Defining Velocity, Momentum, and Energy in Minkowski Space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around defining velocity, momentum, and energy within the context of Minkowski space, focusing on geometrical arguments and Lorentz transformations. Participants explore the relationships between these physical quantities without relying on coordinate systems.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a definition for velocity using Lorentz transformation coefficients, stating that the velocity of a frame of reference can be expressed as u_i = -delta_i^4/delta_4^4.
  • Another participant mentions that the four-velocity is the unit tangent to a particle's worldline and suggests that the four-momentum can be obtained by multiplying the four-velocity by the proper rest mass, although they seek a geometric argument for this.
  • A different participant introduces a formulation for the four-momentum and its relation to energy and momentum, but admits uncertainty about their correctness.
  • One participant offers a matrix demonstration to derive the three-dimensional velocity from the Lorentz transformation, inviting feedback on its validity.
  • Another participant asserts that the three-momentum is simply mass times three-velocity, while noting that the relationship between three-energy and four-energy is more complex and only approximate.
  • Some participants express a desire to focus on three-vectors, emphasizing the need to start with four-vectors in Minkowski space to define them properly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the definitions and relationships between velocity, momentum, and energy, with no consensus reached. Some participants agree on certain formulations, while others question or refine these ideas, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of geometrical arguments and the challenge of defining quantities without reference to coordinate systems. There are indications of missing assumptions and unresolved steps in the mathematical formulations presented.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying theoretical physics, particularly in the areas of special relativity and the geometry of spacetime, as well as students seeking to understand the relationships between physical quantities in Minkowski space.

fcsc
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm not completely sure were this post must be (math or here).

But i got a question, I want to define velocity, momentum and energy. These looks like a simple task but let me explain the problem.

I'm working in the Minkowski space, and the lorentz transformations (just geometrical one's) and i can only use geometrical arguments.

For example, if we got a lorentz transformation, we could define the velocity of the frame of reference (respect one that is quite, like a lab) as

u_i = -delta_i^4/delta_4^4

where delta^j_i is the (j,i) coeficient of the lorentz transformation.

(Extract from The Geometry of Minkowski spacetime. Naber. Springer-Verlag)

I'm completely sure these work it could be found at wikipedia (some time ago i found it there) but i don't know why i can't find it now.

If somebody could help me I will be very pleased, if you only read this thanks anyway.
(sorry if my english is not good enough)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fcsc said:
I'm not completely sure were this post must be (math or here).

But i got a question, I want to define velocity, momentum and energy. These looks like a simple task but let me explain the problem.

I'm working in the Minkowski space, and the lorentz transformations (just geometrical one's) and i can only use geometrical arguments.

For example, if we got a lorentz transformation, we could define the velocity of the frame of reference (respect one that is quite, like a lab) as

u_i = -delta_i^4/delta_4^4

where delta^j_i is the (j,i) coeficient of the lorentz transformation.

(Extract from The Geometry of Minkowski spacetime. Naber. Springer-Verlag)

I'm completely sure these work it could be found at wikipedia (some time ago i found it there) but i don't know why i can't find it now.

If somebody could help me I will be very pleased, if you only read this thanks anyway.
(sorry if my english is not good enough)
The four-velocity is easy, it is just the unit tangent to the particle's worldline. To get from the four-velocity to the four-momentum (which contains energy) all you have to do is multiply by the (proper) rest mass. But I don't know any geometric argument for doing that.
 
I assume you need those properies without reference to coordinate systems.
If P is the relevant four-momentum, and U is an observer's four-velocity, PU is the Energy, P-(PU)U is the momentum.
If V is the particles four-velocity, its ordinary velocity relative to the observer is V/(VU)-U.
I made this up right now, so it may be wrong.
 
Welcome to PF!

fcsc said:
For example, if we got a lorentz transformation, we could define the velocity of the frame of reference (respect one that is quite, like a lab) as

u_i = -delta_i^4/delta_4^4

where delta^j_i is the (j,i) coeficient of the lorentz transformation.

Hi fcsc ! Welcome to PF! :smile:

You're asking for a geometrical demonstration that the three-dimensional velocity (u1, u2, u3) is (∆14, ∆24, ∆34)/∆44.

Will you accept a matrix demonstration?

Any observer, at time t on his own clock, has 4-position (0,0,0,t) in his own frame, which is (0,0,0,t) in the other frame, which is t(∆14, ∆24, ∆34, ∆44).

44 is the time dilation, so when the other observer's clocks says t/∆44, the 4-position is t(∆14, ∆24, ∆34, ∆44)/∆44.

So the 3-position is (∆14, ∆24, ∆34)(t/∆44) at time t/∆44.

So the 3-velocity is (∆14, ∆24, ∆34)/∆44 :smile:
 
Thanks everybody for these quick answer,

tiny-tim, is these demostration the one I'm looking for, would you have an idea in how to find the energy and momentum.

Dale and Ich, you had been helpful too but I'm looking for 3-vectors.
 
fcsc said:
Thanks everybody for these quick answer,

tiny-tim, is these demostration the one I'm looking for, would you have an idea in how to find the energy and momentum.

Dale and Ich, you had been helpful too but I'm looking for 3-vectors.

Hi fcsc ! :smile:

The 3-momentum is mass times 3-velocity.

The mass is m times ∆44.

So the 3-momentum is very simple: (p1, p2, p3) = m(∆14, ∆24, ∆34). :smile:

The 3-energy is more complicated. :frown:

You see, the 3-momentum is exactly the first three components of the 4-momentum … which is what you'd expect!

But the 3-energy isn't exactly related to the 4-energy … it's only an approximation.

The 4-energy is mc²∆44, which is mc²/√(1 - v²/c²).

And mc²/√(1 - v²/c²) is approximately mc² + 1/2mv².

So the 3-energy, 1/2mv², is approximately the 4-energy minus mc², = mc²(∆44 - 1). :smile:
 
Dale and Ich, you had been helpful too but I'm looking for 3-vectors.
I'm talking about 3-vectors, too. But in order to define those, you have to start somewhere. If if this somwhere is Minkowski space, you start with 4-vectors (directly representing physical quantities) and construct 3-vectors from them.That's what I did.
 
Ich said:
I assume you need those properies without reference to coordinate systems.
If P is the relevant four-momentum, and U is an observer's four-velocity, PU is the Energy, P-(PU)U is the momentum.
If V is the particles four-velocity, its ordinary velocity relative to the observer is V/(VU)-U.
I made this up right now, so it may be wrong.

I'm completely agree with your point Ich, i know you speak about 3-vectors i don't explain weel myself, my problem is that i don't have U, or PU because these is what i need to define from [tex]\Delta_{ij}[/tex].

Thank you to everybody, these forum is just great ;)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K