Momentum in the time direction

snoopies622
Messages
852
Reaction score
29
I'm trying to understand the stress-energy tensor and I keep seeing the phrase, "momentum in the time direction is energy". I don't understand this. In the definitions of the momentum four-vector that I've found, the time component is the object's rest mass times the speed of light times gamma.

Here's an example:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentumFour-Vector.html

This gives units of momentum, not of energy. What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
snoopies622 said:
I'm trying to understand the stress-energy tensor and I keep seeing the phrase, "momentum in the time direction is energy". I don't understand this. In the definitions of the momentum four-vector that I've found, the time component is the object's rest mass times the speed of light times gamma.

Here's an example:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentumFour-Vector.html

This gives units of momentum, not of energy. What am I missing?
You are just missing a conversion factor of c. This is common when using 4-vectors. Remember that the first coordinate of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector" . In this case the timelike component is E/c in order to make it dimensionally consistent with the spacelike momentum components. But E/c is still understood to represent energy in the same way that ct represents time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Momentum is energy flux. Classically (pre-Einstein) one thinks of momentum as the result of movement through space. Consider a particle in its rest frame (v = 0). Is it still moving? Absolutely: It's moving from one second to the next (through time). This is momentum in the time direction.

Schutz's book has a great chapter on this very topic.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all, especially DaleSpam. I suspected that it was simply a matter of leaving out c (selecting units so that c=1) but wasn't certain.

Up to now I've been confused about how the stress-energy tensor is put together because the components as named (energy density, momentum density, viscosity, etc.) all seem to have different dimensions/units. Are they all actually joules per cubic meter? Are the c's the only invisible constants/variables?
 
Last edited:
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...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top