Can calculus find the momentum of light?

[ctxyz]

Why is it ok for the limits to be Lorentz invariant? I thought the limits were supposed to be the energy of a massless particle?

Because they are numbers.

 

[PAllen]

I don't think that you can do that (pervect tried to use the same argument eralier in the thread).

E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2 is a consequence of E=\gamma m_0 c^2 and p=\gamma m_0 v that results when one does the calculation of the norm of the energy-momentum four-vector. Indeed:

(\gamma m_0 c^2)^2-(\gamma m_0 vc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2

The evaluation of the LHS requires that \gamma is defined properly (i.e. is not infinite) .

I strongly disagree this is the only way of looking at it. You have a theory that covers particles m>0, v < c. You can derive many true expressions in this theory. Some are formally undefined m->0 or v->c; some are not. You extend the theory by using the ones that don't diverge. There could only be a problem if different choices lead to different extensions - then you have ambiguity. In the case of SR, so far as I know, *all* expressions you may derive that allow you to plug in m (or E0) =0 directly, produce the same result.

You insist that momentum (similarly energy) must only be a representation of a particular formula. I insist that momentum can be treated as an independent variable (and except in the most elementary classical formulations, it usually is treated as an independent variable both classically and quantum mechanically).

 

[ctxyz]

I strongly disagree this is the only way of looking at it. You have a theory that covers particles m>0, v < c. You can derive many true expressions in this theory. Some are formally undefined m->0 or v->c; some are not. You extend the theory by using the ones that don't diverge. There could only be a problem if different choices lead to different extensions - then you have ambiguity. In the case of SR, so far as I know, *all* expressions you may derive that allow you to plug in m (or E0) =0 directly, produce the same result.

You insist that momentum (similarly energy) must only be a representation of a particular formula. I insist that momentum can be treated as an independent variable (and except in the most elementary classical formulations, it usually is treated as an independent variable both classically and quantum mechanically).

That was not the contention. The contention is that you are using a consequence to a pair of more fundamental definitions. This consequence you are attempting to use cannot be derived when \gamma is undefined (infinite).

 

[PAllen]

That was not the contention. The contention is that you are using a consequence to a pair of more fundamental definitions. This consequence you are attempting to use cannot be derived when \gamma is undefined (infinite).

Yes it can. We treat the consequence (true for all m>0,v<c) as an independent relationship between kinematic variables to extend coverage of a theory. This is common, valid, thing to do. In effect, without worrying about limiting schemes, we derive that any other extension will lead to inconsistencies.

Yet another way to say this: you declare some particular formulas are fundamental. Nonsense. SR can be derived from numerous different starting points. There is no deep reason to treat the Lorentz transform as the the most fundamental relationship. I can choose a starting point from the Minkowski metric, with 4-vector definitions of kinematic quantities. Then I derive the Lorentz transform (from the metric), and the v<c formulas for kinematic variables as a special case. This is just as valid a formulation of SR. Then not only are there no limits, there is no 'extension' at all. The only problem here is if there were different, consistent ways of doing this. There aren't.

 

[lugita15]

NO. Given a free relativistic test particle. We are letting both the rest mass `m₀` approach zero arbitrarily close from the right, and `v/c` approach unity arbitrarily close from the left.

But it seems that by tying the bounds of m and v/c to the same variable \epsilon, you are controlling the rates at which these two variables go to 0 and 1 respectively. But if you really wanted to take a double limit independent of the path in the m-v plane, shouldn't the bounds of m and v/c be expressed in terms of completely different variables?

 

[ctxyz]

Yet another way to say this: you declare some particular formulas are fundamental.

I don't declare anything, you can check any book and you'll find the norm of the energy-momentum four vector calculated from the definition of the four vector. Simply put, start with \gamma(\vec{p},E/c) and calculate its norm. This is how you get E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2

Nonsense. SR can be derived from numerous different starting points. There is no deep reason to treat the Lorentz transform as the the most fundamental relationship. I can choose a starting point from the Minkowski metric, with 4-vector definitions of kinematic quantities. Then I derive the Lorentz transform (from the metric), and the v<c formulas for kinematic variables as a special case. This is just as valid a formulation of SR. Then not only are there no limits, there is no 'extension' at all. The only problem here is if there were different, consistent ways of doing this. There aren't.

