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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of four-velocity in the context of light-like paths in spacetime. Participants explore whether the condition ##\dot{t}>0## holds true for these paths, examining implications for both massive and massless particles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether it is generally the case that ##\dot{t}>0## even for light-like paths.
  • One participant asserts that four-velocity is not defined for light-like paths, indicating a limitation in the discussion of four-velocity in this context.
  • Another participant suggests that while future-pointing vectors can have a consistent sign in their time component, it is possible to define a time coordinate that increases towards the past, leading to negative time components for future-pointing four vectors.
  • It is noted that for massive particles, the proper time can be used as a natural world-line parameter, leading to a normalized four-velocity with ##\dot{t}>0##.
  • For massless particles, participants discuss the use of an affine parameter instead of proper time, leading to light-like worldlines where the condition ##\dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}_{\mu}=0## applies.
  • In both cases, there is a preference expressed for choosing ##\dot{t}>0## to describe motion into the future.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the applicability of ##\dot{t}>0## for light-like paths, with some asserting it is not defined while others discuss conditions under which it may be considered.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of defining four-velocity for light-like paths and the implications of choosing different parameters for massive versus massless particles.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
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   Reactions: 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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K