Can 4-velocity Have Negative Component in Curved M?

  • Thread starter Thread starter c299792458
  • Start date Start date
c299792458
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Is a negative zeroth-component of a four-velocity V^0 with a curved space metric of signature -+++ allowed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume we're talking about timelike vectors. A spacelike vector that had a positive timelike component in one frame could have a negative one in a different frame. I think the question is better posed as whether we can prohibit velocity vectors from lying in a certain side of the timelike light cone.

If we restrict ourselves to timelike vectors, then any velocity vector can represent the frame of reference of an observer.

Mathematically either side of the light cone is certainly allowed, because this is a vector space, and one of the axioms of linear algebra is that if v is a vector, there's a vector -v.

Physically, SR is time-reversal invariant, so there is no fundamental physical distinction between the forward and backward directions of time. Therefore there is no fundamental way to state a prohibition on velocity vectors that point a certain way instead of the opposite way. GR inherits all the same local symmetries as SR, so this applies to GR as well. (Spacetimes in GR don't even have to be time-orientable.)

There are reasons that we have an arrow of time, but those reasons can't be found within the fundamental kinematical laws of relativity.

There is at least some kinematical guarantee of sanity, which is that a timelike geodesic always stays timelike. That implies that in SR an inertial observer will never have a velocity vector that wanders from one side of the light cone to the opposite side. (To do that, it would have to pass through the spacelike region.)

For particles, you can interpret this kind of thing in terms of matter/antimatter symmetry, i.e., flipping the velocity four-vector of an electron makes it an antielectron.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, bcrowell!
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top