Circles in Minkowski space: unknown notation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the notation of "m-m circles" and "n-n circles" in Minkowski space, specifically in the context of Lorentz transformations. The author of the article indicates that for R² > 0, the orbits correspond to n-n Minkowski circles with real radii, while for R² < 0, they represent m-m circles with imaginary radii. These terms appear to be standard in Russian literature but lack established English equivalents. Participants in the forum suggest that "space-like" and "time-like" may relate to these concepts, although the exact correspondence remains unclear.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Minkowski space and its properties
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations
  • Basic knowledge of complex numbers and imaginary radii
  • Awareness of terminology in mathematical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definitions and implications of "space-like" and "time-like" intervals in Minkowski space
  • Explore the concept of invariants in Lorentz transformations
  • Investigate the historical context and usage of terms in Russian mathematical literature
  • Study the relationship between Minkowski circles and complex analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying relativity or Minkowski space who seek clarity on notational conventions and their implications in theoretical contexts.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
256
I am reading an article about Minkowski space (as a vector space, which is why I am putting my question in this rubric) which is poorly translated from the Russian, and have come across several notational curiosities, most of which I have been able to figure out. However, there is one that I do not know. Talking about positive and negative radii, the author refers to "m-m circles". (Apparently "m" is not significant, as he also refers to "n-n circles" and other letters.)
Specifically, he says:
"The invariant of the [Lorentz] transformations is
-x22 = R2 = inv
...
For R2>0 the orbits are n-n Minkowski circles with real radii R, for R2<0 the orbits are m-m circles with imaginary radii Ri."
Nowhere in the paper does the author indicate that he has coined these terms; apparently they are standard terms in Russia. But I don't know any Russian mathematicians or physicists. So:
(1) what do these terms refer to? (guesses also welcome)
(2) are these standard terms in English? If not,
(3) what are the corresponding standard terms in English?
Even a partial answer will be much appreciated. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nomadreid said:
I am reading an article about Minkowski space (as a vector space, which is why I am putting my question in this rubric) which is poorly translated from the Russian, and have come across several notational curiosities, most of which I have been able to figure out. However, there is one that I do not know. Talking about positive and negative radii, the author refers to "m-m circles". (Apparently "m" is not significant, as he also refers to "n-n circles" and other letters.)
Specifically, he says:
"The invariant of the [Lorentz] transformations is
-x22 = R2 = inv
...
For R2>0 the orbits are n-n Minkowski circles with real radii R, for R2<0 the orbits are m-m circles with imaginary radii Ri."
Nowhere in the paper does the author indicate that he has coined these terms; apparently they are standard terms in Russia. But I don't know any Russian mathematicians or physicists. So:
(1) what do these terms refer to? (guesses also welcome)
(2) are these standard terms in English? If not,
(3) what are the corresponding standard terms in English?
Even a partial answer will be much appreciated. Thanks.

"Space-like" and "time-like" spring to mind, although it may be that the author is using a different sign convention than that adopted by Wikipedia.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Many thanks, pasmith. That would make perfect sense in the context.

(I am curious why "m" and "n" . "Space" and "time" in Russian don't begin with those letters. And why repeated (n-n, m-m)? But these questions would be more "Trivial Pursuit" for etymology fanatics, not for a Physics Forum, so I won't lose any sleep over such details, as long as I can understand what physics the author is referring to.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
16K