Time as coordinate in many-body relativistic mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of time as a coordinate in many-body relativistic mechanics, specifically addressing how to describe a system of N particles within the framework of special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). Participants explore the implications of simultaneity, synchronization of clocks, and the formulation of the action for such systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a relativistic system should be described by 4N coordinates, suggesting that this complicates the definition of the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, and action for the system as a whole.
  • Another participant agrees that 4N coordinates are necessary in SR due to the lack of a well-defined simultaneity, noting that non-interacting particles can still be analyzed, but interactions complicate solvability.
  • A participant expresses concern that the concept of a collective state may break down without simultaneity, proposing that synchronization of clocks via light signals could allow for a common reference time, although acknowledging the limitations posed by the "Twin Paradox."
  • In response, another participant asserts that defining the state of the system is feasible using arbitrary synchronization procedures in GR, allowing for different hypersurfaces of simultaneity.
  • A later post seeks clarification on whether a single parameter can be used to parametrize the system, suggesting a specific form for the action integral involving the dynamics of the particles.
  • One participant speculates that the Einstein-Hilbert action may be relevant but admits to being at the limits of their understanding of GR.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of simultaneity and the feasibility of defining a collective state for the system. While some argue that synchronization can provide a common reference, others question the validity of such an approach in the context of relativistic mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants assume a fixed metric while discussing the dynamics of "test particles" in curved spacetime, which may limit the generality of their arguments. The discussion also highlights the complexities involved in formulating the action for a system of particles in relativistic contexts.

pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
In pre-relativistic mechanics a system of N particles would be described by 3N coordinates x_i,y_i,z_i parametrized by time t.

Would a relativistic system be properly described by 4N coordinates x_i,y_i,z_i,t_i, with a time variable for each particle? If so, how can we ever speak of the Lagrangian of the system as a whole or the Hamiltonian of the system as a whole? Or the action of the system as a whole?

In general, can we find a single quantity to parametrize the state of a system of N particles?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes we need 4n coords in SR as the notation of simultaneity is not well defined. If we are dealing with non-interacting particles (or interacting with some external field) this is not problem and we can still solve our system. However if the particles in our system are interacting then our system may not be solvable.
 
I had never thought about the implications of this before, but doesn't this mean that the concept of the state of a system breaks down since, without simultaneity, there is no way to refer to all the particles collectively. All we can say is that particle 1 is at x_1 when its clock reads \tau_1 and that particle two is at x_2 when its clock reads \tau_2.

Or is there? Can we synchronize all the clocks in the system via light signals? In general they will never agree with each again after synchronization (the "Twin Paradox") but at least we can then choose a single time and refer to position and momentum of each particle when its clock reads that specific time.

That is, if we can indeed synchronize the clocks so that we choose positions x_1(\tau_1=0),...,x_N(\tau_N=0), then thereafter we can specify any t and refer to the "state" of the system associated with t as the positions x_1(\tau_1=t),...,x_N(\tau_N=t) and the momenta p_1(\tau_1=t),...,p_N(\tau_N=t).

That's just off the top of my head. Can an expert please clarify?
 
There is no problem with defining the state of the system. With GR you can use any arbitrary synchronization procedure that you wish and thus use arbitrary hypersurfaces of simultaneity to define your state.
 
Thanks. I'm pondering it.
 
After some more thought I realize it is still not clear to me. Let me be a little more explicit. For the sake of this discussion I assume that though our spacetime may be curved, we are dealing with "test particles" and the metric is fixed.

Let x_j^\mu denote the four-vector of the jth particle. The question amounts to, I think, can we in general parametrize the system with a single parameter s such that the action

S=\int{L(x_1^\mu(s),...,x_N^\mu(s),\frac{dx_1^\mu}{ds},...,\frac{dx_N^\mu}{ds})ds}

determines the correct dynamics?
 
I believe that you are looking for the Einstein-Hilbert action, but I'm afraid that I am at the limit of my GR (or maybe a little beyond).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K