel to frame motion and "y" one for "b" calculations since it is perpendicular. Anyway, no doubt in that table, since it is given in the book :)

Now, to calculate momentum used this one:

http://stg741.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/2/40731162_3_1176207.jpg

Then a simple substitution of what was in the table instead of velocity there :)

But you seem to be using the SAME \gamma in all you formulas , this is not right. The " gammas" must be ALL DIFFERENT, see post 5. It is difficult to see what you are doing, I asked you two write the formulas component by component (first x, then y). Then we can see what is going wrong. Can you do it for x first?
 
  • #12
x has no problems. It is conserved. I do not include it at all. Working only with y.

dauto, I`m not. Other gammas are expanded.
 
  • #13
Virous said:
x has no problems. It is conserved.

ok


Working only with y.

...but you seem to have the SAME "gamma" in all the terms (it is difficult to decipher your writeup, so I might be wrong).

It is also not clear what you have as equation as conservation, there is no equation to speak of, where is your:

\gamma(v_A) \vec{v_A}+\gamma(v_B) \vec{v_B}=\gamma(v'_A) \vec{v'_A}+\gamma(v'_B) \vec{v'_B}
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Yes, I do, but it comes from relativistic velocity addition, as I wrote before. It must be the same, since we are in the same frame. Again, it is given in the book. Then I`m using the second formula (momentum one) and substitute data from the table, getting different gammas.
 
  • #15
Virous said:
Yes, I do, but it comes from relativistic velocity addition, as I wrote before. It must be the same, since we are in the same frame. Again, it is given in the book. Then I`m using the second formula (momentum one) and substitute data from the table, getting different gammas.

There are FIVE "gammas": \gamma(v_A),\gamma(v_B), \gamma(v'_A),\gamma(v'_B), \gamma(V)

I do not see them but this might be due to the way you write your formulas. Can you post them in LaTeX?
 
  • #16
Yes, I`ll try to :) I have to leave now. In approximately 8 hours I`ll be back and take one more try! Thank you for staying with me :)
 
  • #17
Virous said:
Yes, I`ll try to :) I have to leave now. In approximately 8 hours I`ll be back and take one more try! Thank you for staying with me :)

I found the mistake, it was difficult due to the presentation. Looking at image 5:

You calculate \gamma(v_A) correctly but your \gamma(v_B) is incorrect, you need to use v_B^2=(\frac{2a}{1+\beta^2})^2+(\frac{b}{\gamma(1+\beta^2})^2

You have used only the y -component of v_B, you completely forgot to add the x component.
 
  • #18
Even earlier :) So, we start from the very beginning once again step by step.

Image 1 shows a situation: collision of two balls. This comes from an experimental fact, so it must be true and the momentum must be conserved. Initial and final velocities of two balls are given in the table on image 3. Here a represents horizontal and b - vertical components.

Now if one computes the momenta of each of the balls before and after, one will find, that it is conserved in both classical (p = mu) and relativistic (p= \gamma mu<br />) mechanics. It is simple.

Now we move to another frame, which moves with a constant velocity a to the right with respect to the first frame. It moves in such a way, that in classical mechanics the Ball 1 will have 0 horizontal velocity, and the Ball 2 will have a horizontal velocity of -2a. Vertical velocities are the same.

In relativistic mechanics it is more complicated and we have to use relativistic velocity addition formula to get all the velocities listed in the table on image 4 (in the brackets the first equation is a horizontal and the second is a vertical components).

Calculation of momentum for horizontal components shows, that it is conserved. We are not interested in it. Now the vertical ones:

p= \gamma mu

Total momenta before the collision:

\sum p_{before}=\gamma(u_{1}) mu_{1}+\gamma(u_{2}) mu_{2}=\frac{mu_{1}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{u_{1}^2}{c^2})}}+\frac{mu_{2}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{u_{2}^2}{c^2})}}

That is how I got my equations. Then we just substitute the data from the table instead of u1 and u2 and do the same for total momenta after.

And then we find, that now the momentum is not conserved. That`s the problem!
 
  • #19
xox, firstly, I`m not interested in horizontals, since they are conserved as they are (checked that). But I tried to add them to the equation as well. It makes no difference. Momentum is still not conserved.
 
  • #20
This may be equivalent to what xox is saying, but you cannot use the co-linear velocity addition formula:

(u + v) / (1 + uv/c2)

for any non-colinear situation. Further, you cannot use it component wise in such a situation. There are several ways to state a more general velocity additions formula. My favorite is:

γ(relative) = γ(u)γ(v)(1-uv cos(θ))

then, from relative gamma you get relative speed.
 
  • #21
Offf...

