Photon/particle's energy in General Relativity

In summary, the conversation discusses the validity of the Special Relativity relationship E = p for a photon in General Relativity. The use of frames and the importance of defining physical quantities independent of coordinates is emphasized. The equation f=-u_a k^a=-g_{ab}u^bk^a is mentioned as a way to calculate the frequency (energy/h) of a light wave with respect to a specific observer. The quantity g_{ij}P^iP^j is also discussed and its relation to the energy of the photon is mentioned. The importance of frames in understanding physical speeds is also highlighted.
  • #1
coccoinomane
19
0
Hi everybody!

I am wondering, among other things, whether the Special Relativity relationship E = p for a photon (I am using c = 1 units ) is still valid in General Relativity.

Let me explain my question in detail. By applying the null geodesic condition with a diagonal metric, we obtain

[tex] ds^2 = 0 \Rightarrow p^2 = -g_{00}(P^0)^2 [/tex] (1).

where [tex] P^\mu [/tex] is the four-momentum and [tex] p^2 \equiv g_{ij} P^i P^j = P^i P_i [/tex].

My question is: in SR we did not have any doubt in identifying P^0 as the energy of the particle. How does it transfer to GR? What is energy and what is momentum? My shot was that, if we want to preserve the E = p relation, then we need that

[tex] p \rightarrow momentum [/tex]

and

[tex] \sqrt{-g_{00}} P^0 \rightarrow energy [/tex].

Is this correct?

And what about velocity?
It is easy to find that

[tex] v^i = \frac{P^i}{P^0} [/tex],

where [tex] v^i \equiv \frac{dx^i}{dt} [/tex].

If we contract both sides of the above expression with [tex] g_{ij} v^j [/tex] and if we define [tex] v^2 \equiv g_{ij} v^i v^j = v^i v_i [/tex], we find that

[tex] p = (P^0) v [/tex]. (2)

By comparing (1) and (2) it emerges that

[tex] v^2 = -g_{00} [/tex].

In a flat space-time (or in an inertial frame), then [tex] g_{00} = -1 [/tex] and v = c. Otherwise we have that the speed of light is different from c. Does it mean that in GR the concept of "constant speed of light" makes sense only in inertial frames? This is equivalent to say that the speed of light is equal to "c" only locally, since for the equivalence principle we can always find an inertial frame, but it has to be locally defined (in a space-time sense).

One last question. With respect to Cosmology, one usually defines the comoving distance as the distance covered by a photon in the comoving frame. The particle horizon is the comoving distance from the Big Bang to today; by using a LCDM model it amounts to around 14.000 Mpc. I always thought that this was some sort of non-physical distance since it is the distance the photon traveled in a reference frame decoupled from the expansion. I was thinking that the "physical" particle horizon was just the age of the Universe times the speed of light, i.e. around 4.500 Mpc. Now I see that this is not the case. In fact, there is no such a "physical" frame in which the speed of the photon is constantly equal to "c" along all his path, hence it makes no sense to say that it "physically" traveled speed_of_light X time_of_travel kilometers. Am I right?

Thank you very much for any answer, and sorry for the long post :)

Cheers,

Guido
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Hi atyy,

thank you for your answer!

The link seems very interesting. However, I was hoping you could point some intuitive physical argument, not a mathematical one.

Cheers,

G.
 
  • #4
If you want values for physical quantities, make sure to define them independent of coordinates. g00 doesn't have a meaning at all, unless your coordinate system is defined in a specific way.
For a light wave with wave vector k, the frequency (energy/h) measured by an observer with four-velocity u is [tex]f=-u_a k^a=-g_{ab}u^bk^a[/tex].
 
  • #5
Hi Ich,

thank you for your answer.

Ich said:
If you want values for physical quantities, make sure to define them independent of coordinates. g00 doesn't have a meaning at all, unless your coordinate system is defined in a specific way.

This is the point: I would like to know what is the energy of the photon in a generic system of coordinates in which the metric is described by [tex] g_{\mu\nu} [/tex]. Is it [tex]g_{ij}P^iP^j[/tex]? (sum is over spatial indexes)

For a light wave with wave vector k, the frequency (energy/h) measured by an observer with four-velocity u is [tex]f=-u_a k^a=-g_{ab}u^bk^a[/tex].

Is the implicit summation over 0,1,2,3 or just over the spatial indexes? In the latter case, wouldn't we have f=0 if the observer is still?
 
  • #6
coccoinomane said:
This is the point: I would like to know what is the energy of the photon in a generic system of coordinates in which the metric is described by [tex] g_{\mu\nu} [/tex].

With respect to which observer?
 
  • #7
George Jones said:
With respect to which observer?

Hi George,

you are perfectly right, my question does not makes sense without specifying the observer's motion with respect to the photon. So I guess the correct answer is Ich's:

[tex] f=-u_a k^a=-g_{ab}u^bk^a [/tex],

because it takes into account that. However, I am curious about the quantity

[tex] g_{ij}P^iP^j [/tex].

How does it relate with the energy of the photon?

Thank you,

Guido
 
  • #8
coccoinomane said:
However, I am curious about the quantity

[tex] g_{ij}P^iP^j [/tex].

How does it relate with the energy of the photon?

This is always the square of the photon's energy when indices represent components with respect to the observer's orthonormal frame. Unfortunately, many courses and texts put little or no emphasis on frames. I hope to write more about this (maybe tomorrow).

For an example of the use of frames for physical speeds, see

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=848684#post848684.
 

1. What is the relationship between photon/particle's energy and General Relativity?

In General Relativity, the energy of a photon or particle is directly related to its mass and velocity. The famous equation E=mc^2, discovered by Albert Einstein, shows that energy and mass are interchangeable and can be converted from one form to another. This means that the energy of a photon or particle can influence the curvature of spacetime, which is the basis of General Relativity.

2. How does the energy of a photon/particle affect the fabric of spacetime?

The energy of a photon or particle contributes to the total energy density of the universe, which is one of the factors that determines the curvature of spacetime. As the energy density changes, so does the curvature of spacetime, leading to the effects of gravity. This is why massive objects, such as stars and planets, have a greater influence on the fabric of spacetime compared to smaller objects like photons.

3. Can photons/particles be affected by gravity in General Relativity?

Yes, photons and particles can be affected by gravity in General Relativity. This is because gravity is not a force, but rather a result of the curvature of spacetime. Photons, which have no mass, are still affected by the curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects, resulting in their path being bent. This phenomenon is known as gravitational lensing.

4. How does General Relativity explain the relationship between energy and the expansion of the universe?

In General Relativity, the energy density of the universe has a direct effect on the rate of expansion. As the universe expands, the energy density decreases, causing the rate of expansion to slow down. This can be seen in the phenomenon of cosmic inflation, where the rapid expansion of the universe in its early stages was driven by a high energy density. As the energy density decreased, the expansion slowed down.

5. Is the energy of a photon/particle conserved in General Relativity?

Yes, the energy of a photon or particle is conserved in General Relativity. This means that the total energy of a system remains constant, even when it is converted from one form to another. In the case of photons, their energy can be converted into mass and vice versa, but the total energy of the system remains the same. This is a fundamental principle in General Relativity and is known as the conservation of energy.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
590
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
702
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
550
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
848
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top