There exist different kinds of averaging of the differences of the energy–momentum and angular momentum in normal coordinates NC(P) which give tensorial quantities. The obtained averaged quantities are equivalent mathematically because they differ only by constant scalar dimensional factors. One of these averaging was used in our papers [J. Garecki, Rep. Math. Phys. 33, 57 (1993); Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 2195 (1996); Rep. Math. Phys. 40, 485 (1997); J. Math. Phys. 40, 4035 (1999); Rep. Math. Phys. 43, (...) 397 (1999); Rep. Math. Phys. 44, 95 (1999); Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 11, 441 (2002); M.P. Dabrowski and J. Garecki, Class. Quantum. Grar. 19, 1 (2002)] giving the canonical superenergy and angular supermomentum tensors. In this paper we present another averaging of the differences of the energy–momentum and angular momentum which gives tensorial quantities with proper dimensions of the energy–momentum and angular momentum densities. We have called these tensorial quantities “the averaged relative energy–momentum and angular momentum tensors”. These tensors are very closely related to the canonical superenergy and angular supermomentum tensors and they depend on some fundamental length L > 0. The averaged relative energy–momentum and angular momentum tensors of the gravitational field obtained in the paper can be applied, like the canonical superenergy and angular supermomentum tensors, to coordinate independent analysis (local and in special cases also global) of this field. Up to now we have applied the averaged relative energy–momentum tensors to analyze vacuum gravitational energy and momentum and to analyze energy and momentum of the Friedman (and also more general, only homogeneous) universes. The obtained results are interesting, e.g., the averaged relative energy density is positive definite for the all Friedman and other universes which have been considered in this paper. (shrink)

The notions of ``motion'' and ``conserved quantities'', if applied to extended objects, are already quite non-trivial in Special Relativity. This contribution is meant to remind us on all the relevant mathematical structures and constructions that underlie these concepts, which we will review in some detail. Next to the prerequisites from Special Relativity, like Minkowski space and its automorphism group, this will include the notion of a body in Minkowski space, the momentum map, a characterisation of the habitat of globally conserved (...) quantities associated with Poincare symmetry -- so called Poincare charges --, the frame-dependent decomposition of global angular momentum into Spin and an orbital part, and, last not least, the likewise frame-dependent notion of centre of mass together with a geometric description of the Moeller Radius, of which we also list some typical values. (shrink)

The energy-momentum tensor for a particular matter component summarises its local energy-momentum distribution in terms of densities and current densities. We re-investigate under what conditions these local distributions can be integrated to meaningful global quantities. This leads us directly to a classic theorem by Max von Laue concerning integrals of components of the energy-momentum tensor, whose statement and proof we recall. In the first half of this paper we do this within the realm of Special Relativity and in the traditional (...) mathematical language using components with respect to affine charts, thereby focusing on the intended physical content and interpretation. In the second half we show how to do all this in a proper differential-geometric fashion and on arbitrary space-time manifolds, this time focusing on the group-theoretic and geometric hypotheses underlying these results. Based on this we give a proper geometric statement and proof of Laue's theorem, which is shown to generalise from Minkowski space to space-times with significantly less symmetries. This result, which seems to be new, not only generalises but also clarifies the geometric content and hypotheses of Laue's theorem. A series of three appendices lists our conventions and notation and summarises some of the conceptual and mathematical background needed in the main text. (shrink)

Stemming from our energy localization hypothesis that energy in general relativity is localized in the regions of the energy-momentum tensor, we had devised a test with the classic Eddington spinning rod. Consistent with the localization hypothesis, we found that the Tolman energy integral did not change in the course of the motion. This implied that gravitational waves do not carry energy in vacuum, bringing into question the demand for the quantization of gravity. Also if information is conveyed by the waves, (...) the traditional view that information transfer demands energy is challenged. Later, we showed that the “body” angular momentum changed at a rate indicating that the moment of inertia increased to higher order, contrary to traditional expectations. We consider the challenges facing the development of a localized expression for the total angular momentum of the body including the contribution from gravity. We find that Komar's expression does not lead to an adequate formulation of localized angular momentum. (shrink)

By means of a Clebsch representation which differs from that previously applied to electromagnetic field theory it is shown that Maxwell's equations are derivable from a variational principle. In contrast to the standard approach, the Hamiltonian complex associated with this principle is identical with the generally accepted energy-momentum tensor of the fields. In addition, the Clebsch representation of a contravariant vector field makes it possible to consistently construct a field theory based upon a direction-dependent Lagrangian density (it is this kind (...) of Lagrangian density that may arise when developing the Finslerian extension of general relativity). The corresponding field equations are proved to be independent of any gauge of Clebsch potentials. The law of energy-momentum conservation of the field appears to be covariant and integrable in a rather wide class of direction-dependent Lagrangian densities. (shrink)

In the energy–momentum density expressions for a relativistic perfect fluid with a bulk motion, one comes across a couple of pressure-dependent terms, which though well known, are to an extent, lacking in their conceptual basis and the ensuing physical interpretation. In the expression for the energy density, the rest mass density along with the kinetic energy density of the fluid constituents due to their random motion, which contributes to the pressure as well, are already included. However, in a fluid (...) with a bulk motion, there are, in addition, a couple of explicit, pressure-dependent terms in the energy–momentum density, whose presence to an extent, is shrouded in mystery, especially from a physical perspective. We show here that one such pressure-dependent term appearing in the energy density, represents the work done by the fluid pressure against the Lorentz contraction during transition from the rest frame of the fluid to another frame in which the fluid has a bulk motion. This applies equally to the electromagnetic energy density of electrically charged systems in motion and explains in a natural manner an apparently paradoxical result that the field energy of a charged capacitor system decreases with an increase in the system velocity. The momentum density includes another pressure-dependent term, that represents an energy flow across the system, due to the opposite signs of work being done by pressure on two opposite sides of the moving fluid. From Maxwell’s stress tensor we demonstrate that in the expression for electromagnetic momentum of an electric charged particle, it is the presence of a similar pressure term, arising from electrical self-repulsion forces in the charged sphere, that yields a natural solution for the notorious, more than a century old but thought by many as still unresolved, 4/3 problem in the electromagnetic mass. (shrink)

We compute the energy tensor and the energy-momentum tensor for electrodynamics coupled to the current of a charged scalar field and for electrodynamics coupled tothe current of a Dirac spinor field, without using the equations of motion.

