How does a particle move under a constant 4-force?Can non-free forces change the rest mass?Homework - length contraction ($gamma$ and $u$ are unknown)Total time taken for an accelerating frame in special relativityForce in Special RelativityDerivation of force law in special relativityFind out gradient of electric potential at $bf r$ created by eletric dipole of moment $bf p$Force of an ideal springMotion of uniform accelerating rocket in special relativityRelativistic charged particle in a constant uniform electric fieldCalculating the motion of an object under a constant force in a relativistic context

I'm yearning in grey

Explicit song lyrics checker

Object-oriented design implementation of an Elevator

How could I create a situation in which a PC has to make a saving throw or be forced to pet a dog?

Co-worker is now managing my team. Does this mean that I'm being demoted?

How would Japanese people react to someone refusing to say “itadakimasu” for religious reasons?

How to make a villain when your PCs are villains?

Probability Dilemma

Expand command in an argument before the main command

How to recover a single blank shot from a film camera

Is there a risk to write an invitation letter for a stranger to obtain a Czech (Schengen) visa?

What are the mechanical differences between Adapt and Monstrosity?

Fibonacci sequence and other metallic sequences emerged in the form of fractions

How do credit card companies know what type of business I'm paying for?

What is the context for Napoleon's quote "[the Austrians] did not know the value of five minutes"?

Is this broken pipe the reason my freezer is not working? Can it be fixed?

How to address players struggling with simple controls?

First occurrence in the Sixers sequence

Would a 7805 5v regulator drain a 9v battery?

How to make all magic-casting innate, but still rare?

Why can't I craft scaffolding in Minecraft 1.14?

How to sort human readable size

Do my partner and son need an SSN to be dependents on my taxes?

Credit card validation in C



How does a particle move under a constant 4-force?


Can non-free forces change the rest mass?Homework - length contraction ($gamma$ and $u$ are unknown)Total time taken for an accelerating frame in special relativityForce in Special RelativityDerivation of force law in special relativityFind out gradient of electric potential at $bf r$ created by eletric dipole of moment $bf p$Force of an ideal springMotion of uniform accelerating rocket in special relativityRelativistic charged particle in a constant uniform electric fieldCalculating the motion of an object under a constant force in a relativistic context













3












$begingroup$


This question pertains specifically to the case of a constant pure 4-force in special relativity, of the form $textbfF = (f_0, f_x, 0, 0)$, where $f_0 = fracγc fracdEdt$. I understand how to solve the case of a constant 3-force in special relativity, but as far as I can tell one cannot use the usual trick of $p(t) = p(0) + f_xt$ since the 3-force is time dependent.



To find a solution, would you need to use the pure force result $textbf(u cdot f) = fracdEdt$? Any guidance would be helpful!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Forgive my ignorance - how is this different from the constant 3 force case? I thought a constant 3 force led to a hyperbolic solution?
    $endgroup$
    – alex1stef2
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    4 hours ago















3












$begingroup$


This question pertains specifically to the case of a constant pure 4-force in special relativity, of the form $textbfF = (f_0, f_x, 0, 0)$, where $f_0 = fracγc fracdEdt$. I understand how to solve the case of a constant 3-force in special relativity, but as far as I can tell one cannot use the usual trick of $p(t) = p(0) + f_xt$ since the 3-force is time dependent.



To find a solution, would you need to use the pure force result $textbf(u cdot f) = fracdEdt$? Any guidance would be helpful!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Forgive my ignorance - how is this different from the constant 3 force case? I thought a constant 3 force led to a hyperbolic solution?
    $endgroup$
    – alex1stef2
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    4 hours ago













3












3








3





$begingroup$


This question pertains specifically to the case of a constant pure 4-force in special relativity, of the form $textbfF = (f_0, f_x, 0, 0)$, where $f_0 = fracγc fracdEdt$. I understand how to solve the case of a constant 3-force in special relativity, but as far as I can tell one cannot use the usual trick of $p(t) = p(0) + f_xt$ since the 3-force is time dependent.



