• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,075 questions , 2,226 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,749 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  What is the proper time used in relativistic non-equilibrium statistical physics?

+ 9 like - 0 dislike

In the literature one often finds covariant relativistic generalizations of classical non equilibrium statistical equations (Boltzmann, Vlasov, Landau, Fokker-Planck, etc...) but I wonder what is the meaning of the time which is used. As far as I know, one can only write the interaction between two relativistic charged particles by doing the computation in the proper space-time frame of one of the particles. With three relativistic charged particles I am already wondering about how to tackle the problem of proper time, so for N close to a mole...I am lost. Since non-equilibrium statistical mechanics is derived from Hamiltonian mechanics, I can reformulate my question as follows. What is the Hamiltonian of N relativistic interacting charged particles ?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-10-30 15:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Shaktyai

asked Jul 18, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Shaktyai (45 points) [ revision history ]
edited Oct 30, 2016 by Dilaton
icmp.lviv.ua/journal/zbirnyk.25/001/art01.pdf "Classical relativistic system of N charges. Hamiltonian description, forms of dynamics, and partition function" looks as if it answers exactly your question.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-10-30 15:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Rennie
Exactly what I was looking for. Thank's a lot

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-10-30 15:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Shaktyai
@JohnRennie perhaps you could post that as an answer? (with a brief statement of what the article actually says that answers the question)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-10-30 15:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Z
@DavidZaslavsky a quick glance at the article convinced me that a brief description would be hard! The fact I found it is more a testament to my Google skills than my deep knowledge of relativistic statistical thermodynamics :-)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-10-30 15:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Rennie
The paper is quite complex, so far my researches to solve the problem has only brought back this paper: cft.edu.pl/~laturski/Physica/… I am not sure I understand how they have avoided the retarded time for each particle ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-10-30 15:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Shaktyai

There are specific works on electrons beams. One partially answers your question. This didactic and short document shows the tricks used to bypass the elementary time variable in this electrons analysis ( see page 4 )  but it ends with this paragraph :

The differences between the nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum theory of electrons are so substantial that they completely invalidate some conclusions based on the Schrödinger equation. The first difference is the nonexistence of relativistic electron wave packets with fixed orbital angular momentum. The second difference is the presence of the relativistic length parameter—Compton wavelength—which determines the behavior at large distances from the center. The third difference is lack of freedom to manipulate separately orbital angular momentum and spin. Finally, there is an open problem of vortex lines in the relativistic case which boils down to the question: Which current, total (no vortex lines) or orbital (with vortex lines), is observed in experiments?

Relativistic Electron Wave Packets Carrying Angular Momentum by Iwo Bialynicki-Birula and Zofia Bialynicka-Birula

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights