I Newtonian 4-Momentum Norm Analogue

greypilgrim
Messages
579
Reaction score
44
Hi.

I read that the Lorentz invariance Minkowski norm of the four-momentum
$$E^2-c^2\cdot \mathbf{p}^2=m^2\cdot c^4$$
has no analogue in Newtonian physics. But what about
$$E-\frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2m}=0\quad ?$$
It might look trivial by the definition of kinetic energy, but it's still a relation between energy and momentum that's invariant under Galilei transforms.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not a relation between energy and momentum but between kinetic energy and momentum. It doesn't work with the total energy.
 
Where did you read it?

You're right; I think the idea is that the Newtonian expression is not the inner product of two four-vectors, since such a product does not really exist in Newtonian spacetime; there is no (non-degenerate) metric.
 
The natural candidate is ##mu^a## where ##m## is the [rest] mass and ##u^a## is the 4-velocity.
Presumably, there is a mass-shell in energy-momentum space which would look similar to the [timelike but degenerate] Galilean metric.
In https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ti58l2sair, set E=0.
The temporal component would be ##m## (or in standard units of momentum ##mc## where ##c## is a convenient velocity unit with no other significance).
To get the spatial components ##m\vec v##, one would use the spacelike-but-degenerate Galilean metric.
(To do this right, one needs to first write down the postulated structure [e.g., (M,##t_a##, ##h^{ab}##, ...) akin to specifying (M,g) for a spacetime] then formulate the dynamics on it.)
You can do 4-momentum conservation by vector addition.. which amounts to conservation of mass and conservation of spatial-momentum.

Kinetic energy should really be calculated using the Work-energy-theorem.
 
DrStupid said:
It's not a relation between energy and momentum but between kinetic energy and momentum. It doesn't work with the total energy.

So in the relativistic case, the equation is about total energy? Then I'm running into problems with an answer I got in a different thread:
stevendaryl said:
Specifically for the electromagnetic field, the conserved energy is given by:

E = \gamma mc^2 + q \Phi

where \Phi is the electric potential.

Say the left side of
$$E^2=c^2\cdot \mathbf{p}^2+m^2\cdot c^4$$
is total energy squared. Consider two identical particles with the same velocity where one is in an electric potential and the other is not. Then their total energies are different, but their momentum is the same. So one of those particles must violate above equation.
 
greypilgrim said:
So in the relativistic case, the equation is about total energy?

Yes.

greypilgrim said:
Then I'm running into problems with an answer I got in a different thread: [...]

I'm not sure if the term "total energy" makes much sense in this example. It doesn't refer to the total system because the source of the potential is not included.
 
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