I can, just a formula is a little bit different. Again, I added velocities correctly, because it is stated in the book.

In your formulas, PAllen, when θ=90, the formula turns into my one for verticals, and when it is 0 into my one for horizontals:

http://stg660.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/2/40731152_3_1176206.jpg
 
  • #22
Virous said:
In relativistic mechanics it is more complicated and we have to use relativistic velocity addition formula to get all the velocities listed in the table on image 4 (in the brackets the first equation is a horizontal and the second is a vertical components).

And this is the problem. The velocity addition formula you use is wrong for this situation. It only applies to colinear velocities, and cannot be used component-wise.

Much simpler (for this problem), actually, is to arrive at values for S' by Lorentz transform. Then you don't need to worry about general velocity addition formulat - it is all contained in the Lorentz transform, from which all such auxiliary formulas are derived.
 
  • #23
If there is a mistake it is either in the nature (less probable) or in the last step. Velocity addition is correct definitely :)
 
  • #24
PAllen said:
And this is the problem.

This is not :) I used two formulas: for col-linear and perpendicular velocities where appropriate.
 
  • #25
http://stg660.rusfolder.com/preview/20140518/2/40731152_3_1176206.jpg

Left one works for col-linear. Right one for perpendicular. They both can be derived from your one with θ.
 
  • #26
Virous said:
This is not :) I used two formulas: for col-linear and perpendicular velocities where appropriate.

But you cannot break down the components that way. To get velocity of the 'top' ball in S' (for example), you must use the total formula with an angle neither 0 nor 90. It is not valid to break it up into colinear and orthogonal components.
 
  • #27
Virous said:
xox, firstly, I`m not interested in horizontals, since they are conserved as they are (checked that). But I tried to add them to the equation as well. It makes no difference. Momentum is still not conserved.

I don't think you understand, you need the value v_B^2 in the calculation for \gamma(v_B), you are incorrectly using only the y component. You make the same mistake in calculating \gamma(v&#039;_B)
 
  • #28
PAllen It is correct, since it is what was in the book. The mistake is in the second step. Just forget about horizontal component existence.
 
  • #29
xox, please, write down the correct total momentum before and after equations, so I will understand it better :)
 
  • #30
Virous said:
PAllen It is correct, since it is what was in the book. The mistake is in the second step. Just forget about horizontal component existence.

For momenta, you can treat components separately. For relative velocities, you cannot. As to what is in the book, I don't have the book and thus it is more likely (to me) that you misinterpret what is stated in the book.
 
  • #31
I just copied the table as it is. It is not mine. And I don`t see any mistakes in it.
 
  • #32
Virous said:
xox, please, write down the correct total momentum before and after equations, so I will understand it better :)

Before: \gamma(v_A) \vec{v_A}+\gamma(v_B) \vec{v_B}


After: \gamma(v&#039;_A) \vec{v&#039;_A}+\gamma(v&#039;_B) \vec{v&#039;_B}

You have everything correct, except the way you calculate \gamma(v_B), \gamma(v&#039;_B).
I explained the error.
 
  • #33
No, I mean, please, expand it (gammas). And it seems your forgot masses.
 
  • #34
PAllen said:
For momenta, you can treat components separately. For relative velocities, you cannot. As to what is in the book, I don't have the book and thus it is more likely (to me) that you misinterpret what is stated in the book.

He's projecting

\gamma(v_A) \vec{v_A}+\gamma(v_B) \vec{v_B}=\gamma(v&#039;_A) \vec{v&#039;_A}+\gamma(v&#039;_B) \vec{v&#039;_B}

on the x and y axis, so his using of the components is correct. His error is in calculating the \gamma(v_B),\gamma(v&#039;_B)
 
  • #35
Virous said:
No, I mean, please, expand it (gammas). And it seems your forgot masses.
The masses cancel out because both particles have the same rest mass.
 
  • #36
p=v_{b}m\gamma (v_{b})=\frac{v_{b}m}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v_{b}^2}{c^2})}}

This is my equation for initial momentum of the ball 2. (The one I used). With this equation the momentum is not conserved. Where exactly is the mistake?

xox said:
The masses cancel out because both particles have the same rest mass.
True, but you can`t cancel them out before equating total momentum before and after.
 
  • #37
Virous, rather than try to unpack your notation, which I (like others) am having trouble understanding, perhaps it would help to show how I would work this problem, using standard 4-vector notation. Each ball is described by a 4-momentum vector, which is just its rest mass ##m## times its 4-velocity ##u^a## (where the index ##a## denotes the coordinate components of the 4-vector, i.e., the components of ##u^a## are ##u^t##, ##u^x##, ##u^y##, and ##u^z##). The ##t## component of 4-momentum in a given frame gives the object's energy in that frame, and the ##x##, ##y##, and ##z## components give the components of its momentum. So checking conservation of momentum before and after just amounts to checking the appropriate components of the 4-momentum before and after. Since the invariant mass ##m## of each ball is the same throughout, we can divide through by it and just work with the 4-velocity vectors.

