Timeline for How can one motivate the relativistic momentum?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2020 at 18:29 | answer | added | Brian Opatosky | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 15, 2020 at 17:20 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 14, 2019 at 22:59 | comment | added | user4552 | What level do you want this at? The answers use sophisticated math. Did you want something you could use in freshman physics? | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 19:30 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Nov 14, 2019 at 19:29 | answer | added | Qmechanic♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 17:25 | answer | added | Stefan | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 18, 2019 at 10:28 | comment | added | lalala | Actually I think your problem starts with your motivation of classical momentum. What you are presenting as motivations, is actually backwards. It is more what you read into it after you know that momentum is mv. That total momentum is a conserved quantity is known after showing that Newtons laws with translationinvariant potential lead to this conserved quantity. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 11:52 | answer | added | Robin Ekman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 3:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/578399216361418753 | ||
| Mar 19, 2015 at 1:44 | vote | accept | Gold | ||
| Mar 19, 2015 at 1:18 | answer | added | Alfred Centauri | timeline score: 10 | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 23:27 | answer | added | image357 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 22:43 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | It occurs to me that your question might be simpler than that. Something along the lines of "How do I convince the students that we might need a new momentum rule?". In that case I go with "Change in velocity is the thing that controls change in momentum, but we already have a new velocity composition rules, so we may need a new rule for the evolution of momentum." | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 21:57 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | I've used arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402024 instead of the limiting glancing collision argument. I don't think it worked terribly well for the students I presented it to, but I like it. Mind you the authors claim to not used the work-energy theorem, but it's differential limit is used. | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 21:51 | history | asked | Gold | CC BY-SA 3.0 |