Null curves vs. straight curves on Minkowski space

In summary, we discussed the concept of a null curve in Minkowski space and how it can be defined as a curve c(s) such that the tangent vector dc(s)/ds = 0 at all s. We also explored the conditions that would make c(s) a straight line and how it relates to tangency. Additionally, we discussed different ways of defining geodesics, such as using the geodesic equation or parallel transport of the tangent vector. Finally, we explored how the components of the tangent vector can be constant along a geodesic if the Christoffel symbols vanish, which is the case in a global inertial coordinate system in Minkowski space.
  • #1
quasar_4
290
0
I understand that we could think of a null curve in Minkowski space as being the curve c(s) such that the tangent vector dc(s)/ds = 0 at all s.

So suppose that we have a curve c(s) = (t(s), x(s), y(s), z(s)) and we want to ask ourselves what conditions would make c a straight line. I guess I'm having trouble understanding how c(s) as a straight line relates to tangency, if at all. Certainly one can think of a tangent vector at s as an equivalence class of curves passing through s, but I am not sure that's helpful.

Can anyone clarify this a bit?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
quasar_4 said:
I understand that we could think of a null curve in Minkowski space as being the curve c(s) such that the tangent vector dc(s)/ds = 0 at all s.
I don't think you want the tangent vector to *be* zero, I think you just want it to have a norm of zero.

quasar_4 said:
So suppose that we have a curve c(s) = (t(s), x(s), y(s), z(s)) and we want to ask ourselves what conditions would make c a straight line. I guess I'm having trouble understanding how c(s) as a straight line relates to tangency, if at all. Certainly one can think of a tangent vector at s as an equivalence class of curves passing through s, but I am not sure that's helpful.

There are a bunch of different ways of doing this. One way is to say that a geodesic is a curve that parallel-transports its own tangent vector. Another is by using the geodesic equation written in a particular coordinate system. Another is to say that a geodesic is a curve that locally extremizes its own length.
 
  • #3
Ok, I think I see what I was missing.

I guess another question is, if I have some curve and I imagine taking the tangent vector at each point along the curve, then what I've really got is a vector field. If I could show that this vector field is constant (i.e., that the vector field has constant components), is that equivalent to showing that the curve parallel transports its own tangent vector?
 
  • #4
I recently studied these things in Lee's "Riemannian manifolds: an introduction to curvature", so it might help me as well as you if I write down a summary of it here. (I'm writing indices as i,j,k rather than with greek letters because i,j,k is easier to type).

We need to distinguish between "a vector field" and "a vector field along a curve". Let [itex]\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M[/itex] be a smooth curve in a manifold M. A vector field on an open subset U of M takes each [itex]p\in U[/itex] to a tangent vector at p. A vector field along [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a function that takes each [itex]t\in[a,b][/itex] to a tangent vector at [itex]\gamma(t)[/itex]. The most obvious example of vector field along [itex]\gamma[/itex] is its velocity, defined by

[tex]\dot\gamma(t)=\gamma_*D_t[/tex]

where [itex]\gamma_*[/itex] is the pushforward of [itex]\gamma[/itex] and [itex]D_t[/itex] is the operator that takes [itex]f:[a,b]\rightarrow R[/itex] to f'(t). Note that this is just the definition of the tangent vector of [itex]\gamma[/itex] at the point [itex]\gamma(t)[/itex].

[tex]\dot\gamma(t)f=D_t(f\circ\gamma)=(f\circ\gamma)'(t)[/tex]

If the manifold is equipped with a connection, we can use it to define a covariant derivative of vector fields along [itex]\gamma[/itex]. The book explains it well.

[itex]\gamma[/itex] is said to be a geodesic if the covariant derivative along [itex]\gamma[/itex] of [itex]\dot\gamma[/itex] is 0, i.e. if

[tex]0=D\dot\gamma(t)=(\nabla_V V)_{\gamma(t)}[/tex]

for all t, where D is the covariant dervative operator associated with [itex]\gamma[/itex], V is any vector field along [itex]\gamma[/itex] such that [itex]V_{\gamma(t)}=\dot\gamma(t)[/itex] for all t. Such a V is said to be an extension of [itex]\dot\gamma[/itex]. The second equality is explained in the book as well.

The definition of a connection tells us that

[tex]\nabla_XY=X^i\nabla_{\partial_i}(Y^j\partial_j)=X^i(\partial_i Y^j\partial_j+Y^j\Gamma^k_{ij}\partial_k)=(XY^k+\Gamma^k_{ij}X^iY^j)\partial_k[/tex]

so

[tex]0=(\nabla_V V)_{\gamma(t)}^k=V_{\gamma(t)}V^k+\Gamma^k_{ij}(\gamma(t))V^i(\gamma(t))V^j(\gamma(t))[/tex]

But we have

[tex]V_{\gamma(t)}V^k=\dot\gamma(t)V^k=(V^k\circ\gamma)'(t)=\frac{d}{dt}V^k(\gamma(t))[/tex]

This is what needs to be zero for the components of the tangent vector to be constant along gamma. So the definition of a geodesic is telling us that this happens if and only if the Christoffel symbols [itex]\Gamma^k_{ij}(\gamma(t))[/tex] all vanish in the coordinate system we're using.

If we restrict ourselves to metric compatible symmetric connections (that includes any metric of GR, and of course the Euclidean metric as well), the Christoffel symbols can be expressed as

[tex]\Gamma^k_{ij}=\frac 1 2 g^{kl}(\partial_i g_{jl}+\partial_j g_{il} -\partial_l g_{ij})[/tex]

So they all vanish if the components of the metric are constant in the coordinate system we're using. The components of the Minkowski metric in any global inertial coordinate system are of course just [itex]g_{ij}(p)=\eta_{ij}[/itex] for all p, so the Christoffel symbols vanish, and the components of the tangent vector of a geodesic are constant along the geodesic.
 

1. What is the difference between null curves and straight curves on Minkowski space?

Null curves are paths in Minkowski space that have a constant speed of light, meaning that the distance traveled in the space-time interval is always equal to zero. Straight curves, on the other hand, are paths that follow the geodesic equations and have a constant acceleration of zero.

2. How do null curves and straight curves affect the concept of time dilation?

Null curves do not experience time dilation because they are always moving at the speed of light, which is the maximum speed allowed in Minkowski space. Straight curves, however, can experience time dilation depending on the path they take in the space-time interval.

3. Can null curves and straight curves intersect?

No, null curves and straight curves cannot intersect because they have different properties and follow different equations. Null curves have a constant speed of light and do not accelerate, while straight curves have a constant acceleration and do not move at the speed of light.

4. How do null curves and straight curves impact the concept of causality?

Null curves do not violate causality because they always travel at the speed of light, which is the maximum speed allowed in Minkowski space. Straight curves, however, can violate causality if they travel faster than the speed of light, which is not possible in Minkowski space.

5. Are there any real-world applications of null curves and straight curves in Minkowski space?

Yes, the concept of null curves and straight curves is used in the study of relativity and has practical applications in fields such as physics, astronomy, and engineering. For example, it is used in the design and analysis of spacecraft trajectories and in understanding the behavior of light in gravitational fields.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
315
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
983
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
998
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
690
Back
Top