Perfectly valid but not relevant to the argument about how the norm of the energy-momentum four-vector is calculated.

 

[atyy]

Because they are numbers.

So how do I see that I get a different number in another frame?

 

[PAllen]

I don't declare anything, you can check any book and you'll find the norm of the energy-momentum four vector calculated from the definition of the four vector. Simply put, start with \gamma(\vec{p},E/c) and calculate its norm. This is how you get E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2
.

No, the metric is just (+1,-1,-1,-1) (in units with c=1, and timelike signature convention). The 4 momentum is (E,p). No gamma in sight. From the metric definition, the Lorentz transform can be derived as that which takes the metric to the same form. Given the requirement that 4-momentum is a vector, p is simply defined from E and the required transformation rules. Rest mass becomes a consequence rather than an assumption: the norm of the 4-momentum vector. In any given frame, gamma is not used to define anything.

This is a perfectly consistent axiomatic approach to SR. Not only is this valid, but to me, it is a much more satisfying approach to expressing SR in its most general form without limiting arguments.

 

[ctxyz]

No, the metric is just (+1,-1,-1,-1) (in units with c=1, and timelike signature convention). The 4 momentum is (E,p). No gamma in sight.

(\vec{p},E/c)=\gamma (m_0 \vec{v}, m_0c)

By definition.

 

[PAllen]

(\vec{p},E/c)=\gamma (m_0 \vec{v}, m_0c)

By definition.

Are you really unfamiliar with the concept of equivalent sets of axioms? Given a formal system, you can make many choices as to what are axioms and what are consequences. *Nothing* requires this definition to be used. Instead, it can be derived as a *consequence* of the axioms I proposed, for the *special case* of m>0, v< c. You've really never heard that Euclidean geometry can be built on several different axiom sets? That there are half a dozen different axiom systems used to formally derive SR?

Have you also never heard of e.g. analytic continuation? That is an example of the idea that a given formula is undefined outside of some range, but a *unique* continuation consistently (by some definition) extends it. Even without choosing what are axioms and what are consequences, the norm of momentum 4-vector argument is an analog of analytic continuation without need of taking a limit. Even within conventional axioms and definitions, there is a unique extension to m=0 that preserves all expressions that are well defined for m=0.

 

[matphysik]

That was not the contention. The contention is that you are using a consequence to a pair of more fundamental definitions. This consequence you are attempting to use cannot be derived when \gamma is undefined (infinite).

I agree with you.

 

[ctxyz]

Are you really unfamiliar with the concept of equivalent sets of axioms?

Please don't talk down to me.

Given a formal system, you can make many choices as to what are axioms and what are consequences.

Not in the case you are inadvertently trying to use.

\vec{p}=\gamma m_0 \vec{v}

andE=\gamma m_0c^2

are the axioms.

E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2

is a (trivial) consequence valid only for finite \gamma. What you are trying to do is incorrect.

 

[PAllen]

Please don't talk down to me.

Not in the case you are inadvertently trying to use.

\vec{p}=\gamma m_0 \vec{v}

andE=\gamma m_0c^2

are the axioms.

E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2

is a (trivial) consequence valid only for finite \gamma. What you are trying to do is incorrect.

(I use c=1 in all below).
The norm is defined by a metric. The metric (1,-1,-1,-1) applied to (E,p) produces sqrt(E^2 - p^2). No gamma at all. In this framework, gamma comes into play only in the derivation of the group of transforms that preserve the metric. We then define that mass is the norm of 4-momentum. Then we derive that if mass, so defined, is > 0 (special case), there exists a frame where (E,p) = (m,0). Then, from Lorentz transform (derived from metric), applied to this, we get exactly what you claim must be a definition instead as a consequence. When you arrogantly resist logic, I may talk down to you.

You are fixated on the false idea that there is only one way to classify what is axiom and what is derived.

All my other arguments (unique continuation of valid expressions) remain valid and unanswered, as well. You keep repeating that one historic way of looking at things is the only possible way.

 

[ctxyz]

(I use c=1 in all below).
The norm is defined by a metric. The metric (1,-1,-1,-1) applied to (E,p) produces sqrt(E^2 - p^2). No gamma at all.

True, up to this point. Now, from the above, derive E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2. Let's see you obtain the RHS.

When you arrogantly resist logic, I may talk down to you.

