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
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...

Similar threads

Back
Top