Newtonian 4-Momentum Norm Analogue

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the Newtonian analogue to the Lorentz invariant Minkowski norm of four-momentum, particularly examining the relationship between energy and momentum in both Newtonian and relativistic contexts. Participants explore the implications of these relationships under different transformations and the definitions of energy in various scenarios, including the presence of electric potentials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the relation $$E - \frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2m} = 0$$ could be considered an invariant under Galilei transformations, despite being a relation between kinetic energy and momentum rather than total energy.
  • Another participant counters that the expression does not relate to total energy, emphasizing that it pertains specifically to kinetic energy.
  • A participant highlights that the Newtonian expression lacks the structure of an inner product of four-vectors due to the absence of a non-degenerate metric in Newtonian spacetime.
  • Discussion includes the idea of a mass-shell in energy-momentum space resembling a degenerate Galilean metric, with references to the formulation of dynamics on such a structure.
  • One participant raises a concern regarding the application of the total energy concept in the context of electromagnetic fields, questioning how identical particles in different potentials can satisfy the relativistic energy-momentum relation.
  • Another participant agrees that the equation $$E^2 = c^2 \cdot \mathbf{p}^2 + m^2 \cdot c^4$$ refers to total energy but expresses uncertainty about the meaning of "total energy" in the presence of external potentials.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the applicability of certain energy-momentum relations in Newtonian versus relativistic contexts, particularly regarding the definitions and implications of total energy versus kinetic energy. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the nature of these relationships.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of consensus on the definitions of total energy and kinetic energy in different contexts, as well as the implications of external potentials on energy-momentum relations.

greypilgrim
Messages
583
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K