A new hypothesis for energy localization in general relativity is introduced which is based upon the fact that the energy-momentum conservation laws are devoid of content in vacuum. The vanishing of pseudotensor components forms the basis of coordinate conditions consistent with the above. The implication is that energy is localized where the energy-momentum tensor is nonvanishing. As a consequence, gravitational waves are not carriers of energy in vacuum. A detailed analysis of a Feynman detector interacting with a plane gravitational wave (...) is consistent with the hypothesis. The fact that there has never been a confirmed direct energy transfer to a detector via gravitational radiation is also consistent with the hypothesis. (shrink)

Recent work on the history of General Relativity by Renn, Sauer, Janssen et al. shows that Einstein found his field equations partly by a physical strategy including the Newtonian limit, the electromagnetic analogy, and energy conservation. Such themes are similar to those later used by particle physicists. How do Einstein's physical strategy and the particle physics derivations compare? What energy-momentum complex did he use and why? Did Einstein tie conservation to symmetries, and if so, to which? How did his work (...) relate to emerging knowledge of the canonical energy-momentum tensor and its translation-induced conservation? After initially using energy-momentum tensors hand-crafted from the gravitational field equations, Einstein used an identity from his assumed linear coordinate covariance x'=Mx to relate it to the canonical tensor. Usually he avoided using matter Euler-Lagrange equations and so was not well positioned to use or reinvent the Herglotz-Mie-Born understanding that the canonical tensor was conserved due to translation symmetries, a result with roots in Lagrange, Hamilton and Jacobi. Whereas Mie and Born were concerned about the canonical tensor's asymmetry, Einstein did not need to worry because his Entwurf Lagrangian is modeled not so much on Maxwell's theory as on a scalar theory. Einstein's theory thus has a symmetric canonical energy-momentum tensor. But as a result, it also has 3 negative-energy field degrees of freedom. Thus the Entwurf theory fails a 1920s-30s a priori particle physics stability test with antecedents in Lagrange's and Dirichlet's stability work; one might anticipate possible gravitational instability. This critique of the Entwurf theory can be compared with Einstein's 1915 critique of his Entwurf theory for not admitting rotating coordinates and not getting Mercury's perihelion right. One can live with absolute rotation but cannot live with instability. Particle physics also can be useful in the historiography of gravity and space-time, both in assessing the growth of objective knowledge and in suggesting novel lines of inquiry to see whether and how Einstein faced the substantially mathematical issues later encountered in particle physics. This topic can be a useful case study in the history of science on recently reconsidered questions of presentism, whiggism and the like. Future work will show how the history of General Relativity, especially Noether's work, sheds light on particle physics. (shrink)

A cornerstone of physics, Maxwell‘s theory of electromagnetism, apparently contains a fatal flaw. The standard expressions for the electromagnetic field energy and the self-mass of an electron of finite extension do not obey Einstein‘s famous equation, \, but instead fulfill this relation with a factor 4/3 on the left-hand side. Furthermore, the energy and momentum of the electromagnetic field associated with the charge fail to transform as a four-vector. Many famous physicists have contributed to the debate of this so-called 4/3-problem (...) without arriving at a complete solution. It has generally been assumed that, as originally suggested by Poincaré, the problems are connected to the question of stability of the charge distribution, and that relativistic equivalence between energy and self-mass can only be restored by inclusion of stabilizing forces. Alternative solutions to the problems have also been proposed. Nearly a century ago Fermi suggested a covariant definition of the electromagnetic energy and momentum, and sixty years later Kalckar et al. argued that the 4/3 problem is caused by omission of a relativistic correction in the standard evaluation of the self-force from Coulomb self-interaction. However, the relation between these suggestions has not been clear. We show that the relativistic correction implies that the mechanical momentum of an accelerated rigid body must be defined as the sum of the momenta of its parts for fixed time in the momentary rest frame of the body. For the total momentum of particles and field to be conserved, the total energy–momentum tensor must be divergence free, and this then requires that the momentum of the associated electromagnetic field be defined in the same way, consistent with the suggestion by Fermi. This comprehensive solution of the 4/3-problem demonstrates that there is no conflict of Maxwell‘s theory with special relativity and the questions of equivalence of electromagnetic energy and self-mass and of stability of a classical charge distribution are independent. In appendices we discuss the relations of our treatment with Fermi‘s seminal paper and with a classic paper by Dirac where he evaluated the damping self-force on a point electron from transport of energy and momentum in the electromagnetic field. (shrink)

two dimensions, quantum radiation production is incompatible with a conserved and traceless T„,. We therefore resolve an ambiguity in our expression for Tr„, regularized by a geodesic point-separation procedure.

We address to the Poynting theorem for the bound electromagnetic field, and demonstrate that the standard expressions for the electromagnetic energy flux and related field momentum, in general, come into the contradiction with the relativistic transformation of four-vector of total energy–momentum. We show that this inconsistency stems from the incorrect application of Poynting theorem to a system of discrete point-like charges, when the terms of self-interaction in the product \ and bound electric field \ are generated by the same (...) source charge) are exogenously omitted. Implementing a transformation of the Poynting theorem to the form, where the terms of self-interaction are eliminated via Maxwell equations and vector calculus in a mathematically rigorous way, we obtained a novel expression for field momentum, which is fully compatible with the Lorentz transformation for total energy–momentum. The results obtained are discussed along with the novel expression for the electromagnetic energy–momentum tensor. (shrink)

