Time derivative of relativistic momentum

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the time derivative of relativistic momentum, exploring its formulation and implications. Participants examine the expression for relativistic momentum, its time derivative, and whether this derivative is a conserved quantity. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and references to previous discussions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that relativistic momentum is defined as p(t) = m·γ(t)·v(t), where γ = c/√(c²-v²), and questions the appearance of γ³ in the time derivative.
  • Another participant asserts that mass is not constant and suggests differentiating it, while also referencing a previous thread for additional context.
  • A different participant argues that the rest mass is constant and confirms the original calculation, stating that the defined momentum is conserved.
  • One participant mentions that the use of rapidity instead of velocity may explain the absence of the γ³ term in standard texts.
  • A mathematical expression for the time derivative of momentum is provided, indicating that dp/dt is significant and appears in advanced texts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is disagreement regarding the constancy of mass in the context of relativistic momentum, with some participants asserting that mass is constant while others argue it is not. The discussion remains unresolved on the interpretation of mass and the significance of the time derivative of momentum.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need to differentiate mass in the context of relativistic momentum, indicating potential limitations in understanding the relationship between mass and momentum in relativistic contexts. The discussion also highlights the use of rapidity, which may complicate the interpretation of the time derivative.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying relativistic physics, particularly in understanding momentum and its derivatives in different contexts, as well as those exploring advanced mathematical formulations in physics.

birulami
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Did I understand correctly that relativistic momentum is

[tex]p(t) = m\cdot\gamma(t)\cdot v(t)[/tex],​

where [itex]\gamma = c/\sqrt{c^2-v^2}[/itex] and [itex]c[/itex] is the speed of light? For the fun of it I wrote down the time derivative and got

[tex]{d\over dt}p(t) = \gamma^3(t)\cdot a(t)[/tex]​

with [itex]a(t) = d v(t)/dt[/itex]. Yet I cannot find the funny exponent of 3 of a [itex]\gamma[/itex] anywhere in a book. Am I missing a trivial transformation of [itex]\gamma^3 a[/itex] into a better known form? Or is it that the time derivative of relativistic momentum is not an important concept, which is why I did not come across this formula before?

Additional question: is [itex]p[/itex] as define above is a conserved quantity?


Harald.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No, the mass is constant. It's the relativistic mass (=[itex]\gamma m[/itex]) that isn't constant.

Birulami, your calculation is fine, and yes, the p you have defined is conserved. I don't know why you can't find it in a book. One possible reason is that it's often convenient to talk about rapidity instead of velocity when you're describing the motion of an accelerating particle. E.g. in post #15 in this thread, the ^3 appears on a hyperbolic function (eq. 12).

You may also find the calculation I did in #15 in this thread interesting.
 
Last edited:
You're right, I plead temporary brain lapse. The mass is constant. [tex]\gamma[/tex] ensures that m is the rest mass.
 
[tex]\frac{d\bf p}{dt}= m\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{\bf v}<br /> {\sqrt{1-{\bf v}^2}}\right]<br /> = m[\gamma{\bf a}+\gamma^3{\bf v(v\cdot a)}]<br /> =m\gamma^3[{\bf a}+{\bf v\times(v\times a)}][/tex].
with c=1. Either final form is useful.
dp/dt is important, and is discussed in advanced texts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fredrik said:
You may also find the calculation I did in #15 in this thread interesting.

Indeed. I'll take a closer look. Thanks,
Harald.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K