The trivial constant force acceleration math

valjok
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
I accelerate a body by a constant force:
a = F/m = F \frac{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}{m_0}

I simplify it by fixing F = m0 = c = 1:
\frac{dv}{dt} = {\sqrt{1-v^2}

This diff equation formalizes the dependence of relativistic body acceleration on its velocity. To get the speed at time t, I solve it rearranging into

\int{ \frac{dv}{\sqrt{1-v^2}} = t

, which is a handbook integral: t = arcsin v, or v = sin t. This 1) satisfies the equation and, as the Einstein's correction of Newton implies, 2) slows the initially constant acceleration down to zero as v approaches 1 and 3) precludes super-light speeds. However, sine reaches v=1 in finite amount of time while texts tell that we should approach the speed of light asymptotically in t = ∞. Oscillations is not what I expected. Where is the mistake?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When a relativistic particle is accelerated, both the velocity and dynamic (not rest) mass changes. We usually use the momentum p= mv multiplied by a constant, c, to give
pc = mvc = βmc2
So for a constant force,

d(pc)/dt = d(βmc2)/dt = const = d(βγm0c2)/dt = m0c2 d(βγ)/dt, where m0c2 is the rest mass in energy units.

It is sometimes easier to use the relation

E2 = (pc)2 + (m0c2)2
where E is total energy, and E-m0c2 is kinetic energy.

α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ ς σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
 
valjok said:
Where is the mistake?
The mistake is that F = ma is not valid in relativity. But F = dp/dt is. See post #16 in "A dark part of special relativity(at least for me)" for details.
 
Thanks, Greg. I understand the mistake now and that Bob tells me how to derive the a. The v(t) solution now turns to out to be non-trivial.
 
Last edited:
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top