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.
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...