3
$\begingroup$

I understand that the integral of force with respect to distance is known as Energy. As I understand it even in special relativity the force is the same as the derivative of momentum with respect to time. In Special Relativity the four force is the derivative of spacetime coordinates with respect to proper time. I understand that the spacetime distance is given by the equation

$${\Delta}s^2={\Delta}x^2+{\Delta}y^2+{\Delta}z^2-c^2{\Delta}t^2$$

with ${\Delta}s$ being the spacetime distance. (I understand that the term "spacetime interval" is generally used, but I get confused as to whether it refers to ${\Delta}s$ or ${\Delta}s^2$, which is why I'm using the term "spacetime distance" instead).

Is there a name for the integral of the Four Force of an object with respect to spacetime distance in Special Relativity?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

There is a simple name for this quantity: it's zero for ordinary forces.

To see this, suppose it's the change in some quantity $I$, $$\Delta I = \int F^\mu \, dx_\mu.$$ Then the rate of change of $I$, with respect to proper time, is $$\frac{dI}{d\tau} = F^\mu \frac{dx_\mu}{d\tau} = F^\mu u_\mu$$ where $u^\mu$ is the four-velocity. Now, the definition of the four-force is the rate of change of four-momentum, so $$\frac{dI}{d\tau} = \frac{d}{d\tau} (m u^\mu) u_\mu = m \left(u_\mu \frac{du^\mu}{d\tau} \right) = \frac12 m \frac{d}{d\tau} (u^\mu u_\mu).$$ Note that this bears a strong resemblance to the nonrelativistic expression for power. But the difference is that in relativity, the norm of the four-velocity is constant, $$\frac{d}{d\tau} (u^\mu u_\mu) = 0$$ which means that $I$ is a constant. In other words, your integral always vanishes.


There's an exception, which is that I assumed that $m$ was independent of $\tau$ when performing the derivative above. If you have a force that is capable of changing rest mass, then we instead get $$\frac{dI}{d\tau} = \frac{dm}{d\tau} (u^\mu u_\mu) = \frac{dm}{d\tau}$$ which tells us that $\Delta I$ is just the change in rest mass. This is a perfectly sensible result, though we usually don't describe interactions that change rest mass as "forces". For example, if you have a stationary object and warm it up, then $dx_\mu$ is purely temporal, and so is $F^\mu$, so $F^\mu dx_\mu$ is nonzero. The rest mass of the object increases because it picks up more thermal energy, and $E=mc^2$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The question is very explicit that the integral with respect to $dx_{\mu}$ is not intended. This response does not answer the question asked. $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Dale Well, the question seems a bit confused. OP begins by talking about the integral $\int \mathbf{F} \cdot d \mathbf{x}$ in nonrelativistic physics, so I assumed he wanted the closest analogue in relativity. Yes, I agree that if you take the second half of the question literally it seems to be asking for $\int F_\mu \, ds = \int F_\mu \, d\tau$. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Commented Feb 21, 2020 at 4:32
1
$\begingroup$

Is there a name for the integral of the Four Force of an object with respect to spacetime distance in Special Relativity?

It is called the change in the four-momentum. You probably could call it the four-impulse and be understood, but as far as I know that is not standard terminology.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To add to this, the four-force is given as $f^{\mu} = dp^{\mu}/d\tau$ where $d\tau$ is the proper time (of the object's worldline) given as $d\tau^{2} = -ds^{2}/c^{2}$. The integral of four-force with respect to proper time is thus the (change in) four-momentum. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 21:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The integral of $F^\mu$ with respect to $\tau$ is the change in four-momentum. The integral with respect to $dx_\mu$, which is the direct relativistic generaliztion of $\int \mathbf{F} \cdot d \mathbf{x}$, isn't. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 22:02
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but the question was very clear that $dx_{\mu}$ was not intended $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 22:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.