4 Momentum and 4 velocity relationship

bayners123
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
<br /> P = \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> E/c<br /> \\ \bar{p}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

and

<br /> U = \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> \gamma c<br /> \\ \gamma \bar{v}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

right? But I frequently see in textbooks that P = m_0 U. Surely,
m_0 U = <br /> \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> \gamma m_0 c<br /> \\ \gamma m_0 \bar{v}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> =<br /> \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> E/c<br /> \\ \gamma \bar{p}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \neq<br /> \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> E/c<br /> \\ \bar{p}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

So how does this work?
Yours confusedly
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bayners123 said:
<br /> P = \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> E/c<br /> \\ \bar{p}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

and

<br /> U = \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> \gamma c<br /> \\ \gamma \bar{v}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

right? But I frequently see in textbooks that P = m_0 U. Surely,
m_0 U = <br /> \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> \gamma m_0 c<br /> \\ \gamma m_0 \bar{v}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> =<br /> \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> E/c<br /> \\ \gamma \bar{p}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \neq<br /> \left( \begin{array}{c}<br /> E/c<br /> \\ \bar{p}<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

So how does this work?
Yours confusedly

The p in (E/c,p) is three momentum but it is still relativistic three momentum not Newtonian 3-momentum. Thus p=γmv, and your confusion is resolved.
 
PAllen said:
The p in (E/c,p) is three momentum but it is still relativistic three momentum not Newtonian 3-momentum. Thus p=γmv, and your confusion is resolved.

Ah, thanks
 
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...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Back
Top