Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Complex four vector algebra in relativity

  1. May 25, 2007 #1
    Complex four vector spacetime algebras in relativity

    Does anyone have any experience or references as to the usefulness and applicability of this in relativity?
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2007 #2

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Null tetrads use complexified Minkowski spaces. See d'Inverno or de Felice and Clarke.
  4. May 25, 2007 #3

    Jonathan Scott

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Your question doesn't make it clear whether you mean special or general relativity.

    For special relativity, then "complex four-vector algebra" is a very natural way of looking at things; it is of course equivalent to the Pauli Algebra but with a slightly different approach. I wrote my own informal summary of the subject some time ago, which you can find at this URL, although Clifford Algebra enthusiasts (such as the late Pertti Lounesto) use slightly different notation from mine:


    William Baylis likes to call this algebra the "Algebra of Physical Space" (APS), and you may find further information by searching on that subject. One thing I find most interesting about this notation is that it allows one to write the Dirac equation directly in this algebra (that is, the Pauli Algebra) rather than needing to use the Dirac Algebra.
  5. May 25, 2007 #4
    Very interesting paper Jonathan.
  6. May 25, 2007 #5
    Hi :-)

    I've had a look and I think it's great! ..... From what I've read so far, you've written it very well (IMO).

    Two things though;
    (1) Many of the opertors within the document appear as "boxes" (e.g. pg 31). I think you need to do something about the font embedding(?).
    (2) I (personally), "disagree" with the "the Neutrino Equation" section (as is) because as you say, recent experiments imply mass. You do state this, but to me it comes across as a bit of a contradiction. A paragraph stating why it's "OK" (as a techique) to take that approach should be included (IMO) and would "fix" the issue about it.

    Well done overall though!

  7. May 25, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Are you referring to the gradient-type operator?
  8. May 26, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Should anything in this null tetrad formulation encourage MeJennnifer to believe that there exists vectors which are neither timelike, spacelike, or null?
  9. May 26, 2007 #8

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Neither the null tetrad formalism nor the formalism of Jonathan Scott's paper (which can be extended to GR by using tetrads) changes the fact that spacetime is modeled by a real 4-dimensional differentiable manifold that has a real 4-dimensional vector space as tangent space at each event. As you say, every tangent vector has a real "length" that is used to characterize it as timelike, lightlike, or spacelike.
  10. May 27, 2007 #9
    Yep, that's them :-) <--- disregard please.

    Sorry, I don't know how it came to pass, but I posted a reply in the wrong place .... I was talking about something in a another forum.

    OOPS :-(
    Last edited: May 27, 2007
  11. May 29, 2007 #10
    No you weren't. Don't try to compound your error by backtracking.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Complex four vector algebra in relativity