This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
In the first paragraph is says "The contravariant four-momentum of a particle with relativistic energy E and three-momentum p = (px, py, pz) = γmv... This seems like it is saying p=γmv. Unless I've misunderstood, that is not correct? Jpipersson ( talk) 17:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
You can find some info here: [1].
Also note that are two conventions:
Both are valid and should be appeared in the article. MathKnight 21:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In special relativity, four-momentum is a four-vector that replaces classical momentum; the four-momentum of a particle is defined as the particle's mass times the particle's four-velocity.
The highlighted sections mean nothing to the layman. And if you're not a layman and know all about four-momentum, then why did you come here? User:70.25.138.179|70.25.138.179]]
Why is this tag there? Shouldn't the person who put that tag up have discussed their reasoning? Anyway, I disagree. The four-momenum concept is very distinct from momentum, and it needs its own page. Fresheneesz 11:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we comment somewhere that there are two different sign conventions for the metric? This article uses the East Coast / general relativity convention; most particle physics texts these days use the West Coast metric, so that p2 = +m2 (c=1). HEL 18:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone want to address the part about "WRONG WRONG WRONG." Not exactly encyclopedia material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.41.11 ( talk) 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This article defines 4-momentum as covariant but several other articles (e.g. four-vector and four-force) define it as contravariant. This may confuse some of our readers, so what's the best way to avoid such confusion?
As a separate issue, it would be nice to adopt the convention that 4-vectors are in bold capitals and 3-vectors in bold lowercase. To achieve this we'd need to use a different letter for canonical momentum. Any thoughts?-- Dr Greg ( talk) 16:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've modified all the equations to use the convention . The version back on 10:37 22 September 2008 correctly used the alternative convention , but subsequent edits managed to confuse both conventions. The convention I'm using is the same as the four-velocity article and therefore probably less confusing for readers. Someone who's an expert in 4-potentials should check I've modified the relevant equation correctly, as that is outside my area of expertise. -- Dr Greg ( talk) 12:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I quote the text "This 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 into the Schrödinger equation." Isn't it the Dirac equation instead of schrodinger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinfran ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see some background information about this topic for people who don't (or remember) enough math to follow the current text. Kevink707 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC).
The formulation in Clifford Algebra removes unnecessary complexity (Covariance, contravariance, etc.). CaffeineWitcher ( talk) 21:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
In the Derivation section, just before the second equation, the article reviews the basis changes (from contravariant to covariant) according to the aforementioned metric convention: that the metric signature is (- + + +), or in the article's words, "x0 = −x0, x1 = x1, x2 = x2, x3 = x3 in the present metric convention"; however, it then states the covariant 4-momentum has negated spacelike components, both in the equation and, in agreement, in the clarification following. I believe this statement would actually correspond to the (+ - - -) signature. Considering the product of the contravariant 4-momentum with the covariant 4-momentum shown, , which contradicts the first equation in the Minkowski norm section, which explicitly uses the (- + + +) metric signature.
It doesn't seem this affects anything else in the article, but can someone else verify this? ManOfPretzel ( talk) 22:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)