0

I recently found the derivation of the Lorentz factor here. It shows the ratio of time in different inertial frames to be equal to the Lorentz factor. I'm now trying to understand how this ratio relates to the equation
$_{rel}≡$.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 1
    You have already asked a similar question here: Mass changes in special relativity?. The answer there seems to be sufficiently clear. What exactly makes this question different? What do you mean by Lorentz Factor "math"? – Philip Sep 02 '20 at 07:05
  • So the first question I asked answered the question - how does relativistic mass differ from mass at rest. This question asks - how did the Lorentz factor which relates time in different frames end up in an equation relating mass at different speeds?? Hope this clears it up. – gatech-kid Sep 02 '20 at 07:09
  • Well, you have the relation there in your question. What sort of answer do you expect? A derivation of the formula? (Caveat: the idea of relativistic mass is more common in popular science than in modern physics texts, so be careful about its interpretation). – Philip Sep 02 '20 at 07:12
  • Yes, I'm looking for some kind of derivation. I understand that the correct way to express the factor in equations is $E=\gamma_{(\mathbf{u})}m_0c^2$ so a derivation that shows how the factor ended up in this equation will also work. Hope that explains what I was going for. – gatech-kid Sep 02 '20 at 07:18

1 Answers1

4

We should start by saying that few physicists today would say the mass of a particle changes with the velocity. This was the view taken early in the development of special relativity, but these days we take the view that the only mass that matters is the rest mass and that this is a constant. If you are interested this topic is discussed in considerable detail in the answers to the question Why is there a controversy on whether mass increases with speed?

Where this all comes from is that the momentum of a relativistic particle is given by:

$$ \mathbf p = \gamma m \mathbf v \tag{1} $$

The notion of a relativistic mass originated by writing this as:

$$ \mathbf p = m_{rel} \mathbf v \tag{2} $$

i.e. keeping the Newtonian definition of momentum $p = mv$ and just replacing $\gamma m$ in equation (1) by the relativistic mass $m_{rel}$ to get equation (2). However the view these days is that we should restrict ourselves to using the rest mass and accept that the momentum is given by equation (1) instead.

So starting from this perspective you questions becomes why and how the factor of $\gamma$ appears in the equation (1) for the momentum. There is a rigorous way to derive this by using the principle of least action to derive the momentum from the action, but this is somewhat involved and luckily there is a simpler if less rigorous approach.

What we will do is assume the four-momentum $P$ is given by $P = mU$, where $U$ is the four-velocity. The four-vectors $P$ and $U$ are the relativistic versions of the Newtonian momentum and velocity. We start by writing the position of the particle as the four-vector:

$$ \mathbf X = (t, x, y, z) $$

then differentiating with respect to proper time $\tau$ to get the four-velocity:

$$ \mathbf U = \frac{d\mathbf X}{d\tau} = \left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}, \frac{dx}{d\tau}, \frac{dy}{d\tau}, \frac{dz}{d\tau} \right) $$

and finally multiplying by $m$ to get the four-momentum:

$$ \mathbf P = m\mathbf U = \left(m\frac{dt}{d\tau}, m\frac{dx}{d\tau}, m\frac{dy}{d\tau}, m\frac{dz}{d\tau} \right) \tag{3} $$

Now in equation (3) we are differentiating with respect to proper time $\tau$ not coordinate time $t$ but we can convert to a derivative wrt coordinate time using the chain rule. For example:

$$ \frac{dx}{d\tau} = \frac{dx}{dt}\frac{dt}{d\tau} $$

And this is where the factor of $\gamma$ creeps in because $dt/d\tau$ is just the time dilation factor i.e. the Lorentz factor $\gamma$. So $dx/d\tau$ is just equal to $\gamma dx/dt$ i.e. just $\gamma v_x$, where $v_x$ is the $x$ component of the non-relativistic three velocity. And making this substitution the expression for the four-momentum becomes:

$$ \mathbf P = \left(\gamma m, \gamma mv_x, \gamma mv_y, \gamma mv_z \right) = (\gamma m, \mathbf p) \tag{4} $$

where the $\mathbf p$ in equation (4) is just the non-relativistic three momentum:

$$ \mathbf p = \left(\gamma mv_x, \gamma mv_y, \gamma mv_z \right) = \gamma m \mathbf v $$

And that's the equation (1) that we started out with!

John Rennie
  • 355,118
  • The dx needs a contraction factor, which would cancel out the lorentz factor! Please justify the fact that you have not done this. – Cecilia Sep 05 '22 at 02:17
  • Here the $x$ is the distance I measure using my rulers so $dx/dt$ is the speed I measure using my rules and my clocks. $dx$ does not need to be contracted because it just what I am measuring not some property of the moving body. – John Rennie Sep 05 '22 at 04:16