Laser recoil, relativistic momentum and whether mass counts

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Laser recoil, relativistic momentum and whether mass counts

Postby Sableagle » Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:29 pm UTC

Kyle of Because Science did a video about "The Death Star's OTHER Fatal Flaw," which you can see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6-q2edmiGk

His argument was that the recoil of a laser with that much power would have shot the weapon out of the far side of the station, or launched the whole station off into space, or something like that. I think he went with solid metal ball of incredible strength and said it would be launched into the distance.

Here's the calculation for the recoil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6-q2edmiGk&t=260s

His answer was 7.5 * 1023

We know it has energy, therefore it must have momentum, but to have momentum it must have mass and he crossed out part of the equation because it doesn't have mass. Well, we know its velocity, so
E2 = (m v)2 c2 + m2 c4 becomes
E2 = m2 c4 + m2 c4 = 2 m2 c4 so
E = sqr(2) m c2 ..... Oh, hello there, mutant version of simplified kinetic energy equation.
Right, so 2.2 x 1032 J / 1271031076302266264 = m = 1730877279390832 kg,
which means its momentum is 5.189 x 1023 kg m/s.
Right?

We disagree by a factor of sqr(2) because he crossed out the rest mass mc2 part and I left it in and calculated it using the mass derived from the other part.

Does that part count, or was he right to cross it out? Does light have mass in the sense of momentum but no mass in the sense of mc2, both at the same time?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: Laser recoil, relativistic momentum and whether mass counts

Postby chenille » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:23 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:E2 = (m v)2 c2 + m2 c4

This formula is wrong. It looks like you are supposing p = mv? But that's only the non-relativistic approximation and won't work here.
Instead momentum is part of a 4-vector together with energy. An object with mass will have its own reference frame, where it has p = 0 and energy E = mc2. If we change to a reference frame where it is traveling v we end up getting

p = mv/(1-v2/c2)1/2 = mv + (1/2)mv3/c2 + (3/8)mv5/c4 + (5/16)mv7/c6...
E = mc2/(1-v2/c2)1/2 = mc2 + (1/2)mv2 + (3/8)mv4/c2 + (5/16)mv6/c4...

For very small v these approximate p = mv and E = mc2 + (1/2)mv2, but as v grows those become worse and worse underestimates, and instead both go to infinity as v nears c. So this whole approach fails for light, when v = c. That's only possible when m = 0, and then E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 becomes |p| = E/c.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Laser recoil, relativistic momentum and whether mass counts

Postby Sableagle » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:42 pm UTC

Right, then. Momentum does not, in fact, equal mass times velocity. Wow.

Thank you, chenille.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3649
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

Re: Laser recoil, relativistic momentum and whether mass counts

Postby PM 2Ring » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:52 am UTC

Sableagle wrote:Right, then. Momentum does not, in fact, equal mass times velocity. Wow.

Thank you, chenille.

Exactly. p = mv is just a Newtonian approximation. OTOH, momentum is velocity times relativistic mass, but in modern treatments of SR relativistic mass is a deprecated concept because it can be misleading, and if you don't use it carefully it's very easy to make mistakes and jump to incorrect conclusions.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Laser recoil, relativistic momentum and whether mass counts

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:52 am UTC

F = dpdt still works, right? One out of three laws isn't so bad, Newton. (Of course, the F = ma form does not hold.)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests