I Angles between 4-vectors in special relativity?

Click For Summary
The angle between two 4-vectors in special relativity is defined using the dot product, leading to the conclusion that Minkowski spacetime is non-Euclidean. For two unit timelike vectors, the inner product relates to rapidity, which is additive and corresponds to speed, while for unit spacelike vectors, the inner product aligns with the Euclidean definition. The discussion emphasizes that when vectors are of different types, the inner product remains useful but lacks a clear interpretation in terms of angles. Additionally, rapidity and celerity are differentiated, with rapidity being more relevant in special relativity, though its utility diminishes in general relativity. Overall, the complexities of defining angles in relativity highlight the unique nature of spacetime geometry.
LightPhoton
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
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)
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
536
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
944
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
35
Views
4K