Tim_Lou Posted June 28, 2006 Report Posted June 28, 2006 i derived the acceleration as a function of F in special relativity.....i'm not trying to show off or anything... well maybe im trying to get some reps... well, anyway, i just would love to share my love of physics with you guys. (specially since some of my friends are viewing the forum as i believed in... and hopfully they are)..... :hihi: :hihi: tell me if i did anything wrong. the following document is the derivation of acceleration as a function of force and velocity in relativity. we all know a=F/m, but what about in relativity? well, lets find out! the derivation only involves one simple derivative. all other things are non-calculus vector operations.acceleration of SR.pdf Quote
eloxer Posted June 28, 2006 Report Posted June 28, 2006 I don't see how you get the scalar v in line 3. Quote
eloxer Posted June 28, 2006 Report Posted June 28, 2006 and in line 4 I don't see how you make the scalar product of the two v's go away... Quote
Tim_Lou Posted June 28, 2006 Author Report Posted June 28, 2006 oh... i guess i'll need to give more clarifications...sry about that;) (my teacher always tells me... more clarifications!) a vector cross product of itself is zero... since |a cross b|=|a||b|sin(o)if a=b, o=0, the cross product is zero...and v dot v=|v|^2i just made that v^2 and factor everything out... and in some parts of the article, things involving gamma are simplified,since[math]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]*gotta learn how to use vectors in latex... Quote
eloxer Posted June 29, 2006 Report Posted June 29, 2006 as you say, vec(v) dot vec(v) will result in v^2 but in line 4 it says v^1. Where did you find the v to multiply with? Quote
eloxer Posted June 29, 2006 Report Posted June 29, 2006 oh I'm sorry. The v^1 seems to appear in line 5. It's actually a v^-1 Quote
eloxer Posted June 29, 2006 Report Posted June 29, 2006 OK, it looks right to me now. But I didn't have time to go through every step. I would include additional steps between line 4 and 5 and I would add gamma's definition to the top. A little description of what the document is all about and it will look sound. Best regards. Quote
Tim_Lou Posted June 29, 2006 Author Report Posted June 29, 2006 thanks for the replies, eloxer... good to know that someone proofread it. i bet you like physics as much as i do, otherwise you wouldn't spend the trouble going over some random physics things. i just did it for a little fun. wasnt anything formal. :rolleyes: man, does THAT sound geeky! used to give these little derivations to my physics teacher. but its over now.... anyway, posting results kinda motivates me to do more physics. shall i say... intrinsic and extrinsic motivations working together? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.