The considerations of the two former articles concerning the special and general theories of relativity are extended. The question of the physical reality of the ether and the interpretation of some cosmological problems are discussed. A view is expanded according to which the metric tensor g is taken as the energy momentum tensor of the ether. The gravitational equation of Einstein is considered to represent the equations of motion of the ether. The cosmological red shift is also interpreted in such (...) terms. (shrink)

The determination of inertia by matter is looked at in general relativity, where inertia can be represented by affine or projective structure. The matter tensor T seems to underdetermine affine structure by ten degrees of freedom, eight of which can be eliminated by gauge choices, leaving two. Their physical meaning---which is bound up with that of gravitational waves and the pseudotensor t, and with the conservation of energy-momentum---is considered, along with the dependence of reality on invariance and of causal explanation (...) on conservation. (shrink)

In the general relativity theory gravitational energy-momentum density is usually described by a pseudo-tensor with strange transformation properties so that one does not have localization of gravitational energy. It is proposed to set up a gravitational energy-momentum density tensor having a unique form in a given coordinate system by making use of a bimetric formalism. Two versions are considered: (1) a bimetric theory with a flat-space background metric which retains the physics of the general relativity theory and (2) one with (...) a background corresponding to a space of constant curvature which introduces modifications into general relativity under certain conditions. The gravitational energy density in the case of the Schwarzschild solution is obtained. (shrink)

As Harvey Brown emphasizes in his book Physical Relativity, inertial motion in general relativity is best understood as a theorem, and not a postulate. Here I discuss the status of the "conservation condition", which states that the energy-momentum tensor associated with non-interacting matter is covariantly divergence-free, in connection with such theorems. I argue that the conservation condition is best understood as a consequence of the differential equations governing the evolution of matter in general relativity and many other theories. I conclude (...) by discussing what it means to posit a certain spacetime geometry and the relationship between that geometry and the dynamical properties of matter. (shrink)

In the present paper a relativistic theory of gravitation (RTG) is unambiguously constructed on the basis of the special relativity and geometrization principle. In this a gravitational field is treated as the Faraday-Maxwell spin-2 and spin-0 physical field possessing energy and momentum. The source of a gravitational field is the total conserved energy-momentum tensor of matter and of a gravitational field in Minkowski space. In the RTG the conservation laws are strictly filfilled for the energy-momentum and for the angular momentum (...) of matter and a gravitational field. The theory explains the whole available set of experiments on gravity. By virtue of the geometrization principle, the Riemannian space in our theory is of field origin, since it appears as an effective force space due to the action of a gravitational field on matter. The RTG leads to an exceptionally strong prediction: The universe is not closed but just “flat.” This suggests that in the universe a “missing mass” should exist in a form of matter. (shrink)

In 1907, Einstein set out to fully relativize all motion, no matter whether uniform or accelerated. After five failed attempts between 1907 and 1918, he finally threw in the towel around 1920, setting himself a new goal. For the rest of his life he searched for a classical field theory unifying gravity and electromagnetism. As he struggled to relativize motion, Einstein had to readjust both his approach and his objectives at almost every step along the way; he got himself hopelessly (...) confused at times; he fooled himself with fallacious arguments and sloppy calculations; and he committed what he later allegedly called the biggest blunder of his career: he introduced the cosmological constant. There is a very uplifting moral to this somber tale. Although Einstein never reached his original destination, the harvest of his thirteen-year odyssey is quite impressive. First of all, what is left of absolute motion in general relativity is far more palatable than absolute motion in special relativity or Newtonian theory. And general relativity does seem to eliminate absolute space. More importantly, from a modern physics point of view, Einstein produced a spectacular new theory of gravity based on what he called the equivalence principle. This principle says that inertial and gravitational effects are due to one and the same structure, the inertio-gravitational field, which in Einstein’s theory is represented by a metric tensor field. In addition to laying the foundations of this theory, Einstein, among other things, launched relativistic cosmology, suggested the possibility of gravitational waves, gave the first sensible definition of a space-time singularity, and caught on to the intimate connection between general covariance and energy-momentum conservation, an example of the general connection between symmetries and conservation laws of Noether’s theorems. These results more than make up for the—at least by the standards of modern philosophy of science—rather opportunistic way in which they were obtained.. (shrink)

I describe how relativistic field theory generalizes the paradigm property of material systems, the possession of mass, to the requirement that they have a mass–energy–momentum density tensor T µ associated with them. I argue that T µ does not represent an intrinsic property of matter. For it will become evident that the definition of T µ depends on the metric field g µ in a variety of ways. Accordingly, since g µ represents the geometry of spacetime itself, the properties (...) of mass, stress, energy, and momentum should not be seen as intrinsic properties of matter, but as relational properties that material systems have only in virtue of their relation to spacetime structure. (shrink)

Gravitomagnetic equations result from applying quaternionic differential operators to the energy–momentum tensor. These equations are similar to the Maxwell’s EM equations. Both sets of the equations are isomorphic after changing orientation of either the gravitomagnetic orbital force or the magnetic induction. The gravitomagnetic equations turn out to be parent equations generating the following set of equations: the vorticity equation giving solutions of vortices with nonzero vortex cores and with infinite lifetime; the Hamilton–Jacobi equation loaded by the quantum potential. This (...) equation in pair with the continuity equation leads to getting the Schrödinger equation describing a state of the superfluid quantum medium ; gravitomagnetic wave equations loaded by forces acting on the outer space. These waves obey to the Planck’s law of radiation. (shrink)

