Can Two Future-Pointing Null Vectors Sum to a Time-Like Vector?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spaghetti3451
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sum Vectors
spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31

Homework Statement



Show that the sum of two future-pointing null vectors is a future-pointing time-like vector, except when the two null vectors have the same direction. Conversely, show that any time-like vector can be expressed as a sum of two null vectors. For a given time-like vector the two null vectors are not uniquely determined: what is the nature of the freedom in their choice?

Homework Equations



Under the 'mostly-minus' convention, a null vector ##N^{a}## satisfies ##N^{a}N_{a}=0##, a time-like vector ##T^{a}## satisfies ##T^{a}T_{a}>0##, and a space-like vector ##S^{a}## satisfies ##S^{a}S_{a}<0##.

Given a future-pointing time-like vector ##P^{a}## (with ##P^{0}>0##), any other future-pointing time-like or null vector ##Q^{a}## satisfies ##P^{a}Q_{a}>0##.

The Attempt at a Solution



Consider two future-pointing null vectors ##P^{a}## and ##Q^{a}##. These vectors satisfy the following relations:

##P^{a}P_{a}=0,\ Q^{a}Q_{a}=0,\ P^{a}Q_{a}>0##.

Therefore, ##(P^{a}+Q^{a})(P_{a}+Q_{a}) = P^{a}P_{a}+ 2\ P^{a}Q_{a} + Q^{a}Q_{a} = 2\ P^{a}Q_{a}##.

Now, if ##P^{a} \not\propto Q^{a}##, then ##(P^{a}+Q^{a})(P_{a}+Q_{a}) = 2\ P^{a}Q_{a} > 0## and

if ##P^{a} \propto Q^{a}##, then ##(P^{a}+Q^{a})(P_{a}+Q_{a}) \propto 2\ P^{a}P_{a} = 0##.

Therefore, the sum of two future-pointing null vectors is a time-like vector, except when the two null vectors have the same direction, in which case the sum is again a null vector (regardless of the time-orientation of the original two vectors).Consider a time-like vector ##S^{a}+T^{a}##, where the nature of ##S^{a}## and ##T^{a}## are not yet known. The vector ##S^{a}+T^{a}## satisfies the following relation:

##(S^{a}+T^{a})(S_{a}+T_{a})>0##, which means that

##S^{a}S_{a}+T^{a}T_{a}+2S^{a}T_{a}>0##

Where do I go from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
failexam said:
Consider a time-like vector ##S^{a}+T^{a}##, where the nature of ##S^{a}## and ##T^{a}## are not yet known. The vector ##S^{a}+T^{a}## satisfies the following relation:

##(S^{a}+T^{a})(S_{a}+T_{a})>0##, which means that

##S^{a}S_{a}+T^{a}T_{a}+2S^{a}T_{a}>0##

Where do I go from here?
What happens if you now choose S and T to be null-like?
 
If ##S^{a}## and ##T^{a}## are null-like, then ##S^{a}T_{a}>0##

which means that ##S^{a}T_{a}## has to be future-pointing as well.But then, the relation ##S^{a}S_{a}+T^{a}T_{a}+2S^{a}T_{a}>0## is also satisfied for ##S^{a}## and ##T^{a}## future-pointing time-like?
 
Yes, the question asks you to show that a time-like vector can be expressed as a sum of two null vectors; it did not say that that is the only way to decompose it. I don't see why you can't express a time-like vector as a sum of two time-like vectors if you wanted to.
 
Thanks! Got it!

Let me now answer the third part of the question:

For a given time-like vector, the two null vectors are not uniquely determined: what is the nature of the freedom in their choice?

The condition for the vectors ##T^{a}## and ##S^{a}## to be null is that ##T^{a}S_{a}>0##,

so either both vectors are future-pointing, or both are past-pointing.

Is this correct?
 
Yup, that seems right to me.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top