1
$\begingroup$

All proofs I know of, starting from Einstein's famous 1905 article, only deal with special cases (actually, yes, I know that formula like $E=mc^2$ were known before Einstein in the context of electromagnetism). Would there be a more general proof? One that would work on curved spacetime for added bonus.

I am thinking of something along the following lines. Starting from the energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$, we could integrate $T^{00}$ and $T^{i0}$ over some region to get an energy and a momentum but do they always form a 4-vector in the simple Minkovskian case?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have to say that this question confuses me... what's to prove? There are versions of special relativity where this relationship is axiomatic. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 30, 2018 at 16:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – user175150
    Commented Dec 30, 2018 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ "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 $\endgroup$
    – safesphere
    Commented Dec 30, 2018 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ @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/… $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Dec 30, 2018 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @my2cts My comment is that the OP's statement regarding "1905" is wrong. $\endgroup$
    – safesphere
    Commented Dec 30, 2018 at 18:44

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I am thinking of something along the following lines. Starting from the energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$, we could integrate $T^{00}$ and $T^{i0}$ over some region to get an energy and a momentum but do they always form a 4-vector in the simple Minkovskian case?

This is correct, when properly interpreted.

Working in flat spacetime (Minkowski metric), suppose that we have a tensor field $T^{AB}(x)$. In general, the quantities $$ P^A = \int dx^1\,dx^2\,dx^3\ T^{0A}(x) \tag{1} $$ will be functions of the remaining coordinate $x^0$. But if the tensor $T^{AB}(x)$ satisfies $$ \partial_A T^{AB}(x)=0, \tag{2} $$ then the quantities (1) are independent of $x^0$, and in this case we can show that the quantities $P^A$ are the components of a four-vector. To do this, consider two frames, $x$ and $\tilde x$, that are related to each other by a Lorentz transformation $$ \tilde x^A=\Lambda^A_B x^B \hskip2cm \text{with }\det\Lambda=1. \tag{3} $$ Let $v$ and $\tilde v$, respectively, be the timelike vectors with components $(1,0,0,0)$ in each of the two frames. These are related by $$ \tilde v^A=\Lambda^A_B v^B. \tag{4} $$ Now consider the quantities \begin{align} P^F & = \int \epsilon_{ABCD}\, dx^A\wedge dx^B\wedge dx^C\ v^D \,v_E T^{EF}(x) \\ \tilde P^F & = \int \epsilon_{ABCD}\, d\tilde x^A\wedge d\tilde x^B\wedge d\tilde x^C\ \tilde v^D \,\tilde v_E \tilde T^{EF}(\tilde x) \tag{5} \end{align} where $\epsilon_{ABCD}$ is completely antisymmetric in its indices, normalized so that $$ \det\Lambda = \epsilon_{ABCD}\Lambda^A_1\Lambda^B_2\Lambda^C_3\Lambda^D_4. \tag{6} $$ The integrals are written this way, instead of writing them as in (1), so that we can use the identity $$ \epsilon_{ABCD}\, dx^A\wedge dx^B\wedge dx^C\ v^D = \epsilon_{ABCD}\, d\tilde x^A\wedge d\tilde x^B\wedge d\tilde x^C\ \tilde v^D, \tag{7} $$ which is an obvious consqeuence of equations (3)-(4) and (6). Use (7) in (5) to get \begin{align} \tilde P^F = \int \epsilon_{ABCD}\, dx^A\wedge dx^B\wedge dx^C\ v^D \,\tilde v_E \tilde T^{EF}(\tilde x). \tag{8} \end{align} The assertion that $v$ and $T$ are tensors implies $$ \tilde v_E \tilde T^{EF}(\tilde x) = v_E T^{EG}(x)\Lambda_G^F, \tag{9} $$ and using this in (8) gives $$ \tilde P^F=\Lambda^F_G P^G, $$ which is the desired result. In summary, if the condition (2) is satisfied, then the quantity (1) is a four-vector in the sense that if the construction on the right-hand side of (1) is repeated in two different frames, then the resulting quantities $P^A$ and $\tilde P^A$ are related (as four-vectors) by the same Lorentz transformation that relates those two frames.

By the way, the quantity $P_A P^A$ is invariant under Lorentz transformations, and it is interpreted as the invariant mass of the system.

For confirmation, here are a few on-line sources where the four-vector character of (1) is mentioned:

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure I understand where you used (2) in the rest of the answer. $\endgroup$
    – user175150
    Commented Jan 6, 2019 at 21:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @frapadingue The only purpose of condition (2) is to ensure that the quantity (1) is independent of $x^0$. [To prove that it does ensure this, take the derivative of (1) wrt $x^0$, then use (2) to rewrite the integrand as a spatial gradient, whose integral is zero by the fundamental theorem of calculus.] This is important because (1) is a 4-vector only if it is independent of $x^0$. Otherwise, the effect of a Lorentz transformation would be nonsensical, because it would mix a free variable $x^0$ with the integration variables $x^1,x^2,x^3$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 6, 2019 at 22:15

Your Answer

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