Timeline for General proof of $m^2 = E^2 - p^2$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2019 at 17:46 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Dec 31, 2018 at 18:38 | answer | added | Chiral Anomaly | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 21:27 | comment | added | Zo the Relativist | but at the end of the day, you're going to have to make some definitions about what energy, mass, and momentum are, and you'll just be assuming your conclusion when you do that. | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 21:23 | comment | added | Zo the Relativist | Also, just by the way that tensors work, the combination $j^{a} = u^{b}T_{b}{}^{a}$ is always a 4-vector. But I don't see a route starting from there that will be any more satisfying than just positing the energy-momentum relationship. Like, for this single-particle business to make sense, you have to presume an energy-momentum tensor like $T_{ab} = m_{0}\delta^{3}\left({\vec r}\right)u_{a}u_{b}$, where $u$ is some unit timelike normal, and what I call $\vec r$ is a spacelike 3-vector normal to $u$. You can boost this, and see how it changes in different reference frames. | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 18:44 | comment | added | safesphere | @my2cts My comment is that the OP's statement regarding "1905" is wrong. | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 18:14 | comment | added | my2cts | @safesphere This is not correct. Schrödinger already knew of this relation in 1925, and Arthur C. Lunn in 1921, according to this article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 16:53 | comment | added | safesphere | "All proofs I know of, starting from Einstein's [...] 1905" - This is incorrect. The Energy-Momentum Relation was first proven by Paul Dirac in 1928: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 16:44 | comment | added | user175150 | Yes, true. Actually the usual proofs are more motivations than anything else, and eventually that $(E,p)$ forms a 4-vector is posited. But is it the only possible axiomatic? That's another, perhaps more accurate, way to ask the same question. | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 16:38 | comment | added | Zo the Relativist | I have to say that this question confuses me... what's to prove? There are versions of special relativity where this relationship is axiomatic. | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 16:28 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 30, 2018 at 16:26 | history | asked | user175150 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |