Can Spacelike and Timelike Points Undergo the Same Transformations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the transformation properties of spacelike and timelike points in the context of special relativity. It is noted that spacelike points can undergo transformations that allow for instantaneous sign changes, enabling velocities greater than light. In contrast, timelike points cannot achieve such transformations due to the constraints of causality, as they require simultaneous evaluations. The conversation explores the mathematical implications of these transformations, particularly through Lorentz transformations and rotations. Ultimately, the interpretation highlights the fundamental differences in how spacelike and timelike vectors can be manipulated within the framework of relativity.
LCSphysicist
Messages
644
Reaction score
162
Homework Statement
"When (x−y)2<0 we can perform a Lorentz transformation taking (x−y)→−(x−y). Note that if (x−y)2>0 there is no continuous Lorentz transformation that takes (x−y)→−(x−y)"
Relevant Equations
The metric is majority -
I want to understand bettew what this statement says. Maybe later we could try to put it mathematically, but for while i want to know if my interpretation is right.

When we lie outside the light cone, the physics regarding the limit of the velocity is break, and technically we could go faster than light. So, if we want, we could perorm a transformation in x and y such that they got alterned sign instantaneally in a reference frame. So we can have a transformation that leads (x−y)→−(x−y) at the same time if the points are spacelike.

But, if they are timelike, we couldn't go so fast (it need to be avaliated at the same time), and we can't find a transformation that change the signs.

Is this the right interpretation? Let me know any error
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a discussion of this here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...tum-field-theory-from-improper-lorentz-transf

The idea is that you want to perform rotations and Lorentz transformations to turn the vector

##(A^x,A^y,A^z,A^t)##

into

##(- A^x, - A^y, -A^z, -A^t)##
So the way you can do this is through a sequence of transformations:
  1. Rotate about the z-axis to make ##A^y \rightarrow 0##.
  2. Rotate about the y-axis to make ##A^z \rightarrow 0##.
  3. Perform a boost (a regular Lorentz transformation) to make ##A^t \rightarrow 0##.
  4. Perform a rotation about the z-axis to make ##A^x \rightarrow - A^x##
  5. Undo the boost in 3 to turn ##A^t## into the negative of its original value.
  6. Undo the rotation in 2 to turn ##A^z## into the negative of its original value.
  7. Undo the rotation in 1 to turn ##A^y## into the negative of its original value.
It's sort of like solving the Rubiks cube. You perform a bunch of moves, then you switch two pieces, then you undo those moves to get back to where you started, but with two pieces switched.

The only step that is impossible for timeline vectors is step 3. If ##(A^x)^2 + (A^y)^2 + (A^z)^2 \lt (A^t)^2##, then there is no Lorentz transformation that can make ##A^t \rightarrow 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes LCSphysicist
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top