To find a solution, would you need to use the pure force result $textbf(u cdot f) = fracdEdt$? Any guidance would be helpful!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




This question pertains specifically to the case of a constant pure 4-force in special relativity, of the form $textbfF = (f_0, f_x, 0, 0)$, where $f_0 = fracγc fracdEdt$. I understand how to solve the case of a constant 3-force in special relativity, but as far as I can tell one cannot use the usual trick of $p(t) = p(0) + f_xt$ since the 3-force is time dependent.



To find a solution, would you need to use the pure force result $textbf(u cdot f) = fracdEdt$? Any guidance would be helpful!







homework-and-exercises special-relativity forces acceleration coordinate-systems






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago









Qmechanic

110k122101289




110k122101289










asked 10 hours ago









alex1stef2alex1stef2

635




635







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Forgive my ignorance - how is this different from the constant 3 force case? I thought a constant 3 force led to a hyperbolic solution?
    $endgroup$
    – alex1stef2
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    4 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Forgive my ignorance - how is this different from the constant 3 force case? I thought a constant 3 force led to a hyperbolic solution?
    $endgroup$
    – alex1stef2
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    9 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    4 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
Forgive my ignorance - how is this different from the constant 3 force case? I thought a constant 3 force led to a hyperbolic solution?
$endgroup$
– alex1stef2
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Forgive my ignorance - how is this different from the constant 3 force case? I thought a constant 3 force led to a hyperbolic solution?
$endgroup$
– alex1stef2
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
9 hours ago













$begingroup$
@JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
$endgroup$
– Andrew Steane
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
$endgroup$
– Andrew Steane
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
@AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
@AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
4 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

The confusion here is that many very able physicists have picked up the idea that motion at constant proper acceleration is somehow motion at "constant 4-acceleration" and thus "constant 4-force", but this is simply not true.



For rectilinear motion at constant proper acceleration $a_0 = A^mu A_mu$, the invariant size of the 4-acceleration is fixed and so is the direction in space, but the direction in spacetime is not. The direction in spacetime is orthogonal to the 4-velocity and the 4-velocity is certainly changing, and so is the 4-acceleration.



So the problem here is really about clarity and precision of expression. Many people say "constant 4-force" or "constant 4-acceleration" when what they mean is "constant size of 4-force" or "constant size of 4-acceleration".



Compare it to another case: motion in a circle at constant speed in Newtonian physics. Would we say of such motion that the acceleration is constant? We probably would, but we are familiar enough with this case that we don't confuse ourselves: we know the acceleration vector is changing, but its size is constant. Would we say the velocity is constant? No we wouldn't. Would we say the force is constant? We might, or we might not. Strictly, as a vector quantity, it is not constant.



So now let's come back to special relativity. If someone says "calculate the case of motion under a constant 4-force" then really the careful student has little option but to take the statement at face value and try to solve for that case. The solution is difficult and such a force certainly is not pure, and has very little relevance to physics. If the question was "calculate the case of motion under a 4-force of fixed spatial direction and constant invariant size" then the student (whether careful or not) can breath a quick sigh of relief and get on and tackle that standard problem. But if the question said the first while intending to mean the second, then it was an ill-posed question.



(An example of this came up recently in an Oxford physics exam; we need to improve our procedures to catch such things.)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$

    The four-force is the rate of change of four-momentum in respect to the proper time, that is $$ bf F = fracdrm Pdtau$$
    If it was constant that means that $$ bf P(tau) = bf P_0 + bf Ftau$$
    However that would mean that the mass $$m^2(tau) = bf P(tau)cdot bf P(tau) = m_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 $$
    is in general time-dependent. A particle with constant mass can have constant four-acceleration only if $bf P_0cdotbf F= bf Fcdotbf F$. Assuming $m_0>0$ you can however choose a frame in which $bf P_0=(m_0,0,0,0)$, $bf F=(F_0,vecF)$ you have $$ F_0 m_0 = 0 = F_0^2 - vecFcdotvecF$$
    and that means that $F_0=0$, $vecF=vec 0$, $bf F=0$.



