Q:Is it possible to do a coordinate transfomation in momentum space?

AI Thread Summary
Coordinate transformations in momentum space can be performed while conserving momentum in the lab frame, even for relativistic particles. Rotating the axes by specified angles results in new momentum components, P_x', P_y', and P_z', while maintaining the magnitude of the momentum vector. The relationship P^2 = P_x^2 + P_y^2 + P_z^2 = P_x'^2 + P_y'^2 + P_z'^2 holds true if the transformation is executed correctly. Additionally, the direction of the momentum vector is conserved, as the dot product remains invariant under these transformations. Understanding these principles is essential for accurate momentum analysis in physics.
FinalCatch
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Q: How does one do a coordinate transformation in momentum space while insuring conservation of momentum?

I have a several particles with momentum components P_x , P_y , P_z.
I would like to rotate the x, y, and z axis. By angle θ in the x/y and angle Θ in the y/z .
So giving new momentum P_x' , P_y' , P_z'.

Is it possible to do this an conserve momentum while remaining in the lab frame? (The particles are relativistic but I don't believe this matters). What are the coordinate transformations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The conserved quantity is a vector, you can rotate the basis vectors however you want and it wouldn't change the magnitude of the vector.
 
just to double check P^2=P_x^2 +P_y^2 +P_z^2=P_x'^2 +P_y'^2 +P_z'^2 correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FinalCatch said:
just to double check P^2=P_x^2 +P_y^2 +P_z^2=P_x'^2 +P_y'^2 +P_z'^2 correct?

If you've done the transformation to the primed coordinates correctly, yes.

In fact, HomogeneousCow has understated how much is conserved; the direction of the vector is also conserved. Of course it's a bit tricky talking about the "direction" of a vector when you don't have coordinate axes to make angles with - (1,0) in coordinates in which the x-axis points to the northeast is the same vector in the same direction as ##\sqrt{2}/2(1,1)## in coordinates in which the x-axis points east, but it's not obvious at all from the coordinates that that is so.

However, the dot-product of two vectors is invariant under these coordinate transformations, and as the dot-product depends on the angle between the vectors, that gives us a coordinate-independent way of claiiming that direction is also invariant.
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top