B Four Velocity Sign of Time: \dot t>0?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of four velocity in relation to time-like and light-like paths in spacetime. It clarifies that four velocity is not defined for light-like paths, but other four vectors, such as four momentum, can be defined along null curves. For massive particles, proper time can be used to ensure that four-velocity is normalized with a positive time component. The conversation emphasizes that while future-pointing vectors typically have a positive time component, it is theoretically possible to define a time coordinate that increases towards the past. Ultimately, it is common practice to choose a time coordinate such that the four velocity component is positive to represent motion into the future.
Onyx
Messages
141
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
Is it generally the case even with light like paths that ##\dot t>0##?
Is it generally the case even with light like paths that ##\dot t>0##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A four velocity is not defined for a light like path.
 
Up to you, really. It is true that all future-pointing vectors will have the same sign in their time component, assuming your time coordinate is reasonably named and the spacetime has a global distinction between past and future. But there's nothing to stop you having your time coordinate increase towards the past, in which case all future-pointing four vectors would have negative time components.

As @Sagittarius A-Star points out, four velocity is not defined for null paths. However, you can define other four vectors tangent to null curves, such as the four momentum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark and PeterDonis
It's convenient to have the world-line parameter defined such that ##\dot{t}>0##. For massive particles you have time-like worldlines, and you can choose the proper time, ##\tau## as a natural world-line parameter. Then the four-velocity is "normalized": ##u_{\mu} u^{\mu}=c^2##.

For massless particles ("naive photons") of course you cannot choose proper time, because it's not defined but you can choose any affine parameter you like. Then you have ##\dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}_{\mu}=0##, i.e., light-like worldlines.

In both cases it is natural to choose ##\dot{t}>0##, where ##t## is the time-like coordinate since then with increasing world-line parameter you describe a motion into the future.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K