19
$\begingroup$

In learning about relativity I've noticed that in the construction of Lorentz invariants (specifically four-vectors) two physical quantities that were previously considered distinct are instead treated as a single object.

Examples include position and time (spacetime), electric and magnetic fields, electric and magnetic potential, energy and momentum, charge and current density, and so on.

I was interested in learning more about this I tried googling my best guess, "Lorentz Pairs", to no avail. My question is whether there is more specific terminology referring to these pairs of physical quantities outside of the general term "Lorentz Invariant".

Additionally, why do we so often see two physical quantities being combined instead of, say, three or some other number?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is not completely true that two physical quantities are combined instead of three or more. The "combination" of for example energy and momentum is just because we thought before that the world was best described by 3-d theories with time as an independent thing and thus we gave different names to quantities that are parts of the same thing in a covariant formalism (relativity) $\endgroup$
    – Prastt
    Oct 21 '13 at 5:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ How many "things" get combined depends on the tensor structure of the covariant object you eventually get. To give an example of five things commonly thought to be separate which are combined in relativity: energy density, energy flux, momentum density, pressure and anisotropic stress. These get combined into the relativistic stress-energy (or equivalently energy-momentum) tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$. It just happens that you see simpler objects (rank one tensors like $p_\mu$) more often than more complicated ones (rank two tensors like $T_{\mu\nu}$). $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Oct 21 '13 at 7:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's important to note that electric and magnetic fields are quite different from all the other pairs you mention. Those match a (newtonian) scalar with a (newtonian) vector and construct a Lorentz-invariant four-vector out of it. Electric and magnetic fields follow a different scheme, in which a Lorentz two-tensor gets broken down into a newtonian vector and a pseudovector. $\endgroup$ Oct 21 '13 at 11:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ That said, though, I really like your term, "Lorentz pair". Unfortunately it's not in use and I'm not aware of similar terminology, but it would be quite useful to be able to say, simply, "energy and momentum are a Lorentz pair". $\endgroup$ Oct 21 '13 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor from General Relativity is an interesting example. Are there any other examples of Relativistic Tensors that are commonly used that combine many (4-5) different Physical Quantities? $\endgroup$
    – jcelios
    Oct 21 '13 at 18:34
0
$\begingroup$

Clifford algebra offers many interesting Lorentz pairs. There is no standard nomenclature. Here are my suggestions for the Clifford algebra $Cl_{4,0}$ applied to electromagnetic theory:

spacetime position: $\hat r = ct + \mathbf r$,

event: $\hat r\mathbf e_0$,

spacetime derivative: $\frac{\partial}{\partial\hat r}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \nabla$,

event derivative: $\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat r\mathbf e_0} = \mathbf e_0\frac{\partial}{\partial\hat r}$,

electromagnetic field: $\mathbf E + i\zeta\mathbf H$,

charge-current density: $\hat j = \rho c + \mathbf j$

event current density: $\hat j\mathbf e_0$

energy-momentum density: $U + \mathbf S/c$

Source: Electromagnetic energy-momentum equation without tensors: a geometric algebra approach.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ thanks to Ignacio and Ruslan for the latex note and edits :) $\endgroup$
    – qsugon
    Oct 30 '13 at 14:55
0
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure if there's a term for these Lorentz Pairs, but great food for thought!

I find it interesting, they seem so often to correspond to some conservation principle.

Consider charge conservation, $\nabla \cdot \vec{J}+\partial \rho /\partial t=0=\nabla \cdot \vec{J}+\partial \rho c/\partial ct$. And we have the charge 4-vector $J^\alpha=(\rho c,\vec{J})$. The Lorentz Gauge gives us $\nabla \cdot \vec{A}+(1/c^2)\partial V/\partial t=0 $ and the 4-potential $A^\alpha=(V/c,\vec{A})$.

We have also $\nabla \cdot \vec{S} +\partial u/\partial t=-\vec{J}\cdot\vec{E}$. The term on the right is zero in free space with no current density and so we have a proper conservation equation. This suggests $S^\alpha=(uc,\vec{S})$, but I've never seen mention of a Poynting 4-vector, but wouldn't that be redundant with the Maxwell Stress Energy Tensor?

The prototypical 4-vector, $(ct,\vec{x})$ corresponds to $\nabla \cdot \vec{x}+\partial ct/\partial ct=4. $ Not quite a conservation equation, but very similar. For conservation laws

Uncertainly principles popup in similar pairs.

Does every conservation law imply a Lorentz Pair? An uncertainty relation?

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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