Is there a fundamental connection between energy, momentum, and mass in physics?

AI Thread Summary
Mass-energy equivalence is a core principle in relativity, highlighting a deep connection between energy, momentum, and mass. Energy and momentum are viewed as different manifestations of the same underlying concept, each governed by important conservation laws. In special relativity, the four-momentum framework links spatial coordinates to momentum and the time coordinate to energy. Quantum mechanics further supports this relationship through operators for momentum and energy, suggesting a symmetry where momentum relates to space and mass-energy relates to time. The discussion raises the question of whether a mass-energy-momentum equivalence principle exists, emphasizing the intricate interplay between these fundamental concepts.
StatusX
Homework Helper
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
2
Mass-energy equivalence is fundamental in relativity, but it seems like energy and momentum are also different aspects of the same thing. They've each got very important conservation laws. In SR, the space coordinates of the four-momentum give the momentum while the time coordinate gives energy. In QM, -ih d/dx is the momentum operator, and ih d/dt is the energy operator. P=h/wavelength and E=h/period. It seems that what momentum is to space, (mass-) energy is to time. What is behind this symmetry? Is there a mass-energy-momentum equivalence principal?

Also, I notice that p=mv classically, where v is in units of distance/time. It almost looks like v is a conversion from time units to space units, where mass-energy is the time unit and momentum is the space unit. Is this a valid way of looking at it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
StatusX said:
Mass-energy equivalence is fundamental in relativity, but it seems like energy and momentum are also different aspects of the same thing. They've each got very important conservation laws. In SR, the space coordinates of the four-momentum give the momentum while the time coordinate gives energy. In QM, -ih d/dx is the momentum operator, and ih d/dt is the energy operator. P=h/wavelength and E=h/period. It seems that what momentum is to space, (mass-) energy is to time. What is behind this symmetry? Is there a mass-energy-momentum equivalence principal?

Also, I notice that p=mv classically, where v is in units of distance/time. It almost looks like v is a conversion from time units to space units, where mass-energy is the time unit and momentum is the space unit. Is this a valid way of looking at it?

You are on the right general track. You might want to look at Wikipedia's article on theorem[/URL]

The derivation of Noether's theorem requires that one use the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulation of physics - one way of describing this is that physics is described by the principle of "least action". There is a much more formal definition on the wikipedia web page - it's formal to the point of unintelligibility to the non-Phd, unfortunately.

Anyway, given this basic formulation, one can say that energy conservation is associated with time translation symmetry, and that momentum conservation is associated with space translation symmetry.

Because the Lorentz transform "mixes" time and space together, it also "mixes" momentum and energy together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top