You are fixated on the false idea that there is only one way to classify what is axiom and what is derived.

And you are doing it again. The reason that I resist is that you are making incorrect claims.

 

[PAllen]

True, up to this point. Now, from the above, derive E^2-(pc)^2=(m_0c^2)^2. Let's see you obtain the RHS.

This was already covered. I take this as a definition mass, in the special case where the norm > 0.
Then the conventional formulas for m>0 follow from this definition plus the Lorentz transform, which can be derived from the metric. I covered all of this and it really seems you refuse to read.

[Edit: actually, I take this as the definition of mass in all cases]

And you are doing it again. The reason that I resist is that you are making incorrect claims.

Nope.

 

[ctxyz]

This was already covered. I take this as a definition mass, in the special case where the norm > 0.

OK, so how do you get from this axiom , expressed in scalars only to the formula that describes the momentum , as a vector? I am very curious to see your derivation.

 

[PAllen]

OK, so how do you get from this axiom , expressed in scalars only to the formula that describes the momentum , as a vector? I am very curious to see your derivation.

I already described the derivation. Please read post #58 again. To recap:

Given m defined as norm of 4-momentum, then (if and only if) m>0, there exists a frame where the vector takes the form (m,0,0,0). Apply Lorentz transform to this, and you get the conventional representation involving gamma. I get the Lorentz transform as consequence of the metric.

 

[ctxyz]

I already described the derivation. Please read post #58 again.

I read it. I don't see any math. Can you indulge me , please?

 

[PAllen]

I read it. I don't see any math. Can you indulge me , please?

Which part?

- That the Lorentz transform follows from the Minkowski metric is covered in many elementary books. I am not inclined to repeat it. The method is to solve for the transforms that preserve the form of the metric.

- That for a metric of signature (+,-,-,-), then if a vector has a positive norm, there is coordinate transform leading to (norm,0,0,0) is an elementary result of vector algebra that I am not going to repeat the derivation of.

- That given (m,0,0,0), if you apply Lorentz transform you get (m*gamma, -beta*gamma*m,0,0) is one matrix multiply?

 

[ctxyz]

Which part?



- That given (m,0,0,0), if you apply Lorentz transform you get (m*gamma, -beta*gamma*m,0,0) is one matrix multiply?

This part. I don't see you getting any momentum vector. I see you getting a scalar.

 

[PAllen]

This part. I don't see you getting any momentum vector. I see you getting a scalar.

I don't get what you don't get. We started with an energy momentum 4-vector. We defined that its t component is energy and its (x,y,z) components give momentum. We defined its norm as rest energy = energy in frame where momentum is zero. The to relate rest energy to other variables we Lorentz transform this *vector* (m,0,0,0). Then we get the conventional formulas (one matrix multiply). I don't see what part is not completely obvious.

 

[matphysik]

Is the limit a Lorentz invariant? How do we Lorentz transform it?

Why should it be?

 

[matphysik]

But it seems that by tying the bounds of m and v/c to the same variable \epsilon, you are controlling the rates at which these two variables go to 0 and 1 respectively. But if you really wanted to take a double limit independent of the path in the m-v plane, shouldn't the bounds of m and v/c be expressed in terms of completely different variables?

YES. Exactly, "controlling the rates" so that m₀ and v/c approach their respective limits concurrently. This was my objective, since the action of one limit should not occur sooner (or, later) than the other, in the case of light.

 

[matphysik]

Why is it ok for the limits to be Lorentz invariant? I thought the limits were supposed to be the energy of a massless particle?

The exercise was to prove the existence of a limit of the relativistic 3-momentum (p). We are not concerned as to whether p or its limit is Lorentz invariant.

 

[Dickfore]

This isn't right, \gamma=\infty for v=c, so the Jacobian is not zero for v=c.

True. However, the Jacobian does not exist for v = c, so this line in the (v, m)-plane is still singular.

 

[atyy]

The exercise was to prove the existence of a limit of the relativistic 3-momentum (p). We are not concerned as to whether p or its limit is Lorentz invariant.

Shouldn't we get a different number in each frame, in order for the result to be interpreted as the momentum of a massless particle?

