home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.physics:13131 sci.math:10443
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!slc3.ins.cwru.edu!agate!agate!matt
- From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
- Subject: Re: Is the Action a Component of a more general object?
- Date: 20 Aug 92 10:38:07
- Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
- Lines: 22
- Message-ID: <MATT.92Aug20103807@physics2.berkeley.edu>
- References: <1992Aug20.173955.89822@physics.monash.edu.au>
- Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
- NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
- In-reply-to: voros@physics.monash.edu.au's message of 20 Aug 92 17:39:55 +1000
-
- In article <1992Aug20.173955.89822@physics.monash.edu.au> voros@physics.monash.edu.au (Joe Voros) writes:
-
- > As I was musing with Feynman's path integral approach to QM, I wondered
- > if the action S is a component of a more general object. What I have in
- > mind is something analogous to the energy being connected with the
- > time-time component of the energy-momentum tensor. Does anyone know of
- > anything at all related to these musings? Work? References? Ideas?
-
- The energy of an object is the 0 component of a four-vector, that
- object's four-momentum. To say this equivalently, but more verbosely:
- an object's energy does not transform as a Lorentz scalar---its value
- is not the same in all inertial reference frames---but transforms as
- a component of a four-vector.
-
- This is not the case with the action, however; in the relativistic
- formulation, it is defined so that it does transform as a scalar.
- --
- Matthew Austern I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band
- (510) 644-2618 of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
- matt@physics.berkeley.edu taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
- austern@theorm.lbl.gov multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
- austern@lbl.bitnet me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
-