I What was the four-momentum meant to include?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter dsaun777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Relativity
dsaun777
Messages
296
Reaction score
39
Hello,
was the four-momentum of relativity, Pν, supposed to include all mass and energy contributions from every field i.e. electromagnetic, strong, gravitational...
Or is it just the momentum of what was known in Einstein's time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Four momentum only works for point particles, or things you can approximate as point particles, but includes every contribution to their energy and momentum. For example, most of the mass of a proton is due to the binding energy of the quarks, so there's an awful lot of strong force contributing to the ##m## in a "ball of mass ##m##" that you would treat as a point particle.

For fields and the like (when you can't lump them in to a point particle) you'd need a stress-energy tensor.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Dale, topsquark and berkeman
Ibix said:
Four momentum only works for point particles, or things you can approximate as point particles, but includes every contribution to their energy and momentum. For example, most of the mass of a proton is due to the binding energy of the quarks, so there's an awful lot of strong force contributing to the ##m## in a "ball of mass ##m##" that you would treat as a point particle.

For fields and the like (when you can't lump them in to a point particle) you'd need a stress-energy tensor.
Can you then contract and integrate the stress-energy tensor to arrive at some four-momentum? I suppose it depends on what kind of spacetime you are working in right?
 
If I have this straight, if you have a family of observers following timelike paths that form a congruence ##u^a## then the energy momentum density they measure at an event is ##u_aT^{ba}##. You integrate over some finite region of a spacelike 3-surface (formally, an achronal one) that encloses your "point particle" and you get its four momentum.

I may not have that quite right - sure others will correct me if so.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale, dsaun777 and topsquark
Ibix said:
If I have this straight, if you have a family of observers following timelike paths that form a congruence ##u^a## then the energy momentum density they measure at an event is ##u_aT^{ba}##. You integrate over some finite region of a spacelike 3-surface (formally, an achronal one) that encloses your "point particle" and you get its four momentum.

I may not have that quite right - sure others will correct me if so.
This is pretty much correct. The only clarification I would make is that the congruence ##u^a## describes the worldlines of pieces of the matter whose energy-momentum density you want to obtain, not "observers". Assuming that these worldlines occupy a suitably small "world tube", surrounded by enough vacuum to treat the matter as an isolated region, then, if one is OK with modeling the matter as a point particle, one would do the integral you describe over the intersection of the world tube with an achronal 3-surface to obtain the energy-momentum density 4-vector for the matter at the "point" that represents that intersection.

One other caution here is that, if the congruence ##u^a## is not hypersurface orthogonal (meaning it is impossible to find an achronal 3-surface that is everywhere orthogonal to ##u^a##, which is what we would naturally want to support an interpretation as "the matter at some instant of time"), modeling the matter by a simple energy-momentum 4-vector will not be enough. Heuristically, the "point particle" will have spin as well as 4-momentum, and it will take some additional geometric object besides the 4-momentum density vector to describe the spin.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and dsaun777
PeterDonis said:
This is pretty much correct. The only clarification I would make is that the congruence ##u^a## describes the worldlines of pieces of the matter whose energy-momentum density you want to obtain, not "observers".
Ah, right - that makes more sense. It was bothering me how the ##u^a## would disappear in the integral (which it would need to do if it really were some arbitrary family of observers and the result had to be an invariant). But if it's part of the specification of the material then of course I don't expect it to vanish. Thanks.
 
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...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top