Superluminal particles are studied within the framework of the Extended Relativity theory in Clifford spaces (C-spaces). In the simplest scenario, it is found that it is the contribution of the Clifford scalar component π of the poly-vector-valued momentum which is responsible for the superluminal behavior in ordinary spacetime due to the fact that the effective mass $\mathcal{M} = \sqrt{ M^{2} - \pi^{2} }$ is imaginary (tachyonic). However, from the point of view of C-space, there is no superluminal (tachyonic) behavior because (...) the true physical mass still obeys M 2>0. Therefore, there are no violations of the Clifford-extended Lorentz invariance and the extended Relativity principle in C-spaces. It is also explained why the charged muons (leptons) are subluminal while its chargeless neutrinos may admit superluminal propagation. A Born’s Reciprocal Relativity theory in Phase Spaces leads to modified dispersion relations involving both coordinates and momenta, and whose truncations furnish Lorentz-violating dispersion relations which appear in Finsler Geometry, rainbow-metrics models and Double (deformed) Special Relativity. These models also admit superluminal particles. A numerical analysis based on the recent OPERA experimental findings on alleged superluminal muon neutrinos is made. For the average muon neutrino energy of 17 GeV, we find a value for the magnitude $|\mathcal{M } | = 119.7\mbox{~MeV}$ that, coincidentally, is close to the mass of the muon m μ =105.7 MeV. (shrink)

This paper is motivated by the desire to formulate a relativistically covariant hidden-variable particle trajectory interpretation of the quantum theory of the vector field that is formulated in such a way as to allow the inclusion of gravity. We present a methodology for calculating the flows of rest energy and a conserved density for the massive vector field using the time-like eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Such flows may be used to define particle trajectories which follow the flow. (...) This work extends our previous work which used a similar procedure for the scalar field. The massive, spin-one, complex vector field is discussed in detail and the flows of energy-momentum are illustrated in a simple example of standing waves in a plane. (shrink)

A new gauge theory of gravity on flat spacetime has recently been developed by Lasenby, Doran, and Gull. Einstein’s principles of equivalence and general relativity are replaced by gauge principles asserting, respectively, local rotation and global displacement gauge invariance. A new unitary formulation of Einstein’s tensor illuminates long-standing problems with energy–momentum conservation in general relativity. Geometric calculus provides many simplifications and fresh insights in theoretical formulation and physical applications of the theory.

We show that the spread of momentum can be broken up into two terms, one that depends only on the change in amplitude and the other which depends only on the deviations of current from the average momentum. We present a method for measuring the relative contributions of each and interpret each contribution in terms of local quantities. A generalization for arbitrary operators is given. For the case of the Hamiltonian, the local value of energy is shown to yield (...) the quantum potential as defined by Bohm. (shrink)

En este artículo pretendo desmantelar la opinión generalizada según la cual una interpretación relacional del espaciotiempo no es posible. Centro mi atención en el hecho de que las variables dinámicas usualmente están asociadas a objetos materiales en las teorías físicas. El tensor métrico de la Teoría General de la Relatividad (TGR) es un objeto dinámico así que —sostengo— este debe ser mejor entendido como un campo material en toda regla. Este argumento me lleva a vincular la naturaleza relacional del espaciotiempo (...) a las dificultades para formular una genuina ley de conservación de energía-momento en la TGR.I will try to dismantle the widespread impression that a relational account of spacetime is not possible. I concentrate on the fact that dynamical variables are usually linked to material objects in physical theories. The metric tensor field of GR is a dynamical object so, I claim, it should be viewed as a matter field. The argument links the relational ontological status of spacetime to the failure to provide a genuine law of energy-momentum conservation within General Relativity. (shrink)

Logarithmic ambiguities in the choice of asymptotically Cartesian coordinates at spatial infinity are discussed. It is shown that they do not affect the definitions of energy-momentum and angular momentum at i°. Thus, from a physical viewpoint, the ambiguities are “pure gauge.” A prescription is given for fixed this gauge freedom for the class of space-times in which the leading-order part of the Weyl tensor satisfies a certain reflection symmetry. This class admits, in all (relatively boosted) rest frames at infinity, a (...) one-parameter family of asymptotically distinct 3-surfaces (generalized 3-planes) on which the trace of the extrinsic curvature falls off faster than usual. (shrink)

Automatic conservation of energy-momentum and angular momentum is guaranteed in a gravitational theory if, via the field equations, the conservation laws for the material currents are reduced to the contracted Bianchi identities. We first execute an irreducible decomposition of the Bianchi identities in a Riemann-Cartan space-time. Then, starting from a Riemannian space-time with or without torsion, we determine those gravitational theories which have automatic conservation: general relativity and the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory, both with cosmological constant, and the nonviable pseudoscalar model. The (...) Poincaré gauge theory of gravity, like gauge theories of internal groups, has no automatic conservation in the sense defined above. This does not lead to any difficulties in principle. Analogies to 3-dimensional continuum mechanics are stressed throughout the article. (shrink)

It is shown that the jet mechanism derivable from the Lorentz deformation picture leads to a nearly constant average jet transverse momentum. It is pointed out that this is consistent with the high-energy experimental data. It is pointed out further that this result strengthens the physical basis for the minimal time-energy uncertainty combined covariantly with Heisenberg's space-momentum uncertainty relation.

The conservation of energy and momentum have been viewed as undermining Cartesian mental causation since the 1690s. Modern discussions of the topic tend to use mid-nineteenth century physics, neglecting both locality and Noether’s theorem and its converse. The relevance of General Relativity has rarely been considered. But a few authors have proposed that the non-localizability of gravitational energy and consequent lack of physically meaningful local conservation laws answers the conservation objection to mental causation: conservation already fails in GR, so there (...) is nothing for minds to violate. This paper is motivated by two ideas. First, one might take seriously the fact that GR formally has an infinity of rigid symmetries of the action and hence, by Noether’s first theorem, an infinity of conserved energies-momenta. Second, Sean Carroll has asked how one should modify the Dirac–Maxwell–Einstein equations to describe mental causation. This paper uses the generalized Bianchi identities to show that General Relativity tends to exclude, not facilitate, such Cartesian mental causation. In the simplest case, Cartesian mental influence must be spatio-temporally constant, and hence 0. The difficulty may diminish for more complicated models. Its persuasiveness is also affected by larger world-view considerations. The new general relativistic objection provides some support for realism about gravitational energy-momentum in GR. Such realism also might help to answer an objection to theories of causation involving conserved quantities, because energies-momenta would be conserved even in GR. (shrink)