For any ε:0<ε<<1, let 0<m₀≤√(ε) and 0<v/c≤√(1-ε). Then,
p=mv= m₀v / √(1 - v²/c²)= m₀(v/c)c² / c√(1 - v²/c²)≤√(ε)√(1-ε)c/√(1-(1-ε))= c√(1-ε)→c, as ε→0+.
Hence, p=O(1) (ε→0+).

In 0<m₀≤√(ε) to make the units come out right, we have to multiply by a reference mass. If we choose the reference mass to be an invariant mass, then it seems we get Mc as a Lorentz invariant limit. If we choose γM as a reference mass, then it seems to Lorentz transform as I naively expect, but I don't know how the limit works then.

 

[matphysik]

How are we varying mass and velocity exactly?

Energy and momentum depend on velocity and mass. You can think of it as a mapping from the (v, m) -> (p, E) The Jacobian of this mapping is:

<br /> \frac{\partial(p, E)}{\partial(v, m)} = \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> m \, \gamma^{3} &amp; \gamma \, v \\<br /> <br /> m \, v \, \gamma^{3} &amp; c^{2} \, \gamma<br /> \end{array}\right| = m \, c^{2} \, \gamma^{4} - m \, v^{2} \, \gamma^{4} = m \, c^{2} \, \gamma^{2}<br />

The Jacobian is zero if m = 0 or \gamma = 0 \Leftrightarrow v = c and these are singular paths of the mapping.

∂(p,E)/∂(v,m)=m₀c²γ² ⇔ m₀=0 and v∈[0,c) is nonsense! What exactly are you (`Dickfore`) trying to prove??

 

[matphysik]

Shouldn't we get a different number in each frame, in order for the result to be interpreted as the momentum of a massless particle?



In 0<m₀≤√(ε) to make the units come out right, we have to multiply by a reference mass. If we choose the reference mass to be an invariant mass, then it seems we get Mc as a Lorentz invariant limit. If we choose γM as a reference mass, then it seems to Lorentz transform as I naively expect, but I don't know how the limit works then.

It is tacitly understood that the variable quantity `√(ε)` has units of mass.

 

[atyy]

It is tacitly understood that the variable quantity `√(ε)` has units of mass.

But if that is the case, won't v/c also pick up units?

 

[matphysik]

True. However, the Jacobian does not exist for v = c, so this line in the (v, m)-plane is still singular.

The family of hyperbolae in the v-m plane that you are alluding to, based on E² - p²c²=m₀²c⁴ (c.f., x² - Ay²=B or, x²/B - y²/(B/A)=1) refer to a free MASSIVE relativistic particle. They themselves will not help! Perhaps an asymptote (?), but since p=mv in E² - p²c²=m₀²c⁴ then we would get (as i have already pointed out), E²=0 if YOU naively set m₀=0.

 

[atyy]

I've mostly avoided discussing PAllen's tack not because I disagree with the heuristics (I'm not sure about all the details, but it should be basically ok, as I agreed with back in post #16), but because the point of the OP was can we do it via a limit? But PAllen's approach suggests we can also frame the question:

When can we consider a null vector the limit of time-like vectors?

 

[Dickfore]

The family of hyperbolae in the v-m plane that you are alluding to, based on E² - p²c²=m₀²c⁴ (c.f., x² - Ay²=B or, x²/B - y²/(B/A)=1)

Could you show that E^{2} - c^{2} p^{2} = m^{2}_{0} \, c^{4} describes a hyperbola in the (v, m)-plane?

 

[matphysik]

Could you show that E^{2} - c^{2} p^{2} = m^{2}_{0} \, c^{4} describes a hyperbola in the (v, m)-plane?

p=mv.

 

[matphysik]

But if that is the case, won't v/c also pick up units?

In YOUR earlier post #76 there was no mention of `v/c`.

It is tacitly understood that the variable quantity `√(1-ε)` is dimensionless.

 

[Dickfore]

p=mv.

This is different from what you stated in the quoted post.

Nice try, but it's still wrong. When we say (v, m)-plane, we mean that the x-axis is v and the y-axis is the (rest) mass m_{0}, so, what you wrote is:

<br /> p = \gamma \, m_{0} \, v<br />

or:

<br /> p^{2} ( 1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}) = m^{2}_{0} \, v^{2}<br />

This is a fourth order polynomial and, hence, not a hyperbola in the discussed plane.

