2

According to the mass-energy equivalence, if we have a point particle without internal degrees of freedom, then the energy content of this particle includes contributions from the mass as well as the speed.

Should I interpret this as mass being another degree of freedom of the particle? If energy $\Delta E$ is transferred to the particle, can I know a-priori how much of it is transferred to an increase in mass and how much is transferred to an increase in kinetic energy? Are any distributions of the form "X% goes to mass and (100-X)% goes to kinetic energy" allowed?

To phrase the same question in other words, in special relativity, let's say that at time $t=0$, a force $\mathbf{F}$ starts acting on a point particle with (rest) mass $m$ and velocity $\mathbf{v}$ which is located in the origin. The force stops acting at time $t=T$. Everything is specified in the inertial lab frame. Then, is this a well-posed problem with a single deterministic solution integrated from the equations of motion? Or do I still need to specify the details of the force so that it's clear how much of it contributes to the increase in mass?

Lior
  • 3,490

5 Answers5

4

Here is a possibly useful energy-momentum diagram (from my answer to How is the time-component of the spacetime interval in a spacetime diagram related to the time component of the energy-momentum 4 vector? ). [The context of the question was about taking limits.]

energy-momentum

In the relativity literature [specifically, books by Rindler and by Steane], there is a distinction between "pure forces" (which don't change the invariant mass) and "impure forces".

From Steane's textbook, Relativity Made Relatively Easy (2012), p.57

A force which does not change the rest mass of the object on which it acts is called a pure force. The work done by a pure force goes completely into changing the kinetic energy of the particle. .
.
.
A 4-force which does not change a body's velocity is called heat-like. Such a force influences the rest mass (for example by feeding energy into the internal degrees of freedom of a composite system such as a spring or a gas).

See also the answer by @AndrewSteane How does a particle move under a constant 4-force?

From Rindler's Introduction to Special Relativity (1982), p. 104,

We shall call a force pure if it does not change a particle's rest mass, and heatlike if it does not change a particle's velocity. .
.
.
The necessary and sufficient condition for a force to be pure follows at once from (35.7): $$U·F = 0 \Longleftrightarrow m_0 = \rm constant\qquad (35.9)$$ while that for a force to be heatlike is, of course, [4-acceleration] $A = 0$. It will turn out that one of the most important forces, the Lorentz force of Maxwell's theory, is pure. On the other hand, the action and reaction forces that occur during a collision are heatlike. An example of an impure force is provided by one that is derivable from a four-scalar potential $\Phi$...

robphy
  • 12,829
1

Mass is (internal) energy in the rest frame, hence for 'a point particle without internal degrees of freedom' there is no way to change its mass. The concept of mass is only useful if it is constant. Electrons and quarks have no internal degrees of freedom and they have constant mass. A football's mass is only approximately constant, since it will vibrate or heat up when you kick it, but unless it reaches near light speed by your kick, this can be neglected and you can safely treat it as constant mass.

my2cts
  • 27,443
0

Everything is specified in the inertial lab frame. Then, is this a well-posed problem with a single deterministic solution integrated from the equations of motion? Or do I still need to specify the details of the force so that it's clear how much of it contributes to the increase in mass?

Yes, this is a well-posed problem with a single deterministic solution integrated from the equations of motion. You do not have to specify more details.

However, forces are the wrong way to look at modern physics, and the more you scrutinise it, the more headaches you will have.


The only well-defined mass is rest mass $m_0$ and it does not change when you give the object kinetic energy. The Einsteinian energy of an object is $E=+\sqrt{(m_0c^2)^2+(\vec pc)^2}$ where $p$ is the momentum of the object. The velocity of the object is $$\vec v=c\frac{\vec p}E=c\frac{\vec p}{\sqrt{(m_0c^2)^2+(\vec pc)^2}}$$ You can also obtain, since $|\vec p|=\sqrt{E^2-(m_0c^2)^2}$, $$|\vec v|=c\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{m_0c^2}{E}\right)^2}$$ and if you have kinetic energy $K$ (equal to your $\Delta E$), then $$|\vec v|=c\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{m_0c^2}{m_0c^2+K}\right)^2}$$

0

The mass of a fundamental particle is a constant, any energy you add results in a change in momentum (and thus also kinetic energy), not in the mass.

Remember that enter image description here

0

The invariant mass can't change due to a net force. By a net force here I mean, a force that does work on the system. In SR it is often called a "pure" force (see robphy's answer for more details), and it corresponds to the Newtonian three forces we know from Newtonian mechanics.

For a point particle, it is very simple to see that such a force can't change its invariant mass. Consider the four momentum of such a particle: $$ \mathbf{p} = \left(E, \vec{p} \right),$$ ($c=1$ assumed here). So that, squaring this four momentum vector we just get, in agreement with the well known Energy-momentum relation: $$ \mathbf{p}^2=-E^2+\vec{p}^2=-m^2, \tag{1}$$

where $m$ is the particle's rest mass. One can also easily verify this relation by putting $E=\gamma m $, $\vec{p} = \gamma m\vec{v}$, where $\vec{v}$ is just the ordinary three velocity of the particle, and $\gamma=\left(1-||\vec{v}||^2\right)^{-1/2}$.