The issue of energy and its potential localizability in general relativity has challenged physicists for more than a century. Many non-invariant measures were proposed over the years but an invariant measure was never found. We discovered the invariant localized energy measure by expanding the domain of investigation from space to spacetime. We note from relativity that the finiteness of the velocity of propagation of interactions necessarily induces indefiniteness in measurements. This is because the elements of actual physical systems being measured (...) as well as their detectors are characterized by entire four-velocity fields, which necessarily leads to information from a measured system being processed by the detector in a spread of time. General relativity adds additional indefiniteness because of the variation in proper time between elements. The uncertainty is encapsulated in a generalized uncertainty principle, in parallel with that of Heisenberg, which incorporates the localized contribution of gravity to energy. This naturally leads to a generalized uncertainty principle for momentum as well. These generalized forms and the gravitational contribution to localized energy would be expected to be of particular importance in the regimes of ultra-strong gravitational fields. We contrast our invariant spacetime energy measure with the standard 3-space energy measure which is familiar from special relativity, appreciating why general relativity demands a measure in spacetime as opposed to 3-space. We illustrate the misconceptions by certain authors of our approach. (shrink)

In this paper we pay attention to the inconsistency in the derivation of the symmetric electromagnetic energy–momentum tensor for a system of charged particles from its canonical form, when the homogeneous Maxwell’s equations are applied to the symmetrizing gauge transformation, while the non-homogeneous Maxwell’s equations are used to obtain the motional equation. Applying the appropriate non-homogeneous Maxwell’s equations to both operations, we obtained an additional symmetric term in the tensor, named as “compensating term”. Analyzing the structure of this “compensating (...) term”, we suggested a method of “gauge renormalization”, which allows transforming the divergent terms of classical electrodynamics (infinite self-force, self-energy and self-momentum) to converging integrals. The motional equation obtained for a non-radiating charged particle does not contain its self-force, and the mass parameter includes the sum of mechanical and electromagnetic masses. The motional equation for a radiating particle also contains the sum of mechanical and electromagnetic masses, and does not yield any “runaway solutions”. It has been shown that the energy flux in a free electromagnetic field is guided by the Poynting vector, whereas the energy flux in a bound EM field is described by the generalized Umov’s vector, defined in the paper. The problem of electromagnetic momentum is also examined. (shrink)

We develop a geometro-dynamical approach to the cosmological constant problem (CCP) by invoking a geometry induced by the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum, matter and radiation. The construction, which utilizes the dual role of the metric tensor that it structures both the spacetime manifold and energy-momentum tensor of the vacuum, gives rise to a framework in which the vacuum energy induced by matter and radiation, instead of gravitating, facilitates the generation of the gravitational constant. The non-vacuum sources comprising matter and radiation (...) gravitate normally. At the level of classical gravitation, the mechanism deadens the CCP yet quantum gravitational effects, if strong, can keep it existent. (shrink)

The question of the existence of gravitational stress-energy in general relativity has exercised investigators in the field since the inception of the theory. Folklore has it that no adequate definition of a localized gravitational stress-energetic quantity can be given. Most arguments to that effect invoke one version or another of the Principle of Equivalence. I argue that not only are such arguments of necessity vague and hand-waving but, worse, are beside the point and do not address the heart of the (...) issue. Based on a novel analysis of what it may mean for one tensor to depend in the proper way on another, which, en passant, provides a precise characterization of the idea of a "geometric object", I prove that, under certain natural conditions, there can be no tensor whose interpretation could be that it represents gravitational stress-energy in general relativity. It follows that gravitational energy, such as it is in general relativity, is necessarily non-local. Along the way, I prove a result of some interest in own right about the structure of the associated jet bundles of the bundle of Lorentz metrics over spacetime. I conclude by showing that my results also imply that, under a few natural conditions, the Einstein field equation is the unique equation relating gravitational phenomena to spatiotemporal structure, and discuss how this relates to the non-localizability of gravitational stress-energy. (shrink)

In this work, a neo-classical relativistic mechanics theory is presented where the spin of an electron is an inherent part of its world space-time path as a point particle. The fourth-order equation of motion corresponds to the same covariant Lagrangian function in proper time as in special relativity except for an additional spin energy term. The theory provides a hidden-variable model of the electron where the dynamic variables give a complete description of its motion, giving a classical mechanics explanation of (...) the electron’s spin, its dipole moments, and Schrödinger’s zitterbewegung, These features are also described mathematically by quantum mechanics theory, of course, but without any physical picture of an underlying reality. The total motion of the electron can be decomposed into a sum of a local spin motion about a point and a global motion of this point, called here the spin center. The global motion is sub-luminal and described by Newton’s Second Law in proper time, the time for a clock fixed at the spin center, while the total motion occurs at the speed of light c, consistent with the eigenvalues of Dirac’s velocity operators having magnitude c. The local spin motion is an inherent perpetual motion, which for a free electron is periodic at the ultra-high zitterbewegung frequency and its path is circular in a spin-center reference frame. In an electro-magnetic field, this spin motion generates magnetic and electric dipole energies through the Lorentz force on the electron’s point charge. The electric dipole energy corresponds to the spin-orbit coupling term involving the electric field that appears in the corrected Pauli non-relativistic Hamiltonian, which has long been used to explain the doublet structure of the spectral lines of the excited hydrogen atom. Pauli’s spin-orbit term is usually derived, however, from his magnetic dipole energy term, including also the effect of Thomas precession, which halves this energy. The magnetic dipole energy from Pauli’s and Dirac’s theory is twice that in the neo-classical theory, a discrepancy that has not been resolved. By defining a spin tensor as the angular momentum of the electron’s total motion about its spin center, the fundamental equations of motion can be re-written in an identical form to those of the Barut–Zanghi electron theory. This allows the equations of motion to be expressed in an equivalent form involving operators applied to a state function of proper time satisfying a neo-classical Dirac–Schrödinger spinor equation. This state function produces the dynamic variables from the same operators as in Dirac’s theory for the electron but without any probability implications. It leads to a neo-classical wave function that satisfies Dirac’s relativistic wave equation for the free electron by applying the Lorentz transformation to express proper time in the state function in terms of an observer’s space-time coordinates, showing that there is a close connection between the neo-classical theory and quantum mechanics theory for the electron’s dynamics. (shrink)

