What are the meaning of monopole character and dipole character?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xiaomaclever
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dipole Monopole
xiaomaclever
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
In Hehl's paper "general relativity with spin and torsion:Foundations and prospects",there is a sentence ," in the macrophysical limit, mass (or energy-momentum) adds up because of its monopole character, where as spin , being of dipole character, usually averages out." anybody who know the meanings of this sentence explains for me please. thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
xiaomaclever said:
In Hehl's paper "general relativity with spin and torsion:Foundations and prospects",there is a sentence ," in the macrophysical limit, mass (or energy-momentum) adds up because of its monopole character, where as spin , being of dipole character, usually averages out." anybody who know the meanings of this sentence explains for me please. thanks.

Can you give the whole paragraph so we can get the context?
 
xiaomaclever said:
In Hehl's paper "general relativity with spin and torsion:Foundations and prospects",there is a sentence ," in the macrophysical limit, mass (or energy-momentum) adds up because of its monopole character, where as spin , being of dipole character, usually averages out." anybody who know the meanings of this sentence explains for me please. thanks.

I'm not familiar with the terminolgy as used in this context but I think what they are getting at is that spin is either up or down and nothing inbetween (it's dipole nature) and can cancel out while mass is always positive (monopole nature, even anti particles have positive mass) so it is additive.

In this context it is a bit like charge which averages out because of its dipole positive or negative nature, or is it tripole if we count neutral?

The statement "mass (or energy-momentum) adds up" has to be used with caution because the result of the energy-momentum equation is rest mass and does not add up in the normal way. A pair of photons can have non zero rest mass when considered as a total system while the individual photons that make up the system have zero rest mass. It would be better to consider the inertial mass represented by the energy term of the energy-momentum equation which is a scalar quantity which is directionless (scalar) and always adds up in the normal way in the rest frame of a closed system.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top