 

[Dickfore]

∂(p,E)/∂(v,m)=m₀c²γ² ⇔ m₀=0 and v∈[0,c) is nonsense! What exactly are you (`Dickfore`) trying to prove??

The Jacobian must exist and be different in order that we are able to invert the mapping in a neighborhood of a certain point. I was simply stating that:
<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> p = \gamma \, m \, v \\<br /> <br /> E = \gamma \, m \, c^{2}, \; \gamma = \left(1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<br /> \end{array}<br />
can be inverted:
<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> v = \frac{p \, c^{2}}{E} \\<br /> <br /> m = \frac{\sqrt{E^{2} - (p \, c)^{2}}}{c^{2}}<br /> \end{array}<br />
These mappings are defined for:
<br /> E^{2} - (p \, c)^{2} \ge 0 \wedge E \neq 0<br />
In the point (p, E) = (0, 0), the inverse mapping is not defined. For example, imagine taking the limit along a straight line E = A \, p, \; |A| \ge c. Then, we have:
<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> v = \frac{c^{2}}{A} \\<br /> <br /> m = \frac{|p| \, \sqrt{A^{2} - c^{2}}}{c^{2}} \rightarrow 0, \; p \rightarrow 0<br /> \end{array}<br />
The mass tends to zero along any of these paths (which does not imply that it is zero yet), but the velocity might have different values.

 

[PAllen]

I've mostly avoided discussing PAllen's tack not because I disagree with the heuristics (I'm not sure about all the details, but it should be basically ok, as I agreed with back in post #16), but because the point of the OP was can we do it via a limit? But PAllen's approach suggests we can also frame the question:

When can we consider a null vector the limit of time-like vectors?

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

[I don't consider my main approach heuristics, but instead a change of decisions about what you consider definition versus consequence. As long as one is willing to define energy and momentum first, in a general way, then derive specific formulas for m>0, there are neither heuristics nor limits involved. Remember, metric and/or Lorentz transform include nothing about kinematics. You have to add those somehow. The traditional way is to start with mass, and take hints from Newtonian mechanics. Clearly, it is just as valid to start with energy/momentum, define rest mass (norm), then derive the traditional momentum/energy formulas for the case of rest mass > 0. ]

At first I thought a vector limit (timelike to null) would be absurd. Now I am not so sure. Coordinate transforms can get a null vector arbitrarily close (0,0,0,0). The limit of the rest frame timelike vector (m,0,0,0) as m goes to zero also reaches (0,0,0,0). Not sure what you can make of this rigorously.

 

[matphysik]

This is different from what you stated in the quoted post.

Nice try, but it's still wrong. When we say (v, m)-plane, we mean that the x-axis is v and the y-axis is the (rest) mass m_{0}, so, what you wrote is:

<br /> p = \gamma \, m_{0} \, v<br />

or:

<br /> p^{2} ( 1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}) = m^{2}_{0} \, v^{2}<br />

This is a fourth order polynomial and, hence, not a hyperbola in the discussed plane.

E²=m₀²c⁴ + p²c²=constant (K², say). In the v-m₀ plane we get, K²v² + m₀²c⁶ = K²c² or,
v²/c² + m₀²/(K²/c⁴) = 1, a family of ellipses (c.f., x²/A + y²/B = 1).

 

[matphysik]

The Jacobian must exist and be different in order that we are able to invert the mapping in a neighborhood of a certain point. I was simply stating that:
<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> p = \gamma \, m \, v \\<br /> <br /> E = \gamma \, m \, c^{2}, \; \gamma = \left(1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<br /> \end{array}<br />
can be inverted:
<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> v = \frac{p \, c^{2}}{E} \\<br /> <br /> m = \frac{\sqrt{E^{2} - (p \, c)^{2}}}{c^{2}}<br /> \end{array}<br />
These mappings are defined for:
<br /> E^{2} - (p \, c)^{2} \ge 0 \wedge E \neq 0<br />
In the point (p, E) = (0, 0), the inverse mapping is not defined. For example, imagine taking the limit along a straight line E = A \, p, \; |A| \ge c. Then, we have:
<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> v = \frac{c^{2}}{A} \\<br /> <br /> m = \frac{|p| \, \sqrt{A^{2} - c^{2}}}{c^{2}} \rightarrow 0, \; p \rightarrow 0<br /> \end{array}<br />
The mass tends to zero along any of these paths (which does not imply that it is zero yet), but the velocity might have different values.