In a framework describing manifestly covariant relativistic evolution using a scalar time τ, consistency demands that τ-dependent fields be used. In recent work by the authors, general features of a classical parametrized theory of gravitation, paralleling general relativity where possible, were outlined. The existence of a preferred “time” coordinate τ changes the theory significantly. In particular, the Hamiltonian constraint for τ is removed From the Euler-Lagrange equations. Instead of the 5-dimensional stress-energy tensor, a tensor comprised of 4-momentum density mid flux (...) density only serves as the source. Building on that foundation, in this paper we develop a linear approximate theory of parametrized gravitation in the spirit of the flat spacetime approach to general relativity. Using a modified form of Kraichnan's flat spacetime derivation of general relativity, we extend the linear theory to a family of nonlinear theories in which the flat metric and the gravitational field coalesce into a single effective curved metric. (shrink)

We consider the special and general relativistic extensions of the action principle behind the Schrödinger equation distinguishing classical and quantum contributions. Postulating a particular quantum correction to the source term in the classical Einstein equation we identify the conformal content of the above action and obtain classical gravitation for massive particles, but with a cosmological term representing off-mass-shell contribution to the energy–momentum tensor. In this scenario the—on the Planck scale surprisingly small—cosmological constant stems from quantum bound states having a (...) Bohr radius a as being \. (shrink)

The symplectic quantization scheme proposed for matter scalar fields in the companion paper (Gradenigo and Livi, arXiv:2101.02125, 2021) is generalized here to the case of space–time quantum fluctuations. That is, we present a new formalism to frame the quantum gravity problem. Inspired by the stochastic quantization approach to gravity, symplectic quantization considers an explicit dependence of the metric tensor gμν\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$g_{\mu \nu }$$\end{document} on an additional time variable, named intrinsic time at variance (...) with the coordinate time of relativity, from which it is different. The physical meaning of intrinsic time, which is truly a parameter and not a coordinate, is to label the sequence of gμν\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$g_{\mu \nu }$$\end{document} quantum fluctuations at a given point of the four-dimensional space–time continuum. For this reason symplectic quantization necessarily incorporates a new degree of freedom, the derivative g˙μν\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\dot{g}}_{\mu \nu }$$\end{document} of the metric field with respect to intrinsic time, corresponding to the conjugated momentum πμν\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\pi _{\mu \nu }$$\end{document}. Our proposal is to describe the quantum fluctuations of gravity by means of a symplectic dynamics generated by a generalized action functional A[gμν,πμν]=K[gμν,πμν]-S[gμν]\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal {A}}[g_{\mu \nu },\pi _{\mu \nu }] = {\mathcal {K}}[g_{\mu \nu },\pi _{\mu \nu }] - S[g_{\mu \nu }]$$\end{document}, playing formally the role of a Hamilton function, where S[gμν]\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$S[g_{\mu \nu }]$$\end{document} is the standard Einstein–Hilbert action while K[gμν,πμν]\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal {K}}[g_{\mu \nu },\pi _{\mu \nu }]$$\end{document} is a new term including the kinetic degrees of freedom of the field. Such an action allows us to define an ensemble for the quantum fluctuations of gμν\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$g_{\mu \nu }$$\end{document} analogous to the microcanonical one in statistical mechanics, with the only difference that in the present case one has conservation of the generalized action A[gμν,πμν]\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal {A}}[g_{\mu \nu },\pi _{\mu \nu }]$$\end{document} and not of energy. Since the Einstein–Hilbert action S[gμν]\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$S[g_{\mu \nu }]$$\end{document} plays the role of a potential term in the new pseudo-Hamiltonian formalism, it can fluctuate along the symplectic action-preserving dynamics. These fluctuations are the quantum fluctuations of gμν\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$g_{\mu \nu }$$\end{document}. Finally, we show how the standard path-integral approach to gravity can be obtained as an approximation of the symplectic quantization approach. By doing so we explain how the integration over the conjugated momentum field πμν\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\pi _{\mu \nu }$$\end{document} gives rise to a cosmological constant term in the path-integral approach. (shrink)

The topics of gravitational field energy and energy-momentum conservation in General Relativity theory have been unjustly neglected by philosophers. If the gravitational field in space free of ordinary matter, as represented by the metric g ab itself, can be said to carry genuine energy and momentum, this is a powerful argument for adopting the substantivalist view of spacetime.This paper explores the standard textbook account of gravitational field energy and argues that (a) so-called stress-energy of the gravitational field is well-defined neither (...) locally nor globally; and (b) there is no general principle of energy-momentum conservation to be found in General Relativity. I discuss the nature and justification of the zero-divergence law for ordinary stress-energy, and its possible connection with the failure of General Relativity to realise Mach's principle. (shrink)

The existence of current–time universe’s acceleration is usually modeled by means of two main strategies. The first makes use of a dark energy barotropic fluid entering by hand the energy–momentum tensor of Einstein’s theory. The second lies on extending the Hilbert–Einstein action giving rise to the class of extended theories of gravity. In this work, we propose a third approach, derived as an intrinsic geometrical effect of space–time, which provides repulsive regions under certain circumstances. We demonstrate that the effects (...) of repulsive gravity naturally emerge in the field of a homogeneous and isotropic universe. To this end, we use an invariant definition of repulsive gravity based upon the behavior of the curvature eigenvalues. Moreover, we show that repulsive gravity counterbalances the standard gravitational attraction influencing both late and early times of the universe evolution. This phenomenon leads to the present speed up and to the fast expansion due to the inflationary epoch. In so doing, we are able to unify both dark energy and inflation in a single scheme, showing that the universe changes its dynamics when \, at the repulsion onset time where this condition is satisfied. Further, we argue that the spatial scalar curvature can be taken as vanishing because it does not affect at all the emergence of repulsive gravity. We check the goodness of our approach through two cosmological fits involving the most recent union 2.1 supernova compilation. (shrink)

