Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Problem understanding relativistic momentum

  1. Feb 15, 2007 #1
    Many books teaching relativity at the introductory level,go on and say that relativistic momentum cant be described using p=mv

    and p=m Dx/Dt(D is Delta)

    also

    it says the measure Dx is the same as measured by the both people.One who is measuring his own momentum and another who is measuring the moving person's(with respect to him) momentum.

    I get confused.how can this be?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 15, 2007 #2

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Perhaps it is meant to say something like the following;

    "The above equations assume that the measure[ment] Dx is the same as measured by the both people.One who is measuring his own momentum and another who is measuring the moving person's(with respect to him) momentum."
     
  4. Feb 15, 2007 #3
    Why shd they both be the same?As the person will refer to another thing to measure Dx.Like the length of road he covers.But the road will seem contracted to him isnt it?
     
  5. Feb 15, 2007 #4
    May be quoting the text would help clear things up.
     
  6. Feb 15, 2007 #5

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They are not the same in special relativity, the quantity dx will indeed be subject to length contraction as described by the lorentz transformations. However, the two equations you have quoted are the equations for classical momentum which are based on the Galilean transformations and hence dx is not subject to length contraction.
     
  7. Feb 17, 2007 #6
    Heres the text quoted:
    Consider a particle moving with a constant speed v in the positive x direction.Classically it has momentum=mv=mDx/Dt

    in which Dx is the distance it travels in time Dt.To find a relativistic expression for momentum,we start with the new definition

    p=mDx/Dt(o)

    Here,as before Dx is the distance travelled by a moving particle as viewed by the observer watching that particle.However t(o) is the time required to travel that distance,measured by not the observer watching the moving particle but by an observer moving with the particle.

    Using time dilation t/gamma=t(o)

    therefore p=mv[gamma]


    I didnt understand why distance Dx is same for both observers!
     
  8. Feb 17, 2007 #7

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Where in that quoted passage does it say that Dx is the same for both observers? It says: "Dx is the distance travelled by a moving particle as viewed by the observer watching that particle". Nowhere does it say that different observers measure the same distance.
     
  9. Feb 17, 2007 #8
    How is the textbook then comparing the two momentum(S) measured by the person moving with the particle and the person who is not at rest with respect to the particle?
     
  10. Feb 17, 2007 #9

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Time dilation, note the term t0, the proper time interval.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007
  11. Feb 17, 2007 #10
    The argument as per the book:

    But shouldn't it be...

    ?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007
  12. Feb 17, 2007 #11

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Are you sure about that? Read again, t0 is not in the rest frame of the observer, but in that of the particle.
     
  13. Feb 17, 2007 #12
    Oh, okay. So from the particle's frame only length contraction is observed. So that would lead to only one gamma factor.
     
  14. Feb 17, 2007 #13
    im confused
    Can som1 please explain well.I am asorry ive tried a lot but cudnt understand.Why would [tex]\Delta x[/tex] be the same for both?
     
  15. Feb 17, 2007 #14

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Correct. Indeed, one can do equivalent procedures by considering length contraction or time dilation. The particle experiences length contraction, whereas the observer experiences time dilation; both will lead to the same results, provided the principles are applied correctly.
    No one has ever said they are! [itex]\Delta x[/itex] is the distance measured by the observer not by the particle.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007
  16. Feb 17, 2007 #15
    Explanation please.I still cant get it :'(
     
  17. Feb 17, 2007 #16
    Thanks, Hoot.
     
  18. Feb 17, 2007 #17

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What exactly don't you understand?
    No problem :biggrin:
     
  19. Feb 17, 2007 #18
    Why length contraction isnt observed!Also which part of neutrino's equations were correct?Thnx
     
  20. Feb 17, 2007 #19

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Length contraction is observed, just not by an observer.
    The first part under the heading 'According to the Book' is correct.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007
  21. Feb 17, 2007 #20
    O boy i just cant seem to get it

    According to me:

    We are comparing the momentum an observer measures of a moving body and which the moving body measures of itself.Now suppose the moving body is on a road and has two stones which have a distance of Dx(with respect to the observing frame,i mean the rest observer).

    Now when the observer measures the body's momentum:
    [tex]p = m\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}[/tex] ..........(1)

    also when the moving body measures his own momentum
    [tex]p_{0} = m\frac{\Delta x_0}{\Delta t_0}[/tex]
    but as
    [tex]\Delta x_0 = \gamma^{-1}\Delta x[/tex]

    Now im getting:
    [tex]p_{0} = m\frac{\Delta x}{\gamma^2\Delta t}[/tex]

    So thats where im going wrong!:'((((((((((((((
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Problem understanding relativistic momentum
  1. Relativistic momentum (Replies: 35)

  2. Relativistic momentum (Replies: 9)

  3. Relativistic momentum (Replies: 2)

  4. Relativistic momentum (Replies: 4)

  5. Relativistic Momentum (Replies: 2)

Loading...