    In conclusion, you cannot act with a constant four-force on a massive particle with constant mass.



    If you allow for mass to change, you have four-velocity
    $$ bf u(tau) = frac1m(tau)bf P(tau) = fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2$$
    and the four-position $$ (t(tau),vec x(tau)) = bf x(tau) = int fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 dtau$$Knowing $t(tau)$ and $vec x(tau)$ you may be able to recover $vec x(t)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
      $endgroup$
      – alex1stef2
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @alex1stef2 Witch 5-force being a constant four-vector, it's impossible. I suspect that it may be constant in amplitude, but change in direction so that at any time $bf Pcdotbf F=0$; then the mass could be constant. Do you think this is what they mean? I'm not familiar with term "pure force".
      $endgroup$
      – Adam Latosiński
      7 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      A 4-force is said to be "pure" when it does not change the rest mass of the entity on which it acts. Your answer is correct and helpful.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      4 hours ago


















    0












    $begingroup$

    Under John Rennie's guidance; let me know if there's something wrong.



    $textbfF = d textbfP/dtau = m cdot d textbfU/dtau$ in the case of a constant force.



    $textbfF = m cdot textbfA$



    $textbfA cdot textbfA = a_0^2$ - > $textbfF cdot textbfF = fraca_0^2m^2$



    So we have $fraca_0^2m^2 = f_x^2 - f_0^2$ for this particular 4-force.



    Using the result $sinh(eta) = frac1cint :a_0left(tright)dt$ yields



    $$fracbetasqrt1-beta ^2 = fraca_0 tc = frac m sqrtf_x^2 - f_0^2 t c $$



    which can then be inverted to find the components of the 4-velocity of the particle as a function of time!






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
      $endgroup$
      – Adam Latosiński
      8 hours ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486193%2fhow-does-a-particle-move-under-a-constant-4-force%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    The confusion here is that many very able physicists have picked up the idea that motion at constant proper acceleration is somehow motion at "constant 4-acceleration" and thus "constant 4-force", but this is simply not true.



    For rectilinear motion at constant proper acceleration $a_0 = A^mu A_mu$, the invariant size of the 4-acceleration is fixed and so is the direction in space, but the direction in spacetime is not. The direction in spacetime is orthogonal to the 4-velocity and the 4-velocity is certainly changing, and so is the 4-acceleration.



    So the problem here is really about clarity and precision of expression. Many people say "constant 4-force" or "constant 4-acceleration" when what they mean is "constant size of 4-force" or "constant size of 4-acceleration".



    Compare it to another case: motion in a circle at constant speed in Newtonian physics. Would we say of such motion that the acceleration is constant? We probably would, but we are familiar enough with this case that we don't confuse ourselves: we know the acceleration vector is changing, but its size is constant. Would we say the velocity is constant? No we wouldn't. Would we say the force is constant? We might, or we might not. Strictly, as a vector quantity, it is not constant.



    So now let's come back to special relativity. If someone says "calculate the case of motion under a constant 4-force" then really the careful student has little option but to take the statement at face value and try to solve for that case. The solution is difficult and such a force certainly is not pure, and has very little relevance to physics. If the question was "calculate the case of motion under a 4-force of fixed spatial direction and constant invariant size" then the student (whether careful or not) can breath a quick sigh of relief and get on and tackle that standard problem. But if the question said the first while intending to mean the second, then it was an ill-posed question.



    (An example of this came up recently in an Oxford physics exam; we need to improve our procedures to catch such things.)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      3












      $begingroup$

      The confusion here is that many very able physicists have picked up the idea that motion at constant proper acceleration is somehow motion at "constant 4-acceleration" and thus "constant 4-force", but this is simply not true.



      For rectilinear motion at constant proper acceleration $a_0 = A^mu A_mu$, the invariant size of the 4-acceleration is fixed and so is the direction in space, but the direction in spacetime is not. The direction in spacetime is orthogonal to the 4-velocity and the 4-velocity is certainly changing, and so is the 4-acceleration.