An energy condition, in the context of a wide class of spacetime theories, is, crudely speaking, a relation one demands the stress-energy tensor of matter satisfy in order to try to capture the idea that "energy should be positive". The remarkable fact I will discuss in this paper is that such simple, general, almost trivial seeming propositions have profound and far-reaching import for our understanding of the structure of relativistic spacetimes. It is therefore especially surprising when one also learns that (...) we have no clear understanding of the nature of these conditions, what theoretical status they have with respect to fundamental physics, what epistemic status they may have, when we should and should not expect them to be satisfied, and even in many cases how they and their consequences should be interpreted physically. Or so I shall argue, by a detailed analysis of the technical and conceptual character of all the standard conditions used in physics today, including examination of their consequences and the circumstances in which they are believed to be violated. (shrink)

Here, in our approximation of polaron theory, we examine the importance of introducing theT product, which turn out to be a very convenient theoretical approach for the calculation of thermodynamical averages.We focus attention on the investigation of the so-called linear polaron Hamiltonian and present in detail the calculation of the correlation function, spectral function, and Green function for such a linear system.It is shown that the linear polaron Hamiltonian provides an exactly solvable model of our system, and the result obtained (...) with this approach holds true for an arbitrary coupling constant which describes the strength of interaction between the electron and the lattice vibrations. Then, with the help of a variational technique, we show the possibility of reducing the real polaron Hamiltonian to a socalled trial or approximate linear model Hamiltonian.We also consider the exact calculation of free energy with a special technique that reduces calculations with the help of the T product, which, in our opinion, works much better and is easier than other analogous considerations, for example, the path-integral or Feynman-integral method.(1,2)Here we furthermore recall our own work,(4) where it was shown that the results of Refs. 7 and 8 concerning the impedance calculation in the polaron model may be obtained directly without the use of the path-integral method.The study of the polaron system's thermodynamics is carried out by us in the framework of the functional method. A calculation of the free energy and the momentum distribution function is proposed.Note also that the polaron systems with strong coupling(9) proved to be useful in different quantum field models in connection with the construction of dynamical models of composite particles. A rigorous solution of the special strong-coupling polaron problem, describing the interaction of a nonrelativistic particle with a quantum field, was given by Bogolubov.(3) The works of Tavkhelidze, Fedyanin, Khrustalev, and others(10–13) are dedicated to the further development and generalization of the Bogolubov method.Notice, too, that the electron-photon interaction effects play an important part in many problems of modern solid state theory (see, e.g., Refs. 7 and 14–19).The present paper summarizes a set of lectures delivered as a special course in the physics department of Moscow State University. (shrink)

We submit that, contrary to the standard view, gravitational waves do not carry energy-momentum. Analysing the four standard arguments on which the standard view rests - viz. the kinetic effects of a GW on a detector, Feynman’s Sticky Bead Argument, an application of Noether’s Theorem and a general perturbative approach – we find none of them to be successful: Pre-relativistic premises underlie each of them – premises that, as we argue, no longer hold in General Relativity. Finally, we outline a (...) GR-consistent interpretation of the effects and, in particular, the spin-down of binary systems. (shrink)

The frame associated with a classical point particle is generally noninertial. The point particle may have a nonzero velocity and force with respect to an absolute inertial rest frame. In time–position–energy–momentum-space {t, q, p, e}, the group of transformations between these frames leaves invariant the symplectic metric and the classical line element ds2 = d t2. Special relativity transforms between inertial frames for which the rate of change of momentum is negligible and eliminates the absolute rest frame by making (...) velocities relative but still requires the absolute inertial frame. The Lorentz group leaves invariant the symplectic metric and the line elements $ds^{2} = -dt^{2} + \frac{1}{c^{2}} dq^{2}$ and $d \mu^{2} = dp^{2}-\frac{1}{c^{2}}de^{2}$ . General relativity for particles under only the influence of gravity avoids the issue of noninertial frames as all particles follow geodesics and hence have locally inertial frames. For other forces, the question of the absolute inertial frame remains.) Born conjectured that the line element should be generalized to the pseudo-orthogonal metric $ds^{2} = -d t^{2}+\frac{1}{c^{2}} dq^{2} + \frac{1}{b^{2}}(dp^{2}-\frac{1}{c^{2}}de^{2})$ . The group leaving this metrics and the symplectic metric invariant is the pseudo-unitary group of transformations between noninertial frames. We show that these transformations also eliminate the need for an absolute inertial frame by making forces relative and bounded by b and so embodies a relativity that is shape reciprocal in the sense of Born. The inhomogeneous version of this group is naturally the semidirect product of the pseudo-unitary group with the nonabelian Heisenberg group. This is the quaplectic group. (shrink)

There are well-known problems associated with the idea of gravitational energy in general relativity. We offer a new perspective on those problems by comparison with Newtonian gravitation, and particularly geometrized Newtonian gravitation. We show that there is a natural candidate for the energy density of a Newtonian gravitational field. But we observe that this quantity is gauge dependent, and that it cannot be defined in the geometrized theory without introducing further structure. We then address a potential response by showing that (...) there is an analogue to the Weyl tensor in geometrized Newtonian gravitation. (shrink)

To comprehend the special relativity genesis, one should unfold Einstein’s activities in quantum theory first . His victory upon Lorentz’s approach can only be understood in the wider context of a general programme of unification of classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics, with relativity and quantum theory being merely its subprogrammes. Because of the lack of quantum facets in Lorentz’s theory, Einstein’s programme, which seems to surpass the Lorentz’s one, was widely accepted as soon as quantum theory became a recognized part (...) of physics. A new approach to special relativity genesis enables to broaden the bothering “Trinity” group of its creators to include Gilbert N. Lewis. Notwithstanding that the links necessarily existing between all the 1905 papers were obscured by Einstein himself due to the reasons discussed below, Lewis revealed from the very beginning the connections between special relativity and quasi-corpuscular theory of light, as he punctuated: “The consequences which one of us obtained from a simple assumption as to the mass of a beam of light, and the fundamental conservation of mass, energy and momentum, Einstein has derived from the principle of relativity and the electromagnetic theory” (Lewis G.N.& Tolman R.C. “The Principle of Relativity and Non-Newtonian Mechanics”, Philosophical Magazine, 1908). (shrink)

