Relativistic Momentum Invariance in Perpendicular Boosts

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of relativistic momentum invariance during perpendicular boosts, specifically in the context of a car crashing into a wall. The argument presented states that both the car and an observer in a parallel inertial frame witness the same damage, implying that the momentum component towards the wall must remain invariant across frames. The introduction of the Lorentz factor is necessary due to time dilation effects. However, the reasoning is challenged, questioning the adequacy of using damage as a basis for momentum invariance and emphasizing the need for a robust argument for the transformation properties of 4-momentum.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations
  • Familiarity with 4-vectors and their properties
  • Knowledge of relativistic momentum and its derivation
  • Basic principles of classical mechanics and momentum conservation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of relativistic momentum using Lorentz transformations
  • Explore the properties of 4-vectors in special relativity
  • Investigate the implications of time dilation on momentum in different inertial frames
  • Examine classical versus relativistic momentum conservation laws
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of momentum in both classical and relativistic frameworks.

greypilgrim
Messages
581
Reaction score
44
Hi,

I've found a derivation of the formula for the relativistic momentum where they considered a car crashing into a wall in the system of the car and in an inertial system that moves parallel to the wall (and therefore perpendicularly to the movement of the car). They argue that since both observers see the same damage done to wall and car, the component of the car's momentum towards the wall needs to be the same in both systems. Since the car moves slower seen from the parallel moving system (because of time dilation), the Lorentz factor needs to be introduced in the formula for relativistic momentum.

I don't really find this reasoning (same damage implies same component of momentum towards the wall) satisfactory. At this point, everything known about collisions is non-relativistic. Is there a better argument why a component of momentum should be invariant for Lorentz boosts perpendicular to that component?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The momentum is the spatial part of the 4-momentum. This is a 4-vector and transforms in the same way as any other 4-vector, i.e., not changing the orthogonal components.
 
Your statement already assumes a definition of relativistic momentum, whereas my question is about why this definition is a suitable replacement for the Newtonian momentum.
 
You require that momentum conservation in one inertial frame should also imply momentum conservation in other frames. This is essentially the same requirement as for classical momentum, but in that case for Galilei transformations and not Lorentz transformations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: greypilgrim

Similar threads

  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K