      So the problem here is really about clarity and precision of expression. Many people say "constant 4-force" or "constant 4-acceleration" when what they mean is "constant size of 4-force" or "constant size of 4-acceleration".



      Compare it to another case: motion in a circle at constant speed in Newtonian physics. Would we say of such motion that the acceleration is constant? We probably would, but we are familiar enough with this case that we don't confuse ourselves: we know the acceleration vector is changing, but its size is constant. Would we say the velocity is constant? No we wouldn't. Would we say the force is constant? We might, or we might not. Strictly, as a vector quantity, it is not constant.



      So now let's come back to special relativity. If someone says "calculate the case of motion under a constant 4-force" then really the careful student has little option but to take the statement at face value and try to solve for that case. The solution is difficult and such a force certainly is not pure, and has very little relevance to physics. If the question was "calculate the case of motion under a 4-force of fixed spatial direction and constant invariant size" then the student (whether careful or not) can breath a quick sigh of relief and get on and tackle that standard problem. But if the question said the first while intending to mean the second, then it was an ill-posed question.



      (An example of this came up recently in an Oxford physics exam; we need to improve our procedures to catch such things.)






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        The confusion here is that many very able physicists have picked up the idea that motion at constant proper acceleration is somehow motion at "constant 4-acceleration" and thus "constant 4-force", but this is simply not true.



        For rectilinear motion at constant proper acceleration $a_0 = A^mu A_mu$, the invariant size of the 4-acceleration is fixed and so is the direction in space, but the direction in spacetime is not. The direction in spacetime is orthogonal to the 4-velocity and the 4-velocity is certainly changing, and so is the 4-acceleration.



        So the problem here is really about clarity and precision of expression. Many people say "constant 4-force" or "constant 4-acceleration" when what they mean is "constant size of 4-force" or "constant size of 4-acceleration".



        Compare it to another case: motion in a circle at constant speed in Newtonian physics. Would we say of such motion that the acceleration is constant? We probably would, but we are familiar enough with this case that we don't confuse ourselves: we know the acceleration vector is changing, but its size is constant. Would we say the velocity is constant? No we wouldn't. Would we say the force is constant? We might, or we might not. Strictly, as a vector quantity, it is not constant.



        So now let's come back to special relativity. If someone says "calculate the case of motion under a constant 4-force" then really the careful student has little option but to take the statement at face value and try to solve for that case. The solution is difficult and such a force certainly is not pure, and has very little relevance to physics. If the question was "calculate the case of motion under a 4-force of fixed spatial direction and constant invariant size" then the student (whether careful or not) can breath a quick sigh of relief and get on and tackle that standard problem. But if the question said the first while intending to mean the second, then it was an ill-posed question.



        (An example of this came up recently in an Oxford physics exam; we need to improve our procedures to catch such things.)






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The confusion here is that many very able physicists have picked up the idea that motion at constant proper acceleration is somehow motion at "constant 4-acceleration" and thus "constant 4-force", but this is simply not true.



        For rectilinear motion at constant proper acceleration $a_0 = A^mu A_mu$, the invariant size of the 4-acceleration is fixed and so is the direction in space, but the direction in spacetime is not. The direction in spacetime is orthogonal to the 4-velocity and the 4-velocity is certainly changing, and so is the 4-acceleration.



        So the problem here is really about clarity and precision of expression. Many people say "constant 4-force" or "constant 4-acceleration" when what they mean is "constant size of 4-force" or "constant size of 4-acceleration".



        Compare it to another case: motion in a circle at constant speed in Newtonian physics. Would we say of such motion that the acceleration is constant? We probably would, but we are familiar enough with this case that we don't confuse ourselves: we know the acceleration vector is changing, but its size is constant. Would we say the velocity is constant? No we wouldn't. Would we say the force is constant? We might, or we might not. Strictly, as a vector quantity, it is not constant.



        So now let's come back to special relativity. If someone says "calculate the case of motion under a constant 4-force" then really the careful student has little option but to take the statement at face value and try to solve for that case. The solution is difficult and such a force certainly is not pure, and has very little relevance to physics. If the question was "calculate the case of motion under a 4-force of fixed spatial direction and constant invariant size" then the student (whether careful or not) can breath a quick sigh of relief and get on and tackle that standard problem. But if the question said the first while intending to mean the second, then it was an ill-posed question.



