The above definition applies under the coordinate convention that x0 = ct. Some authors use the convention x0 = t, which yields a modified definition with p0 = E/c2. It is also possible to define covariant four-momentum pμ where the sign of the energy (or the sign of the three-momentum, depending of the chosen metric signature) is reversed.
is the metric tensor of special relativity with metric signature for definiteness chosen to be (–1, 1, 1, 1). The negativity of the norm reflects that the momentum is a timelike four-vector for massive particles. The other choice of signature would flip signs in certain formulas (like for the norm here). This choice is not important, but once made it must for consistency be kept throughout.
The Minkowski norm is Lorentz invariant, meaning its value is not changed by Lorentz transformations/boosting into different frames of reference. More generally, for any two four-momenta p and q, the quantity p ⋅ q is invariant.
There are several ways to arrive at the correct expression for four-momentum. One way is to first define the four-velocity u = dx/dτ and simply define p = mu, being content that it is a four-vector with the correct units and correct behavior. Another, more satisfactory, approach is to begin with the principle of least action and use the Lagrangian framework to derive the four-momentum, including the expression for the energy. One may at once, using the observations detailed below, define four-momentum from the actionS. Given that in general for a closed system with generalized coordinatesqi and canonical momentapi,
it is immediate (recalling x0 = ct, x1 = x, x2 = y, x3 = z and x0 = −x0, x1 = x1, x2 = x2, x3 = x3 in the present metric convention) that
is a covariant four-vector with the three-vector part being the (negative of) canonical momentum.
The assumption is then that the varied paths satisfy δq(t1) = δq(t2) = 0, from which Lagrange's equations follow at once. When the equations of motion are known (or simply assumed to be satisfied), one may let go of the requirement δq(t2) = 0. In this case the path is assumed to satisfy the equations of motion, and the action is a function of the upper integration limit δq(t2), but t2 is still fixed. The above equation becomes with S = S(q), and defining δq(t2) = δq, and letting in more degrees of freedom,
In a similar fashion, keep endpoints fixed, but let t2 = t vary. This time, the system is allowed to move through configuration space at "arbitrary speed" or with "more or less energy", the field equations still assumed to hold and variation can be carried out on the integral, but instead observe
It is also possible to derive the results from the Lagrangian directly. By definition,
which constitute the standard formulae for canonical momentum and energy of a closed (time-independent Lagrangian) system. With this approach it is less clear that the energy and momentum are parts of a four-vector.
The energy and the three-momentum are separately conserved quantities for isolated systems in the Lagrangian framework. Hence four-momentum is conserved as well. More on this below.
More pedestrian approaches include expected behavior in electrodynamics. In this approach, the starting point is application of Lorentz force law and Newton's second law in the rest frame of the particle. The transformation properties of the electromagnetic field tensor, including invariance of electric charge, are then used to transform to the lab frame, and the resulting expression (again Lorentz force law) is interpreted in the spirit of Newton's second law, leading to the correct expression for the relativistic three- momentum. The disadvantage, of course, is that it isn't immediately clear that the result applies to all particles, whether charged or not, and that it doesn't yield the complete four-vector.
It is also possible to avoid electromagnetism and use well tuned experiments of thought involving well-trained physicists throwing billiard balls, utilizing knowledge of the velocity addition formula and assuming conservation of momentum. This too gives only the three-vector part.
The 3-spacemomentum is conserved (not to be confused with the classic non-relativistic momentum ).
Note that the invariant mass of a system of particles may be more than the sum of the particles' rest masses, since kinetic energy in the system center-of-mass frame and potential energy from forces between the particles contribute to the invariant mass. As an example, two particles with four-momenta (5 GeV/c, 4 GeV/c, 0, 0) and (5 GeV/c, −4 GeV/c, 0, 0) each have (rest) mass 3GeV/c2 separately, but their total mass (the system mass) is 10GeV/c2. If these particles were to collide and stick, the mass of the composite object would be 10GeV/c2.
One practical application from particle physics of the conservation of the invariant mass involves combining the four-momenta pA and pB of two daughter particles produced in the decay of a heavier particle with four-momentum pC to find the mass of the heavier particle. Conservation of four-momentum gives pCμ = pAμ + pBμ, while the mass M of the heavier particle is given by −PC ⋅ PC = M2c2. By measuring the energies and three-momenta of the daughter particles, one can reconstruct the invariant mass of the two-particle system, which must be equal to M. This technique is used, e.g., in experimental searches for Z′ bosons at high-energy particle colliders, where the Z′ boson would show up as a bump in the invariant mass spectrum of electron–positron or muon–antimuon pairs.
If the mass of an object does not change, the Minkowski inner product of its four-momentum and corresponding four-accelerationAμ is simply zero. The four-acceleration is proportional to the proper time derivative of the four-momentum divided by the particle's mass, so
Canonical momentum in the presence of an electromagnetic potential
This, in turn, allows the potential energy from the charged particle in an electrostatic potential and the Lorentz force on the charged particle moving in a magnetic field to be incorporated in a compact way, in relativistic quantum mechanics.
Landau, L.D.; Lifshitz, E.M. (2000). The classical theory of fields. 4th rev. English edition, reprinted with corrections; translated from the Russian by Morton Hamermesh. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. ISBN9780750627689.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)