Timeline for A momentum equation validity for all particles? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 20:25 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 19:27 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 31, 2016 at 21:45 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2016 at 19:08 | comment | added | Mockingbird | @ a curious mind Is this edit now legitimate for this question to be not termed duplicate? | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 19:06 | history | edited | Mockingbird | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
body
|
| Oct 30, 2016 at 15:30 | history | closed | ACuriousMind♦ | Duplicate of How to get the accurate relativistic momentum form for photons? [duplicate] | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 12:58 | answer | added | Alfred Centauri | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 11:18 | comment | added | Robin Ekman | It is the correct expression for the relativistic momentum of a massive particle. But that is a derived result, it is not a definition. The definition of momentum is $\partial L/\partial x$, or the quantity conserved according to Noether's theorem because of translation invariance. | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 10:59 | comment | added | Mockingbird | I think it is the relativistic momentum. But if you do not take it as momentum, then according to the formula you have to introduce relative mass which also gets an indeterminate form | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 10:58 | answer | added | hsinghal | timeline score: 0 | |
| S Oct 30, 2016 at 10:09 | history | edited | Robin Ekman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2016 at 10:06 | comment | added | Robin Ekman | (1) is not the definition of momentum. | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 9:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 30, 2016 at 10:09 | |||||
| Oct 30, 2016 at 9:12 | comment | added | Wood | $(1)$ is only valid for $v\neq c$. | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 8:56 | history | asked | Mockingbird | CC BY-SA 3.0 |