        (An example of this came up recently in an Oxford physics exam; we need to improve our procedures to catch such things.)







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 7 hours ago









        Andrew SteaneAndrew Steane

        6,8011839




        6,8011839





















            2












            $begingroup$

            The four-force is the rate of change of four-momentum in respect to the proper time, that is $$ bf F = fracdrm Pdtau$$
            If it was constant that means that $$ bf P(tau) = bf P_0 + bf Ftau$$
            However that would mean that the mass $$m^2(tau) = bf P(tau)cdot bf P(tau) = m_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 $$
            is in general time-dependent. A particle with constant mass can have constant four-acceleration only if $bf P_0cdotbf F= bf Fcdotbf F$. Assuming $m_0>0$ you can however choose a frame in which $bf P_0=(m_0,0,0,0)$, $bf F=(F_0,vecF)$ you have $$ F_0 m_0 = 0 = F_0^2 - vecFcdotvecF$$
            and that means that $F_0=0$, $vecF=vec 0$, $bf F=0$.



            In conclusion, you cannot act with a constant four-force on a massive particle with constant mass.



            If you allow for mass to change, you have four-velocity
            $$ bf u(tau) = frac1m(tau)bf P(tau) = fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2$$
            and the four-position $$ (t(tau),vec x(tau)) = bf x(tau) = int fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 dtau$$Knowing $t(tau)$ and $vec x(tau)$ you may be able to recover $vec x(t)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
              $endgroup$
              – alex1stef2
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alex1stef2 Witch 5-force being a constant four-vector, it's impossible. I suspect that it may be constant in amplitude, but change in direction so that at any time $bf Pcdotbf F=0$; then the mass could be constant. Do you think this is what they mean? I'm not familiar with term "pure force".
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              7 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              A 4-force is said to be "pure" when it does not change the rest mass of the entity on which it acts. Your answer is correct and helpful.
              $endgroup$
              – Andrew Steane
              4 hours ago















            2












            $begingroup$

            The four-force is the rate of change of four-momentum in respect to the proper time, that is $$ bf F = fracdrm Pdtau$$
            If it was constant that means that $$ bf P(tau) = bf P_0 + bf Ftau$$
            However that would mean that the mass $$m^2(tau) = bf P(tau)cdot bf P(tau) = m_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 $$
            is in general time-dependent. A particle with constant mass can have constant four-acceleration only if $bf P_0cdotbf F= bf Fcdotbf F$. Assuming $m_0>0$ you can however choose a frame in which $bf P_0=(m_0,0,0,0)$, $bf F=(F_0,vecF)$ you have $$ F_0 m_0 = 0 = F_0^2 - vecFcdotvecF$$
            and that means that $F_0=0$, $vecF=vec 0$, $bf F=0$.



            In conclusion, you cannot act with a constant four-force on a massive particle with constant mass.



            If you allow for mass to change, you have four-velocity
            $$ bf u(tau) = frac1m(tau)bf P(tau) = fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2$$
            and the four-position $$ (t(tau),vec x(tau)) = bf x(tau) = int fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 dtau$$Knowing $t(tau)$ and $vec x(tau)$ you may be able to recover $vec x(t)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
              $endgroup$
              – alex1stef2
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alex1stef2 Witch 5-force being a constant four-vector, it's impossible. I suspect that it may be constant in amplitude, but change in direction so that at any time $bf Pcdotbf F=0$; then the mass could be constant. Do you think this is what they mean? I'm not familiar with term "pure force".
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              7 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              A 4-force is said to be "pure" when it does not change the rest mass of the entity on which it acts. Your answer is correct and helpful.
              $endgroup$
              – Andrew Steane
              4 hours ago