So, applying a force to the point particle will not change $m$ as written in $(1)$.

If however, we have a system of two point particles (or more) and we compute its invariant mass by squaring the four vector sum of their four momenta, we get a quantity that in general may exceed the sum of the individual rest masses. Let's take the example of two particles:

$$ \mathbf{p}_i = \left(E_i,\vec{p}_i \right), \ (i=1,2) $$

\begin{align*} \left(\mathbf{p}_1+\mathbf{p}_2 \right)^2 &= \mathbf{p}_1^2+\mathbf{p}_2^2+2\mathbf{p}_1\cdot\mathbf{p}_2 \\&= -m_1^2-m_2^2-2E_1E_2+2\vec{p}_1\cdot\vec{p}_2 \end{align*}

So if we set the above to be the mass squared of the compound system $-M_{\text{compound}}^2$, we find:

$$ M_{\text{compound}} = \sqrt{m_1^2 + m_2^2 + 2E_1 E_2 - 2\vec{p}_1\cdot\vec{p}_2}\ \ , $$

and it's not difficult to show that in general, it is always the case that $M_{\text{compound}} \geq m_1+m_2$. The rest masses of individual particles are still invariant of course, but we see that it's sensible to assign the compound system a mass that may exceed the sum of the individual rest masses.

This compound mass, as opposed to the mass of a point particle, can change. For example it will increase if energy is added to some part of the system, e.g. one of the particles absorbs a photon.

But, interestingly, a net force on this system, again will not change the invariant mass! To see why, consider again a system of two particles. Let's assume a frame where the system is initially at rest, and then a net force $\mathbf{f}_{\text{net}}$ acts for some time on the system's COM, accelerating it to some velocity $\vec{v}$. This can be described as follows:

$$ \underbrace{(m_1+m_2)(1,\vec{0})}_{\large\mathbf{p}_{\text{i}}} \stackrel{\large\mathbf{f}_\text{net}}{\longrightarrow} \underbrace{\gamma(m_1+m_2)(1,\vec{v})}_{\large\mathbf{p}_{\text{f}}}, $$

So we get, for the invariant mass after the action of the net force:

\begin{align*} \mathbf{p}_{\text{f}}^2 &= -\gamma^2(m_1+m_2)^2+\gamma^2(m_1+m_2^2)\vec{v}^2 \\&= -\gamma^2(m_1+m_2)^2\left(1-\vec{v}^2\right) \\&= -(m_1+m_2)^2\left(\frac{1-\vec{v}^2}{1-\vec{v}^2}\right) \\&= -(m_1+m_2)^2 \\&= \mathbf{p}_{\text{i}}^2. \end{align*}

So all that's happening here, is that due to the action of the net force, we no longer have separate $E_1,E_2,\vec{p}_1,\vec{p}_2$. The entire system is accelerated to a shared velocity $\vec{v}$, and we see that as a result, only a single $\gamma$ factors out, like it does in the case of a single point particle, so that the invariant mass doesn't change from when the system was at rest. The same analysis is easily extendible to a system with any number of masses.

Furthermore, as long as the system is stable (doesn't radiate away energy in the form of EM waves, for example), this compound mass remains constant. Also, it is a Lorentz scalar as well, due to the added cross terms such as $2\mathbf{p}_1\cdot\mathbf{p}_2$ above being a dot product of four vectors. Hence the term "invariant mass" is still used, even when considering a system composed of many particles.

Also see related answer here by anna v.


Note that, it is possible to widen the scope of what we consider a force in relativity, to account for processes in which the rest masses change. Since by definition $\mathbf{p} = m\mathbf{u}$ we can write:

$$ \mathbf{f} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{p}}{\mathrm{d}\tau} = \frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d\tau}}\mathbf{u}+m\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{u}}{\mathrm{d}\tau}, $$

"Pure" forces mentioned above (that I call a net force here), are ones where the first term vanishes. Thinking geometrically about the worldline of the massive particle, we can see that only the second term induces a change to the four velocity $\mathbf{u}$ that's tangent to this worldline, because $\mathrm{d}\mathbf{u}/\mathrm{d}\tau$ is always orthogonal to the four velocity $\mathbf{u}$. So this means, this is the kinematic piece, that corresponds to "Newtonian" forces.

The other piece is often related as "thermal force" or "heat-like force". These types of forces don't do mechanical work, but can only increase/decrease the internal energy of the system. See for example "Special Relativity - Michael Tsamparlis" p. 325-329, 11.2, for a concise and clear explanation about thermal forces in SR, including a nice computational example given towards the end.

Amit
  • 6,024