I won't give a lot of explanation of what follows; the formalism I'm using is described in most relativity textbooks. I'll just work through it quickly so you can see how it goes.

In the unprimed frame, the two 4-velocity vectors before the collision are (giving the ##t##, ##x##, and ##y## components; all ##z## components are zero):

$$
u_1^a = \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

$$
u_2^a = \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{- a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{- b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

After the collision, the two 4-velocity vectors are:

$$
u_1^a = \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{- b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

$$
u_2^a = \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{- a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, \frac{b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

Obviously the ##x## and ##y## components of the two vectors cancel both before and after, so momentum is conserved. (Btw, the sum of the two ##t## components is also the same before and after, so energy is conserved as well.)

Now we want to Lorentz transform these 4-vectors to the primed frame, which is moving in the positive ##x## direction at speed ##a##. The nice thing about 4-vectors is that they all Lorentz transform the same; a LT in the ##x## direction only changes the ##t## and ##x## components, and it does so in the same way you're used to from basic relativity physics. That is, we have ##u'^t = \gamma \left( u^t - v u^x \right)##, and ##u'^x = \gamma \left( u^x - v u^t \right)##, where ##v## is the relative velocity (##a## in this case) and ##\gamma = 1 / \sqrt{1 - v^2}## (note that I am using units in which ##c = 1## for simplicity); and ##u^y## and ##u^z## are unchanged.

Now, if you look at the before and after 4-vectors given above, you will notice something: the ##t## and ##x## components are *the same* before and after in the unprimed frame. And since the LT only changes the ##t## and ##x## components (i.e., it doesn't "mix in" any others), the same thing will be true in the primed frame: the ##t'## and ##x'## components will be the same both before and after. So it's obvious that energy and ##x## momentum will be conserved in the primed frame if they are conserved in the unprimed frame (which of course they are). And since the ##y## components are unchanged by the LT, ##y## momentum will also be conserved in the primed frame.

So we really don't even need to work through the details of transforming into the primed frame; but I'll do it anyway for completeness. Applying the LT, in the primed frame we have these two 4-velocity vectors before the collision (where I have refrained from simplifying the expressions so you can see how they arise from the general LT formula above):

$$
u_1^a = \left( \frac{1 - a^2}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{a - a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

$$
u_2^a = \left( \frac{1 + a^2}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{- a - a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{- b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

Simplifying now, we get

$$
u_1^a = \left( \frac{\sqrt{1 - a^2}}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, 0, \frac{b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

$$
u_2^a = \left( \frac{1 + a^2}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{- 2a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{- b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

After the collision, all that changes is that the ##y## components swap, as before, so we have:

$$
u_1^a = \left( \frac{\sqrt{1 - a^2}}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}}, 0, \frac{- b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

$$
u_2^a = \left( \frac{1 + a^2}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{- 2a}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2} \sqrt{1 - a^2}}, \frac{b}{\sqrt{1 - a^2 - b^2}} \right)
$$

Again, it's obvious that the ##y## momentum cancels, and that the total ##x## momentum, while it is no longer zero in this frame, is the same both before and after. (And, of course, so is total energy, although it is larger in this frame than in the unprimed frame.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #38
Virous said:
p=v_{b}m\gamma (v_{b})=\frac{v_{b}m}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v_{b}^2}{c^2})}}

This is my equation for initial momentum of the ball 2. (The one I used). With this equation the momentum is not conserved. Where exactly is the mistake?

Look at your v^2_b. It has BOTH an x AND an y component when you calculate "gamma". You are using only the y component. THAT is your error.


True, but you can`t cancel them out before equating total momentum before and after.

Yes, irrelevant in finding your error.
 
  • #39
Virous said:
you can`t cancel them out before equating total momentum before and after.

In this particular case, since the rest masses of both balls are equal, you can; they drop out everywhere if the computation is done correctly. (You'll note that that's what I did in my previous post.)
 
  • #40
xox

I tried that as well. It doesn`t change anything, since even if you add the horizontal component there, momentum will still be not conserved!
 
  • #41
PeterDonis

Thanks for your large post and spending time on me! I`ll try it out later as well. But now the whole point is to understand where am I wrong.
 