I already know well about Jacobians, and the inverse mapping theorem. Why are you so interested in the point (p, E) = (0, 0) ?

 

[matphysik]

The relativistic momentum formula is p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-v/c^{2}}}. Since photons are massless and travel the speed of light, this formula doesn't apply to them directly, but it seems logical that we could find the momentum of a photon by calculating lim_{(m,v) \rightarrow (0^{+},c^{-})} \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-v/c^{2}}}. Unfortunately, this double limit does not exist, but we can still calculate the limit along specific "path" in the "m-v plane". If we choose a "curve of constant energy", namely \frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-v/c^{2}}} = E, then we find the that the limit along this path is \frac{E}{c}, as expected.

But what a priori reason do we have for choosing such a path, as opposed to any other path? There doesn't seem to be any physical rationale; is there any situation where a physical object gets lighter and lighter as it approaches the speed of light, all the while keeping its total energy constant?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.Thank You in Advance.

You should learn to distinguish between the `rest mass` (m₀) and the `relativistic mass` (m), where m := m₀/√(1 - v²/c²).

 

[atyy]

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

[I don't consider my main approach heuristics, but instead a change of decisions about what you consider definition versus consequence. As long as one is willing to define energy and momentum first, in a general way, then derive specific formulas for m>0, there are neither heuristics nor limits involved. Remember, metric and/or Lorentz transform include nothing about kinematics. You have to add those somehow. The traditional way is to start with mass, and take hints from Newtonian mechanics. Clearly, it is just as valid to start with energy/momentum, define rest mass (norm), then derive the traditional momentum/energy formulas for the case of rest mass > 0. ]

At first I thought a vector limit (timelike to null) would be absurd. Now I am not so sure. Coordinate transforms can get a null vector arbitrarily close (0,0,0,0). The limit of the rest frame timelike vector (m,0,0,0) as m goes to zero also reaches (0,0,0,0). Not sure what you can make of this rigorously.

I meant I agree heuristically with your approach, not that your approach is heuristic, just that I hadn't thought clearly for myself what could or could not be derived. For example, just saying (E,p) is a four-vector isn't enough to specify it, since the 4-current is also a four-vector. The distinction comes, I think with the conservation law that is imposed, which maybe can be addressed by an action.

I think the answer is yes (well, it seems you can do it for http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1003" ). Originally, thinking of the question of the p=γmv limit, I had said I don't know if the limit really exists in a physically sensible way, and we need new axioms to be able to say m=0, and I suggested (w,k) for a field as the new axioms, just from the knee-jerk of always writing E=hf for a photon. However, I had forgotten that one can also just as well take (E,p) without needing to define E=hf (so that we have particles of "pure energy" ).

So I guess the reformulation isn't that interesting. We should still stick to the original question of if we start from p=γmv as a definition, whether the limit can be taken sensibly, as implied in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3393005#post3393005. Rindler's text says something that seems to support it, but I can't find any reference that gives the details.

 

[matphysik]

Could you show that E^{2} - c^{2} p^{2} = m^{2}_{0} \, c^{4} describes a hyperbola in the (v, m)-plane?

YES. You have a valid point. Sorry.

Correction: Replace "family of hyperbolae" with "family of ellipses".

 

[atyy]

In YOUR earlier post #76 there was no mention of `v/c`.

It is tacitly understood that the variable quantity `√(1-ε)` is dimensionless.

Then how can √ε have units of mass?

 

[matphysik]

Then how can √ε have units of mass?

Because it`s associated with `m₀`.

 

[matphysik]

I meant I agree heuristically with your approach, not that your approach is heuristic, just that I hadn't thought clearly for myself what could or could not be derived. For example, just saying (E,p) is a four-vector isn't enough to specify it, since the 4-current is also a four-vector. The distinction comes, I think with the conservation law that is imposed, which maybe can be addressed by an action.

I think the answer is yes (well, it seems you can do it for http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1003" ). Originally, thinking of the question of the p=γmv limit, I had said I don't know if the limit really exists in a physically sensible way, and we need new axioms to be able to say m=0, and I suggested (w,k) for a field as the new axioms, just from the knee-jerk of always writing E=hf for a photon. However, I had forgotten that one can also just as well take (E,p) without needing to define E=hf (so that we have particles of "pure energy" ).