            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            The four-force is the rate of change of four-momentum in respect to the proper time, that is $$ bf F = fracdrm Pdtau$$
            If it was constant that means that $$ bf P(tau) = bf P_0 + bf Ftau$$
            However that would mean that the mass $$m^2(tau) = bf P(tau)cdot bf P(tau) = m_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 $$
            is in general time-dependent. A particle with constant mass can have constant four-acceleration only if $bf P_0cdotbf F= bf Fcdotbf F$. Assuming $m_0>0$ you can however choose a frame in which $bf P_0=(m_0,0,0,0)$, $bf F=(F_0,vecF)$ you have $$ F_0 m_0 = 0 = F_0^2 - vecFcdotvecF$$
            and that means that $F_0=0$, $vecF=vec 0$, $bf F=0$.



            In conclusion, you cannot act with a constant four-force on a massive particle with constant mass.



            If you allow for mass to change, you have four-velocity
            $$ bf u(tau) = frac1m(tau)bf P(tau) = fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2$$
            and the four-position $$ (t(tau),vec x(tau)) = bf x(tau) = int fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 dtau$$Knowing $t(tau)$ and $vec x(tau)$ you may be able to recover $vec x(t)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            The four-force is the rate of change of four-momentum in respect to the proper time, that is $$ bf F = fracdrm Pdtau$$
            If it was constant that means that $$ bf P(tau) = bf P_0 + bf Ftau$$
            However that would mean that the mass $$m^2(tau) = bf P(tau)cdot bf P(tau) = m_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 $$
            is in general time-dependent. A particle with constant mass can have constant four-acceleration only if $bf P_0cdotbf F= bf Fcdotbf F$. Assuming $m_0>0$ you can however choose a frame in which $bf P_0=(m_0,0,0,0)$, $bf F=(F_0,vecF)$ you have $$ F_0 m_0 = 0 = F_0^2 - vecFcdotvecF$$
            and that means that $F_0=0$, $vecF=vec 0$, $bf F=0$.



            In conclusion, you cannot act with a constant four-force on a massive particle with constant mass.



            If you allow for mass to change, you have four-velocity
            $$ bf u(tau) = frac1m(tau)bf P(tau) = fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2$$
            and the four-position $$ (t(tau),vec x(tau)) = bf x(tau) = int fracbf P_0 + bf Ftausqrtm_0^2 + bf P_0cdotbf Ftau + bf Fcdotbf Ftau^2 dtau$$Knowing $t(tau)$ and $vec x(tau)$ you may be able to recover $vec x(t)$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 3 hours ago

























            answered 8 hours ago









            Adam LatosińskiAdam Latosiński

            2864




            2864











            • $begingroup$
              The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
              $endgroup$
              – alex1stef2
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alex1stef2 Witch 5-force being a constant four-vector, it's impossible. I suspect that it may be constant in amplitude, but change in direction so that at any time $bf Pcdotbf F=0$; then the mass could be constant. Do you think this is what they mean? I'm not familiar with term "pure force".
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              7 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              A 4-force is said to be "pure" when it does not change the rest mass of the entity on which it acts. Your answer is correct and helpful.
              $endgroup$
              – Andrew Steane
              4 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
              $endgroup$
              – alex1stef2
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alex1stef2 Witch 5-force being a constant four-vector, it's impossible. I suspect that it may be constant in amplitude, but change in direction so that at any time $bf Pcdotbf F=0$; then the mass could be constant. Do you think this is what they mean? I'm not familiar with term "pure force".
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              7 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              A 4-force is said to be "pure" when it does not change the rest mass of the entity on which it acts. Your answer is correct and helpful.
              $endgroup$
              – Andrew Steane
              4 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
            $endgroup$
            – alex1stef2
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
            $endgroup$
            – alex1stef2
            8 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @alex1stef2 Witch 5-force being a constant four-vector, it's impossible. I suspect that it may be constant in amplitude, but change in direction so that at any time $bf Pcdotbf F=0$; then the mass could be constant. Do you think this is what they mean? I'm not familiar with term "pure force".
            $endgroup$
            – Adam Latosiński
            7 hours ago





