We are interested in the energy-momentum relation for a moving composite in relativistic quantum mechanics in many-particle Dirac models. For a manifestly covariant model one can apply the Lorentz transform to go from the rest frame to a moving frame to establish an energy-momentum relation of the form $\sqrt{(M^*c^2)^2+c^2|{\bf P}|^2}$ where $M^*$ is the kinematic mass. However, the many-particle Dirac model is not manifestly covariant, and some other approach is required. We have found a simple approach that allows for a separation of relative and center of mass contributions to the energy. We are able to define the associated kinematic energy and determine the energy-momentum relation. Our result can be expressed as a modified deBroglie relation of the form $$ \hbar ω({\bf P}) = ~ \sqrt{[M^*({\bf P}) c^2]^2 + c^2 |{\bf P}|^2} $$ where the kinematic mass $M^*$ will depend on the total momentum ${\bf P}$ for a general noncovariant potential. The prefactor that occurs we associate with a time dilation effect, the existence of which has been discussed previously in the literature.
We are interested in the energy-momentum relation for a moving composite in relativistic quantum mechanics in many-particle Dirac models. For a manifestly covariant model one can apply the Lorentz transform to go from the rest frame to a moving frame to establish an energy-momentum relation of the form (M∗c2)2+c2∣P∣2 where M∗ is the kinematic mass. However, the many-particle Dirac model is not manifestly covariant, and some other approach is required. We have found a simple approach that allows for a separation of relative and center of mass contributions to the energy. We are able to define the associated kinematic energy and determine the energy-momentum relation. Our result can be expressed as a modified deBroglie relation of the form ℏω(P)=[M∗(P)c2]2+c2∣P∣2 where the kinematic mass M∗ will depend on the total momentum P for a general noncovariant potential. The prefactor that occurs we associate with a time dilation effect, the existence of which has been discussed previously in the literature.
Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.
We study the orbits of two interacting particles described by a fully relativistic classical mechanical Hamiltonian. We use two sets of initial conditions. In the first set (dynamics 1) the system's center of mass is at rest. In the second set (dynamics 2) the center of mass evolves with velocity V. If dynamics 1 is observed from a reference frame moving with velocity $\ensuremath{-}V$, the principle of relativity requires that all observables must be identical to those of dynamics 2 seen from the laboratory frame. Our numerical simulations demonstrate that kinematic Lorentz space-time transformations fail to transform particle observables between the two frames. This is explained as a result of the inevitable interaction dependence of the boost generator in the instant form of relativistic dynamics. Despite general inaccuracies of the Lorentz formulas, the orbital periods are correctly predicted by the Einstein's time dilation factor for all interaction strengths.
A single-particle Hamiltonian independent of the particle's coordinate ensures the conserves momentum, i.e., is free. Lorentz-covariance of that Hamiltonian's energy-momentum specifies it up to the particle's rest energy; the it describes has speed below c and constant velocity parallel to its conserved momentum. Dirac took his free-particle Hamiltonian to have the same squared value as that relativistic one, but unwittingly blocked Lorentz-covariance of his Hamiltonian's energy-momentum by requiring it to be inhomogeneously linear in momentum. The Dirac free particle badly flouts relativity and even physical cogency; its velocity direction is extremely nonconstant, while its speed is fixed to c times the square root of three even when it interacts electromagnetically. Both its rest energy and total energy can be negative, and its velocity components and rest energy are artificially correlated by being mutually anticommuting; its alleged spin is an artifact of the anticommutation of its velocity components. Unlike the Dirac Hamiltonian, the nonrelativistic Pauli Hamiltonian is apparently physically sensible for speed far below c. Its relativistic extension is worked out via Lorentz-invariant upgrade of its associated action functional at zero velocity, and is obtained in closed form if there is no applied magnetic field; a successive approximation scheme must otherwise be used.
Given an isolated system of either free or interacting particles and the associated realization of the ten conserved Poincaré generators its total conserved time-like 4-momentum defines its inertial rest-frame as the 3+1 splitting whose space-like 3-spaces (named Wigner 3-spaces) are orthogonal to it and whose inertial observer is the Fokker–Pryce 4-center of inertia. There is a discussion of the problem of the relativistic center of mass based on the fact that the 4-center functions “only” of the Poincaré generators of the isolated system are the following three non-local quantities: the non-canonical covariant Fokker–Pryce 4-center of inertia, the canonical non-covariant Newton–Wigner 4-center of mass and the non-canonical non-covariant Mőller 4-center of energy. At the Hamiltonian level one is able to express the canonical world-lines of the particles and their momenta in terms of the Jacobi variables of the external Newton–Wigner center of mass (a non-local non-covariant non-measurable quantity) and of Wigner-covariant relative 3-coordinates and 3-momenta inside the Wigner 3-spaces. This solves the problem of the elimination of relative times in relativistic bound states and to formulate a consistent Wigner-covariant relativistic quantum mechanics of point particles. The non-relativistic limit gives the Hamilton–Jacobi description of the system after the separation of Newtonian center of mass. Finally there is the definition of the non-inertial rest-frames whose 3-spaces are orthogonal to the total 4-momentum of the isolated system at spatial infinity.
The de Broglie relation serves as a foundational pillar connecting classical linear momentum with quantum mechanical wave properties. For massive particles moving at relativistic speeds, momentum is routinely expressed using the Lorentz factor, yielding a direct identity with the quantum wave parameters. However, when applied to massless particles such as photons traveling at the speed of light, this product encounters an indeterminate mathematical form. This paper demonstrates how the general relativistic energy momentum dispersion relation resolves this breakdown. Through two detailed numerical case studies involving a relativistic electron moving at sixty percent of light speed and a green photon, it shows that while the algebraic expression relying on rest mass fails for massless entities, the underlying physical equivalence between momentum and wavelength remains globally valid across all particle regimes.
In the first part (Secs. I and II) of this paper, starting from the Pauli current, we obtain the decomposition of the nonrelativistic field velocity into two orthogonal parts: (i) the ``classical'' part, that is, the velocity w=p/m in the center of mass (c.m.), and (ii) the ``quantum'' part, that is, the velocity V of the motion of the c.m. frame (namely, the internal ``spin motion'' or Zitterbewegung). By inserting such a complete, composite expression of the velocity into the kinetic-energy term of the nonrelativistic classical (i.e., Newtonian) Lagrangian, we straightforwardly get the appearance of the so-called quantum potential associated, as it is known, with the Madelung fluid. This result provides further evidence of the possibility that the quantum behavior of microsystems is a direct consequence of the fundamental existence of spin. In the second part (Secs. III and IV), we fix our attention on the total velocity v=w+V, now necessarily considering relativistic (classical) physics. We show that the proper time entering the definition of the four-velocity ${v}^{\ensuremath{\mu}}$ for spinning particles has to be the proper time \ensuremath{\tau} of the c.m. frame. Inserting the correct Lorentz factor into the definition of ${v}^{\ensuremath{\mu}}$ leads to completely different kinematical properties for v2. The important constraint ${p}_{\ensuremath{\mu}}{v}^{\ensuremath{\mu}}=m,$ identically true for scalar particles but just assumed a priori in all previous spinning-particle theories, is herein derived in a self-consistent way.