I Angles between 4-vectors in special relativity?

LightPhoton
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
How do we define angles in relativity? do we change the usual euclidean definition or extend it?
How is the angle between two 4-vectors defined in special relativity? Consider two 4-velocity vectors:

$$U^\mu=(1,0), \\ V^\mu=\gamma_{rel}(1,v_{rel})$$

Where the vectors are written in the frame of the particle with ##U^\mu##.

The dot product between these is
$$U^\mu V_\mu=\gamma_{rel}$$

If we define angle ##\theta## between two vectors as:

$$\cos\theta=\frac{U^\mu V_\mu}{\vert U\vert\vert V\vert}$$

then since all velocity vectors have magnitude of ##1##, we get ##\cos\theta= \gamma_{rel}\geq 1##.

But what does this mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LightPhoton said:
TL;DR Summary: How do we define angles in relativity? do we change the usual euclidean definition or extend it?

How is the angle between two 4-vectors defined in special relativity? Consider two 4-velocity vectors:

$$U^\mu=(1,0), \\ V^\mu=\gamma_{rel}(1,v_{rel})$$

Where the vectors are written in the frame of the particle with ##U^\mu##.

The dot product between these is
$$U^\mu V_\mu=\gamma_{rel}$$

If we define angle ##\theta## between two vectors as:

$$\cos\theta=\frac{U^\mu V_\mu}{\vert U\vert\vert V\vert}$$

then since all velocity vectors have magnitude of ##1##, we get ##\cos\theta= \gamma_{rel}\geq 1##.

But what does this mean?
It means Minkowski spacetime is manifestly non-Euclidean.
 
  • Like
Likes Hornbein and Ibix
If both ##U## and ##V## are unit and timelike then their inner product is ##\cosh\psi##, where ##\psi## is the rapidity. Rapidity has a one-to-one relationship with speed, and is additive (at least in one dimension). But it's not much used except to reframe the Lorentz transforms as manifestly the Minkowski analogue to Euclidean rotations.

If both ##U## and ##V## are unit and spacelike then their inner product is the Euclidean inner product.

If the vectors are different types the inner product remains useful, but I'm not sure it has a meaningful interpretation in terms of angle-type quantities.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and PeterDonis
Hornbein said:
I always liked rapidity a.k.a. celerity.
Rapidity and celerity are different things. Rapidity is ##\psi## and ##v=c\tanh\psi##, but celerity is ##dx/d\tau=\gamma v##

I think rapidity is one of those things that isn't particularly useful once you go on to GR, so it's an interesting but fairly niche concept. Celerity is best forgotten about, IMO.
 
velocity = c tanh (rapidity)
celerity = c sinh (rapidity)
time-dilation-factor = cosh (rapidity)
Doppler-factor = exp (rapidity)
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top