  • #42
xox said:
He's projecting

\gamma(v_A) \vec{v_A}+\gamma(v_B) \vec{v_B}=\gamma(v&#039;_A) \vec{v&#039;_A}+\gamma(v&#039;_B) \vec{v&#039;_B}

on the x and y axis, so his using of the components is correct. His error is in calculating the \gamma(v_B),\gamma(v&#039;_B)

Ok, I'll buy that.
 
  • #43
xox, Probably, I am getting annoying, so you`re using capitals. I am really-really sorry for that. I`m just getting into it. Please, write the equation of momentum of the ball B (2) substituting everything.
 
  • #44
Virous said:
now the whole point is to understand where am I wrong.

Well, my computation suggests one obvious possibility: a Lorentz transform in the ##x## direction should not affect momentum in the ##y## direction. (It will affect *total* momentum because that's a vector sum of the ##x## and ##y## momentum; but when looking at components, only the ##x## momentum should change.) So I would guess that you've made an error in transforming the ##y## components to the primed frame.
 
  • #45
PeterDonis, vertical velocity in the moving frame depends on the horizontal velocity in the rest frame, so the momentum should change as well. Isn`t it?
 
  • #46
Virous said:
PeterDonis, vertical velocity in the moving frame depends on the horizontal velocity in the rest frame, so the momentum should change as well. Isn`t it?

It depends on how you look at it. If you look at my 4-vector formulas, you will note that the ##y## components in both frames are identical expressions--meaning that they would be numerically identical once specific numbers are plugged in for all the variables. So in the 4-vector formalism, confirming ##y## momentum conservation is simple.

What you are essentially trying to compute in your formulas are the *ratios* of 4-vector components; for example, your ##y## component of ordinary velocity is the ratio ##u^y / u^t## in my notation. Those ratios do change when you change frames, yes; but trying to compute things using them is just introducing extra steps that should end up cancelling each other out if the computation is done correctly.

In other words, your ordinary velocity ##y## component is ##v_y = u^y / u^t## in my notation: but your ##y## momentum is ##m \gamma(v) v_y##, where ##\gamma(v) = 1 / \sqrt{1 - v_x^2 - v_y^2}##. And if you look at my formulas, you will see that ##\gamma(v) = u^t##; so your ##y## momentum should end up being ##m u^t v_y = m u^t u^y / u^t = m u^y##, which is unchanged, as my computation shows. So basically, you're computing a change in the ##y## component of ordinary velocity in the primed frame; but then you should be computing an exactly compensating change in how the ##y## components of momentum and ordinary velocity are related in the primed frame. So I think your mistake lies somewhere in that computation; two things that should be exactly cancelling each other out are not, because you've made an error in there somewhere.

The above is why the 4-vector formalism is so nice; you don't have to worry about trying to figure out how all the ratios change from frame to frame, the formalism keeps track of it all for you.
 
  • #47
Using the formula I gave for non-colinear velocities, and given that the lower ball is has velocity:

(a,b)

and S' has velocity (a,0), all given in S, then the gamma for this ball in S' (that is (a,b) - (a,0) relativistically, non-colinear) is:

√(1-a2)/√(1-a2-b2)

This is just algebra (and elemantary trig) from my formula. Note, it is in agreement with Peter's post.

I cannot tell from your notations, whether you agree with this. Can you answer whether you agree with this as gamma for the bottom ball in S'?
 
  • #48
Probably I`m getting something absolutely wrong. Shouldn`t the following be the relativistic momentum formula?

p=\frac{mu}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2 }}

Can you now, please, just take velocity values from my table and substitute them into the equation correctly?
 
  • #49
xox, I redid the computation as you told me - here is the result:

7419b5b3f554.png


(Total momentum before on the left, total momentum after on the right)

u1, u2 - vertical components of balls` velocities before.
u3,u4 - vertical comoponents after

Sorry for not using special tegs. What I did is I added to u2 and u4 their horizontal components as they are given in the table.

Total before is still not equal to total after (they have opposite signs instead). What is wrong now?
 
  • #50
Virous said:
Shouldn`t the following be the relativistic momentum formula?

p=\frac{mu}{\sqrt{1-(u/c)^2 }}

This works if you're just treating ##u## as a vector. But if you're working with components, you need to carefully distinguish between the component values and the squared magnitude of ##u## itself. The clearest way to do that is to write out ##u^2## in terms of components, so we have:

$$
p_x = \frac{m u_x}{\sqrt{1 - u_x^2 - u_y^2 - u_z^2}}
$$

$$
p_y = \frac{m u_y}{\sqrt{1 - u_x^2 - u_y^2 - u_z^2}}
$$

$$
p_z = \frac{m u_z}{\sqrt{1 - u_x^2 - u_y^2 - u_z^2}}
$$

It doesn't look like you have been doing this correctly in your formulas.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top