Relativistic Momentum Invariance in Perpendicular Boosts

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of relativistic momentum, specifically its invariance under perpendicular Lorentz boosts. Participants explore the reasoning behind the invariance of momentum components in different inertial frames, particularly in the context of collisions and the implications of time dilation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a scenario involving a car crashing into a wall, questioning the reasoning that the same damage implies the same component of momentum towards the wall in different inertial frames.
  • Another participant asserts that momentum is part of the 4-momentum, which is a 4-vector that transforms without changing orthogonal components.
  • A different participant challenges the definition of relativistic momentum, suggesting that the discussion should focus on why this definition is a suitable replacement for Newtonian momentum.
  • Another point raised emphasizes the requirement for momentum conservation in one inertial frame to imply conservation in other frames, drawing a parallel to classical momentum and Galilean transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the reasoning behind the invariance of momentum components and the suitability of the relativistic momentum definition, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights assumptions regarding the definitions of momentum and the implications of transformations between inertial frames, but these assumptions remain unexamined and unresolved.

greypilgrim
Messages
583
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
7K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
12K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K