Is There an Error in Hartle's Fig. 7.11 Caption Regarding Normals and Tangents?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on a potential error in the caption of Figure 7.11 from Hartle's work, specifically regarding the interchange of "normal" and "tangent" in the context of null surfaces. Participants explore the implications of this terminology within the framework of Minkowski spacetime and null vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether Hartle has mistakenly interchanged "normal" and "tangent" in the figure caption, suggesting a rephrasing for clarity.
  • Another participant explains that a normal vector to a null surface is also tangent to that surface, citing properties of null vectors and providing an example using an orthonormal basis in Minkowski spacetime.
  • A third participant expresses difficulty in visualizing the concept of a vector being both tangent and normal, indicating a need for further clarification.
  • A later reply suggests using a Minkowski diagram to illustrate the relationship between lightlike lines and their orthogonality, emphasizing the need to move away from Euclidean concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the terms "normal" and "tangent" in this context, with some supporting the initial claim of error and others providing explanations that complicate the issue.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in visualization and understanding of the properties of null surfaces and their vectors, as well as the challenges posed by transitioning from Euclidean to Minkowski geometry.

joneall
Gold Member
Messages
90
Reaction score
15
A question concerning FIg. 7.11 on page 173. It seems to me, in light of what is said on the preceding page about null surfaces, that he has interchanged "normal" and "tangent" in the third and fourth sentences of the figure caption. I would say:

"The tangent to the surface l lies in the surface and along the generating light rays. A normal vector t is also shown."

Anyone agree with this? It is not included in the (rather long) list of errata I downloaded. Thanks for you help or corrections.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Unfortunately, I won't be able to look at Hartle until Monday.

Because a null vector is orthogonal to itself, the normal vector to a null surface is also tangent to the null surface. For example, consider a standard orthonormal basis ##\left\{ \bf{e}_0 , \bf{e}_1 , \bf{e}_2 , \bf{e}_3 \right\}## for Minkowski spacetime. A null nsurface that has a tangent space spanned by ##\left\{ \bf{e}_0 + \bf{e}_1 , \bf{e}_2 , \bf{e}_3 \right\}## also has ##\bf{e}_0 + \bf{e}_1## as a normal vector because ##\bf{e}_0 + \bf{e}_1## is orthogonal to each of the vectors that span the tangent space.
 
Thanks for your reply, but I'm not yet sure how to apply that to my question. I see from the math what you say. But I cannot visualize something being both tangent to a surface and normal to it. I presume this is a property of the space or of being at the speed of light, but my poor mind cannot visualize that stuff.

Any helpful hints?
 
Draw a Minkowski diagram. There the worldline of a massless particle (a light ray in the sense of the iconal approximation) is the bisector of the coordinate axes. In the sense of the Minkowski fundamental form two vectors are (pseudo-)orthogonal if a lightlike line is its bisector. Thus a lightlike line is pseudo-orthogonal to itself. The problem with Minkowski diagrams is that you must forget about the Euclidean geometry we are used to from childhood on. At the moment were your paper is used as a model of Minkowski space the Euclidean metrics, angles, etc. have no meaning anymore. You have to think of it as a hyperbolic plane!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K