I Meaning of the invariants built from the angular momentum tensor

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter SiennaTheGr8
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor
SiennaTheGr8
Messages
508
Reaction score
199
TL;DR Summary
What is the significance of the Lorentz-invariants you can construct from the angular momentum rank-2 tensor?
In special relativity, there's an antisymmetric rank-2 angular-momentum tensor that's "structurally" very similar to the electromagnetic field tensor. Much like you can extract from the latter (and its Hodge dual) a pair of invariants through double contractions (##\vec E \cdot \vec B## and ##E^2 - B^2##), you can extract from the former a pair of Lorentz invariants: ##\vec L \cdot \vec N## and ##L^2 - N^2##, where ##\vec L = \vec r \times \vec p## is the angular-momentum pseudovector and ##\vec N = E \vec r - t \vec p## (of course, ##\vec r## is three-position, ##\vec p## is three-momentum, ##E## is energy, and ##t## is coordinate time). The first scalar (##\vec L \cdot \vec N##) is trivially zero (which I suppose makes it Poincaré-invariant, too). The second (##L^2 - N^2##) is not, but reduces to ##m^2 r^2## in the center-of-momentum frame.

I'm wondering whether the Lorentz-invariance of ##L^2 - N^2## has a straightforward physical interpretation. In the center-of-momentum frame, I guess ##L^2 - N^2## means ##\sum_{i = 1}^n m_i \vec r_i \cdot m_i \vec r_i## (for a system of ##n## particles), which is (maybe) notable because it's related to the numerator of the Newtonian center-of-mass, ##\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^n m_i \vec r_i}{\sum_{i = 1}^n m_i}##. That's all I've got. Am I missing something obvious here? Does the Lorentz-invariance of ##L^2 - N^2## have a simple physical meaning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SiennaTheGr8 said:
That's all I've got. Am I missing something obvious here? Does the Lorentz-invariance of ##L^2 - N^2## have a simple physical meaning?
You correctly infer that ##\vec{N}## relates to the so-called relativistic "center-of-energy" or "center-of-inertia" (see e.g. Landau & Lifshitz, Classical Theory of Fields, pg. 41). Note that for an isolated system, conservation requires that the ten quantities ##E,\vec{p},\vec{L},\vec{N}## all be constant. So in particular, ##\text{const.}=\frac{\vec{N}}{E}=\vec{r}-\left(\frac{\vec{p}}{E}\right)t\equiv\vec{r}_{0}-\vec{v}_{0}t##, where ##\vec{r}_{0},\vec{v}_{0}## are the position and velocity of the system's center-of-energy. But for this reason, Weinberg (Gravitation and Cosmology, pg. 47) says about ##\vec{N}##: "These components have no clear physical significance, and in fact can be made to vanish if we fix the origin of coordinates to coincide with the "center of energy" at ##t=0##, that is, if at ##t=0## the moment ##\int x^{i}T^{00}d^{3}x## vanishes." He then points out that this is due to the fact that the angular-momentum tensor ##J^{\alpha\beta}## is not invariant under 4-translations since orbital angular momentum is always defined with respect to some center of rotation. Instead, to characterize the "internal" portion of the angular momentum, one must use the so-called Pauli-Lubanski spin vector ##S_{\alpha}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\,\frac{J^{\beta\gamma}P^{\delta}}{\sqrt{P^{2}}}##, which is sensibly invariant under translations and reduces in the rest frame to the ordinary 3D total angular momentum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...

Similar threads

Back
Top