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.
 
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...
Back
Top