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

Do equal angles necessarily mean a polygon is regular?

Why is the Turkish president's surname spelt in Russian as Эрдоган, with г?

Fetch and print all properties of an object graph as string

Removing class pointer from member function pointer type

Abel-Jacobi map on symmetric product of genus 4 curve

No IMPLICIT_CONVERSION warning in this query plan

How to determine what is the correct level of detail when modelling?

Story-based adventure with functions and relationships

In the Marvel universe, can a human have a baby with any non-human?

Should I tell my insurance company I'm making payments on my new car?

Does Marvel have an equivalent of the Green Lantern?

How to get cool night-vision without lame drawbacks?

Is my Rep in Stack-Exchange Form?

How to perform Login Authentication at the client-side?

How to split an equation over two lines?

What happens when your group is victim of a surprise attack but you can't be surprised?

Is this one of the engines from the 9/11 aircraft?

Could Sauron have read Tom Bombadil's mind if Tom had held the Palantir?

Is there any set of 2-6 notes that doesn't have a chord name?

C-152 carb heat on before landing in hot weather?

Intuitively, why does putting capacitors in series decrease the equivalent capacitance?

STM Microcontroller burns every time

First-year PhD giving a talk among well-established researchers in the field

Alphabet completion rate



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






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








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
    Jun 15 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Jun 15 at 11:39










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Jun 15 at 12:24











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Jun 15 at 14:00










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Jun 15 at 16:47

















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
    Jun 15 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Jun 15 at 11:39










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Jun 15 at 12:24











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Jun 15 at 14:00










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Jun 15 at 16:47













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 Jun 15 at 11:37









Qmechanic

110k12 gold badges210 silver badges1292 bronze badges




110k12 gold badges210 silver badges1292 bronze badges










asked Jun 15 at 11:23









alex1stef2alex1stef2

635 bronze badges




635 bronze badges







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Jun 15 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Jun 15 at 11:39










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Jun 15 at 12:24











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Jun 15 at 14:00










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Jun 15 at 16:47












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Jun 15 at 11:30










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Jun 15 at 11:39










  • $begingroup$
    Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
    $endgroup$
    – Run like hell
    Jun 15 at 12:24











  • $begingroup$
    @JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Jun 15 at 14:00










  • $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
    $endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Jun 15 at 16:47







1




1




$begingroup$
Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Jun 15 at 11:30




$begingroup$
Constant four force means constant proper acceleration i.e. the solution is the Rindler coordinates.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Jun 15 at 11:30












$begingroup$
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
Jun 15 at 11:39




$begingroup$
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
Jun 15 at 11:39












$begingroup$
Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
Jun 15 at 12:24





$begingroup$
Take a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)
$endgroup$
– Run like hell
Jun 15 at 12:24













$begingroup$
@JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
$endgroup$
– Andrew Steane
Jun 15 at 14:00




$begingroup$
@JohnRennie your reply is sort of partly right, but more wrong than right IMO; see my answer below.
$endgroup$
– Andrew Steane
Jun 15 at 14:00












$begingroup$
@AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Jun 15 at 16:47




$begingroup$
@AndrewSteane yes, I agree. I made exactly the mistake you mention in your answer.
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Jun 15 at 16:47










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

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
      Jun 15 at 12:47










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      Jun 15 at 14:08











    • $begingroup$
      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
      Jun 15 at 16:31


















    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
      Jun 15 at 12:33













    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









    4












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      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









      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        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 Jun 15 at 13:58









        Andrew SteaneAndrew Steane

        7,1911 gold badge8 silver badges40 bronze badges




        7,1911 gold badge8 silver badges40 bronze badges























            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
              Jun 15 at 12:47










            • $begingroup$
              @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
              Jun 15 at 14:08











            • $begingroup$
              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
              Jun 15 at 16:31















            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
              Jun 15 at 12:47










            • $begingroup$
              @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
              Jun 15 at 14:08











            • $begingroup$
              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
              Jun 15 at 16:31













            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 Jun 15 at 17:28

























            answered Jun 15 at 12:31









            Adam LatosińskiAdam Latosiński

            3594 bronze badges




            3594 bronze badges











            • $begingroup$
              The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
              $endgroup$
              – alex1stef2
              Jun 15 at 12:47










            • $begingroup$
              @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
              Jun 15 at 14:08











            • $begingroup$
              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
              Jun 15 at 16:31
















            • $begingroup$
              The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
              $endgroup$
              – alex1stef2
              Jun 15 at 12:47










            • $begingroup$
              @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
              Jun 15 at 14:08











            • $begingroup$
              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
              Jun 15 at 16:31















            $begingroup$
            The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
            $endgroup$
            – alex1stef2
            Jun 15 at 12:47




            $begingroup$
            The question itself specifies that it is a constant pure force, which would require that the mass is a constant.
            $endgroup$
            – alex1stef2
            Jun 15 at 12:47












            $begingroup$
            @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
            Jun 15 at 14:08





            $begingroup$
            @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
            Jun 15 at 14:08













            $begingroup$
            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
            Jun 15 at 16:31




            $begingroup$
            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
            Jun 15 at 16:31











            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
              Jun 15 at 12:33















            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
              Jun 15 at 12:33













            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 Jun 15 at 12:19









            alex1stef2alex1stef2

            635 bronze badges




            635 bronze badges











            • $begingroup$
              With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              Jun 15 at 12:33
















            • $begingroup$
              With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
              $endgroup$
              – Adam Latosiński
              Jun 15 at 12:33















            $begingroup$
            With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
            $endgroup$
            – Adam Latosiński
            Jun 15 at 12:33




            $begingroup$
            With the constant four-force the mass won't be constant.
            $endgroup$
            – Adam Latosiński
            Jun 15 at 12:33

















            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

            Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

            Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

            Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?