            $begingroup$
            @alex1stef2 Witch 5-force being a constant four-vector, it's impossible. I suspect that it may be constant in amplitude, but change in direction so that at any time $bf Pcdotbf F=0$; then the mass could be constant. Do you think this is what they mean? I'm not familiar with term "pure force".
            $endgroup$
            – Adam Latosiński
            7 hours ago













            $begingroup$
            A 4-force is said to be "pure" when it does not change the rest mass of the entity on which it acts. Your answer is correct and helpful.
            $endgroup$
            – Andrew Steane
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            A 4-force is said to be "pure" when it does not change the rest mass of the entity on which it acts. Your answer is correct and helpful.
            $endgroup$
            – Andrew Steane
            4 hours ago











            0












            $begingroup$

            Under John Rennie's guidance; let me know if there's something wrong.



            $textbfF = d textbfP/dtau = m cdot d textbfU/dtau$ in the case of a constant force.



            $textbfF = m cdot textbfA$



            $textbfA cdot textbfA = a_0^2$ - > $textbfF cdot textbfF = fraca_0^2m^2$



            So we have $fraca_0^2m^2 = f_x^2 - f_0^2$ for this particular 4-force.



            Using the result $sinh(eta) = frac1cint :a_0left(tright)dt$ yields



            $$fracbetasqrt1-beta ^2 = fraca_0 tc = frac m sqrtf_x^2 - f_0^2 t c $$



            which can then be inverted to find the components of the 4-velocity of the particle as a function of time!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              8 hours ago















            0












            $begingroup$

            Under John Rennie's guidance; let me know if there's something wrong.



            $textbfF = d textbfP/dtau = m cdot d textbfU/dtau$ in the case of a constant force.



            $textbfF = m cdot textbfA$



            $textbfA cdot textbfA = a_0^2$ - > $textbfF cdot textbfF = fraca_0^2m^2$



            So we have $fraca_0^2m^2 = f_x^2 - f_0^2$ for this particular 4-force.



            Using the result $sinh(eta) = frac1cint :a_0left(tright)dt$ yields



            $$fracbetasqrt1-beta ^2 = fraca_0 tc = frac m sqrtf_x^2 - f_0^2 t c $$



            which can then be inverted to find the components of the 4-velocity of the particle as a function of time!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              8 hours ago













            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            Under John Rennie's guidance; let me know if there's something wrong.



            $textbfF = d textbfP/dtau = m cdot d textbfU/dtau$ in the case of a constant force.



            $textbfF = m cdot textbfA$



            $textbfA cdot textbfA = a_0^2$ - > $textbfF cdot textbfF = fraca_0^2m^2$



            So we have $fraca_0^2m^2 = f_x^2 - f_0^2$ for this particular 4-force.



            Using the result $sinh(eta) = frac1cint :a_0left(tright)dt$ yields



            $$fracbetasqrt1-beta ^2 = fraca_0 tc = frac m sqrtf_x^2 - f_0^2 t c $$



            which can then be inverted to find the components of the 4-velocity of the particle as a function of time!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Under John Rennie's guidance; let me know if there's something wrong.



            $textbfF = d textbfP/dtau = m cdot d textbfU/dtau$ in the case of a constant force.



            $textbfF = m cdot textbfA$



            $textbfA cdot textbfA = a_0^2$ - > $textbfF cdot textbfF = fraca_0^2m^2$



            So we have $fraca_0^2m^2 = f_x^2 - f_0^2$ for this particular 4-force.



            Using the result $sinh(eta) = frac1cint :a_0left(tright)dt$ yields



            $$fracbetasqrt1-beta ^2 = fraca_0 tc = frac m sqrtf_x^2 - f_0^2 t c $$



            which can then be inverted to find the components of the 4-velocity of the particle as a function of time!







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 9 hours ago









            alex1stef2alex1stef2

            635




            635











            • $begingroup$
              With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              8 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              8 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
            $endgroup$
            – Adam Latosiński
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
            $endgroup$
            – Adam Latosiński
            8 hours ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486193%2fhow-does-a-particle-move-under-a-constant-4-force%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480