Consequences of space-/time-/light-like separations

"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
I'm trying to prove the following statements relating to space-like, time-like and light-like space-time intervals:

1. There exists a reference frame in which two space-time events are simultaneous if and only if the two events are space-like separated.

2. There exists a reference frame in which two space-time events are coincident at a single spatial point if and only if the two events are time-like separated.

3. If two events are light-like separated, then there are no reference frames in which they are simultaneous or coincident at a single spatial point.

I can't seem to find any notes that a can verify my attempt with so I'm hoping that people won't mind taking a look at my workings on here to see if they're correct.Consider the space-time interval \Delta S^{2}= (\Delta x^{0})^{2}-(\Delta\mathbf{x})^{2} where we use the metric signature ##(+,-,-,-)##.
We then perform a spatial rotation of our coordinate system such that one of the space-time events ##x^{\mu}## is located at the origin of our reference, x^{\mu}=(0,0,0,0) The other space-time event that we consider ##y^{\mu}## is then spatially aligned along the ##z##-axis in our coordinate system, y^{\mu}=(y^{0},0,0,y^{3})

Given this, we shall now consider each of the (numbered) cases above.

1. Space-like interval :

First, let the two events ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## be simultaneous in our inertial frame of reference ##S##, i.e. ##x^{0}=0=y^{0}##. It then follows that the space-time interval between them is given by \Delta S^{2}=(x^{\mu}-y^{\mu})^{2}=(0-0)^{2}-(0-y^{3})^{2}=-(y^{3})^{2} Now, ##(y^{3})^{2}>0## and so clearly ##\Delta S^{2}<0##. Therefore, if the two events are simultaneous in $S$, then they are space-like separated.

Next, let the two events ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## be space-like separated. We have then that \Delta S^{2}=(x^{\mu}-y^{\mu})^{2}=(y^{0})^{2}-(y^{3})^{2}&lt;0\quad\Rightarrow\quad\vert y^{0}\vert &lt; \vert y^{3}\vert Thus, we can choose ##\beta =v=\frac{y^{0}}{(y^{3})}## (in units where ##c=1##). From this, we see that ##\beta <1## as required. Performing a Lorentz boost along the ##z##-axis we can relate the coordinates ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## in ##S## to their expressions in another inertial frame ##S'## x&#039;^{0}=\gamma\left(0-\beta 0\right)=0\; , \qquad x&#039;^{3}=\gamma\left(0-\beta 0\right)=0 and y&#039;^{0}=\gamma\left(y^{0}-\beta y^{3}\right)=0 \; , \qquad y&#039;^{3}=\gamma\left(y^{3}-\beta y^{0}\right) where ##\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1- \beta^{2}}}##.

Hence, in ##S'## we see that the two space-time events have the following coordinates x&#039;^{\mu}=(0,0,0,0) , \qquad y&#039;^{\mu}=(0,0,0,y&#039;^{3}) and thus are simultaneous in this frame.

2. Time-like interval :

This follows a very similar approach to the space-like case.
First, let the two events ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## be coincident at a single spatial point in our inertial frame of reference ##S##, i.e. ##\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{0}=\mathbf{y}##. It then follows that the space-time interval between them is given by \Delta S^{2}=(x^{\mu}-y^{\mu})^{2}=(0-y^{0})^{2}-(0-0)^{2}=(y^{0})^{2} Now, ##(y^{0})^{2}>0## and so clearly ##\Delta S^{2}>0##. Therefore, if the two events are spatially coincident in $S$, then they are time-like separated.

Next, let the two events ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## be time-like separated. We have then that \Delta S^{2}=(x^{\mu}-y^{\mu})^{2}=(y^{0})^{2}-(y^{3})^{2}&gt;0\quad\Rightarrow\quad\vert y^{0}\vert &gt; \vert y^{3}\vert Thus, we can choose ##\beta =v=\frac{y^{3}}{(y^{0})}## (in units where ##c=1##). From this, we see that ##\beta <1## as required. Performing a Lorentz boost along the ##z##-axis we can relate the coordinates ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## in ##S## to their expressions in another inertial frame ##S'## x&#039;^{0}=\gamma\left(0-\beta 0\right)=0\; , \qquad x&#039;^{3}=\gamma\left(0-\beta 0\right)=0 and y&#039;^{0}=\gamma\left(y^{0}-\beta y^{3}\right) \; , \qquad y&#039;^{3}=\gamma\left(y^{3}-\beta y^{0}\right)=0 where ##\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}##.

Hence, in ##S'## we see that the two space-time events have the following coordinates x&#039;^{\mu}=(0,0,0,0)\; , \qquad y&#039;^{\mu}=(y&#039;^{0},0,0,0) and thus are spatially coincident in this frame.
3. Light-like interval :

In this last case it is trivial, as given two events ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}##, if they are light-like separated, then \Delta S^{2}=(x^{\mu}-y^{\mu})^{2}=(y^{0})^{2}-(y^{3})^{2}=0 and thus it is impossible to find a frame in which they are either simultaneous, or spatially coincident, as either one would change the interval into a space-like or a light-like interval. The interval is Lorentz invariant, so this clearly cannot be the case.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What part are you having trouble with? It looks ok.
 
DEvens said:
What part are you having trouble with? It looks ok.

Nothing in particular, I just wasn't sure whether I'd constructed my argument correctly - particularly whether I've done the Lorentz transformation parents correctly?! Was seeking clarification more than anything really.
 
  • Like
Likes DEvens
"Don't panic!" said:
I'm trying to prove the following statements relating to space-like, time-like and light-like space-time intervals:

1. There exists a reference frame in which two space-time events are simultaneous if and only if the two events are space-like separated.

2. There exists a reference frame in which two space-time events are coincident at a single spatial point if and only if the two events are time-like separated.

3. If two events are light-like separated, then there are no reference frames in which they are simultaneous or coincident at a single spatial point.

If we have two points ##P(t_1,x_1)## and ##Q(t_2,x_2)## with ##\Delta t = t_2-t_1,\ \Delta x=x_2-x_1## the transformed interval ##\Delta t' - \Delta x'## is
##\gamma \Delta t +\beta\gamma \Delta x - (\gamma \Delta x +\beta\gamma \Delta t )= \gamma(1-\beta)(\Delta t - \Delta x)##

From this you can work out quickly the answers to your question. I can't see anything wrong with what you've done, I'm just proposing slightly more compact way.
 
  • Like
Likes DEvens
Mentz114 said:
From this you can work out quickly the answers to your question. I can't see anything wrong with what you've done, I'm just proposing slightly more compact way.

Ok cool, thanks for the tip. Glad I've understand it correctly.
 
  • Like
Likes DEvens
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...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top