Two different velocity variables in relativistic momentum?

SamRoss
Gold Member
Messages
256
Reaction score
36
For the relativistic momentum

p=(1/[1-u^2/c^2])mv

does u always equal v or does u refer to the speed of the reference frame and v refer to the speed of the object?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SamRoss said:
For the relativistic momentum

p=(1/[1-u^2/c^2])mv

does u always equal v or does u refer to the speed of the reference frame and v refer to the speed of the object?

Where does this come from? There is only one velocity involved in this formula. I could guess and say some author is using u for speed (magnitude of velocity) and v for the velocity vector. If so, it is correct and self explanatory.
 
The separation of the single velocity variable into two variables came from me trying to fill in some logical gaps in some derivations I was looking at and I guess I didn't do such a great job.

My real problem is this. I want to find a simple derivation of relativistic momentum that does NOT involve the ambiguous relativistic mass quantity. Every supposed derivation that I look at turns out really to be a derivation of relativistic mass and I have come to understand that this is a dangerous concept. Do you know of any simple derivations of relativistic momentum using only invariant mass?
 
samross said:
the separation of the single velocity variable into two variables came from me trying to fill in some logical gaps in some derivations i was looking at and i guess i didn't do such a great job.

My real problem is this. I want to find a simple derivation of relativistic momentum that does not involve the ambiguous relativistic mass quantity. Every supposed derivation that i look at turns out really to be a derivation of relativistic mass and i have come to understand that this is a dangerous concept. Do you know of any simple derivations of relativistic momentum using only invariant mass?

samross, I've attached a couple of Microsoft Word files (the second is a continuation of the first). The idea is to give you a presentation that includes space-time diagram graphics to help keep track of the vector components. In this display I've used two observers moving with the same speed in opposite directions with respect to a rest system. By doing this the distances can be directly compared without worrying about hyperbolic proper time curves.

View attachment Four_Momentum1_Forum.doc

View attachment Four_Momentum2_Forum.doc
 
Hi,

The four velocity is the tangent to the world line, expressed
<br /> u^\alpha =\frac{d x^\alpha}{d\tau}<br />
where \tau is the proper time. This decomposes as
<br /> u^\alpha =(\gamma,\gamma \, \vec{v})<br />
Momentum is defined as
<br /> p^\alpha =mu^\alpha<br />
Here m is the body's rest-mass.
 
Thanks for the quick reply. The Minkowski method has always been a bit less intuitive for me than the kinematic equations themselves but I am trying to understand the document. In the meantime I've posted a related topic titled Help with Relativistic Collision. I feel that somewhere in those collision thought experiments is a line of reasoning that's at my level. Thanks again.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Back
Top