So I guess the reformulation isn't that interesting. We should still stick to the original question of if we start from p=γmv as a definition, whether the limit can be taken sensibly, as implied in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3393005#post3393005. Rindler's text says something that seems to support it, but I can't find any reference that gives the details.

With no disrespect intended, and in Einstein`s defense:

How easy it is to introduce `different` axiomatic derivations of special relativity AFTER having examined Einstein`s original derivation (the most natural).

 

[lugita15]

YES. Exactly, "controlling the rates" so that m₀ and v/c approach their respective limits concurrently. This was my objective, since the action of one limit should not occur sooner (or, later) than the other, in the case of light.

But in order for the double limit to exist, shouldn't we get the same result regardless of the rates at which the variables approach their respective limits? Otherwise you're just calculating the limit along a particular path.

Or at best, a set of particular paths: specifically, only paths in the m-v plane for which the rates of convergence of the two variables satisfy the bounds you have specified.

 

[lugita15]

Because it`s associated with `m₀`.

I really don't understand this. If \sqrt{1-\epsilon} is dimensionless, then so is 1-\epsilon, and so is \epsilon, and thus so is \sqrt{\epsilon}.

 

[atyy]

@PAllen, actually, how does one specify the interaction of a massless classical particle (from the forums, it seems that the gluon is a massless charged particle - but is it a classical particle, rather than a field)? For example, could one have a massless classical electron (I think massless dirac fermions in graphene are fields, not classical particles)?

I 'm guessing that if it is possible to specify interacting relativistic massless classical particles, they'd interact via a field, since the Currie-Jordan-Sudarshan no-interaction theorem prevents direct interaction between relativistic particles in a Hamiltonian formalism. Feynman got around it for massive particles, I suspect because he used a Lagrangian formulation. However, I'd be happy to hear about specifying the dynamics of massless classical particles by any means, even Newton's second law (Dickfore mentioned something some posts back, but I haven't read it carefully).

As a starting point, maybe we can ask if http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2391" method goes through for massless charged particles?

 

[PAllen]

@PAllen, actually, how does one specify the interaction of a massless classical particle (from the forums, it seems that the gluon is a massless particle - but is it a classical particle, rather than a field)? For example, could one have a massless classical electron (I think massless dirac fermions in graphene are fields, not classical particles)?

I 'm guessing that if it is possible to specify interacting relativistic massless classical particles, they'd interact via a field, since the Currie-Jordan-Sudarshan no-interaction theorem prevents direct interaction between relativistic particles in a Hamiltonian formalism. Feynman got around it for massive particles, I suspect because he used a Lagrangian formulation. However, I'd be happy to hear about specifying the dynamics of massless classical particles by any means, even Newton's second law (Dickfore mentioned something some posts back, but I haven't read it carefully).

As a starting point, maybe we can ask if http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2391" method goes through for massless charged particles?

No, all that stuff just says there is no action at a distance. I'm speaking only kinematics - direct collisions between particles. The classical massless particles would have no connection to any classical field theory (any more that classical point particles do, except to respond to them). Then there are no issues at all. Gralla and Ward is only about massive test particles following geodesics in the limit (in GR). I can show, trivially, that massless particles must follow null geodesics.

Massless charged particles + Maxwell fields, I had not thought about. There might be real issues here, in which case I would simply say that a classical theory including E/M precludes massless charged particles. I'm thinking about issues in the EM force law, the fact that a null geodesic can't change direction. I don't know if there is a way to make massless charged particles classically consistent.

[EDIT: As far as I am concerned, the whole treatment of point particles in classical EM is a bit of a kluge. So, in short, my feeling is:

1) For kinematics (which I mentioned in a couple of posts was my focus), these issues are irrelevant. Both elastic and inelastic collisions are perfectly well treated with abstract point particles.

2) For dynamics, at first glance, it seems like it would be hard to use the classical point charge techniques for massless point charges. My reaction is simply to say that a purely classical theory precludes them.

]

 

[lugita15]

The bounds that i used were chosen for a reason. Have fun trying to figure it out

OK, let me try. If we start with \frac{v}{c}\leq\sqrt{1-\epsilon}, then we can get m_{0}\leq\sqrt{\epsilon}\leq\frac{1}{\gamma}. Am I on the right track?