It is a commonplace in the philosophy of physics that any local physical theory can be represented using arbitrary coordinates, simply by using tensor calculus. On the other hand, the physics literature often claims that spinors \emph{as such} cannot be represented in coordinates in a curved space-time. These commonplaces are inconsistent. What general covariance means for theories with fermions, such as electrons, is thus unclear. In fact both commonplaces are wrong. Though it is not widely known, Ogievetsky and Polubarinov constructed (...) spinors in coordinates in 1965, enhancing the unity of physics and helping to spawn particle physicists' concept of nonlinear group representations. Roughly and locally, these spinors resemble the orthonormal basis or "tetrad" formalism in the symmetric gauge, but they are conceptually self-sufficient and more economical. The typical tetrad formalism is de-Ockhamized, with six extra field components and six compensating gauge symmetries to cancel them out. The Ogievetsky-Polubarinov formalism, by contrast, is Ockhamized, with most of the fluff removed. As developed nonperturbatively by Bilyalov, it admits any coordinates at a point, but "time" must be listed first. Here "time" is defined in terms of an eigenvalue problem involving the metric components and the matrix $diag$, the product of which must have no negative eigenvalues in order to yield a real symmetric square root that is a function of the metric. Thus even formal general covariance requires reconsideration; the atlas of admissible coordinate charts should be sensitive to the types and \emph{values} of the fields involved. Apart from coordinate order and the usual spinorial two-valuedness, Ogievetsky-Polubarinov spinors form, with the metric, a nonlinear geometric object, for which important results on Lie and covariant differentiation are recalled. Such spinors avoid a spurious absolute object in the Anderson-Friedman analysis of substantive general covariance. They also permit the gauge-invariant localization of the infinite-component gravitational energy in General Relativity. Density-weighted spinors exploit the conformal invariance of the massless Dirac equation to show that the volume element is absent. Thus instead of an arbitrary nonsingular matrix with 16 components, 6 of which are gauged away by a new local $O$ gauge group and one of which is irrelevant due to conformal covariance, one can, and presumably should, use density-weighted Ogievetsky-Polubarinov spinors coupled to the 9-component symmetric square root of the part of the metric that fixes null cones. Thus $\frac{7}{16}$ of the orthonormal basis is eliminated as surplus structure. Greater unity between spinors and tensors and the like is achieved, such as regarding conservation laws. Regarding the conventionality of simultaneity, an unusually wide range of $\epsilon$ values is admissible, but some extreme values are inadmissible. Standard simultaneity uniquely makes the spinor transformation law linear and independent of the metric, because transformations among the standard Cartesian coordinate systems fall within the conformal group, for which the spinor transformation law is linear. The surprising mildness of the restrictions on coordinate order as applied to the Schwarzschild solution is exhibited. (shrink)

If we live on the weak brane with zero effective cosmological constant in a warped 5D bulk spacetime, gravitational waves and brane fluctuations can be generated by a part of the 5D Weyl tensor and carries information of the gravitational field outside the brane. We consider on a cylindrical symmetric warped FLRW background a U self-gravitating scalar field coupled to a gauge field without bulk matter. It turns out that brane fluctuations can be formed dynamically, due to the modified (...) class='Hi'>energy–momentum tensor components of the scalar-gauge field. As a result, we find that the late-time behavior could significantly deviate from the standard evolution of the universe. The effect is triggered by the time-dependent warpfactor with two branches of the form \}\) constants) and the modified brane equations comparable with a dark energy effect. This is a brane-world mechanism, not present in standard 4D FLRW, where the large disturbances are rapidly damped as the expansion proceed. Because gravity can propagate in the bulk, the cosmic string can build up a huge angle deficit by the warpfactor and can induce massive KK-modes felt on the brane. Disturbances in the spatial components of the stress-energy tensor cause cylindrical symmetric waves, amplified due to the presence of the bulk space and warpfactor. They could survive the natural damping due to the expansion of the universe. It turns out that one of the metric components becomes singular at the moment the warp factor develops an extremum. This behavior could have influence on the possibility of a transition from acceleration to deceleration or vice versa. (shrink)

We address a long-standing debate over whether classical magnetic forces can do work, ultimately answering the question in the affirmative. In detail, we couple a classical particle with intrinsic spin and elementary dipole moments to the electromagnetic field, derive the appropriate generalization of the Lorentz force law, show that the particle's dipole moments must be collinear with its spin axis, and argue that the magnetic field does mechanical work on the particle's elementary magnetic dipole moment. As consistency checks, we calculate (...) the overall system's energy-momentum and angular momentum, and show that their local conservation equations lead to the same force law and therefore the same conclusions about magnetic forces and work. We also compute the system's Belinfante-Rosenfeld energy-momentum tensor. (shrink)

An ideal choice for undergraduate students of science and engineering, this book presents a thorough exploration of the basic concepts of relativity. The treatment provides more than the typical coverage of introductory texts, and it offers maximum flexibility since many sections may be used independently, in altered order, or omitted altogether. Numerous problems -- most with hints and answers -- make this volume ideal for supplementary reading and self-study. Nearly 300 diagrams illuminate the three-part treatment, which examines special relativity in (...) terms of kinematics and introductory dynamics as well as general relativity. Specific topics include the speed of light, the relative character of simultaneity, the Lorentz transformation, the conservation of momentum and energy, nuclei and fundamental particles, the principle of equivalence and curved space-time, Einstein's equations, and many other topics. (shrink)