Metric Nomenclature: Lorentz & Minkowski

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kent davidge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Nomenclature
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Lorentz metric is defined as the specific form -c²dt² + dx² + dy² + dz², while the Minkowski metric refers to the broader metric of Minkowski space, which can be expressed in various coordinate systems, including spherical coordinates. The terms "Lorentz metric" and "Minkowski metric" are often used interchangeably, although they can denote different concepts depending on the context. A Lorentz metric is characterized by a signature of either -1,1,1,1 or +1,-1,-1,-1, and is not limited to flat geometries. In General Relativity, the space-time model is described as a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with a pseudo-metric signature of (1,3) or (3,1).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentzian geometry
  • Familiarity with Minkowski space concepts
  • Knowledge of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds
  • Basic grasp of metric signatures in differential geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the differences between Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds
  • Explore the applications of Minkowski space in physics
  • Learn about the implications of metric signatures in General Relativity
  • Investigate the concept of pseudo-metrics and their properties
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students of General Relativity seeking to deepen their understanding of metric nomenclature and the geometric foundations of space-time models.

kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
Can I say that the Lorentz metric is the specific form ##-c^2dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2## whereas the Minkowski metric is the metric of Minkowski space which can take the Lorentz form I just gave, but can also, e.g., be written in spherical coordinates?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AFAIK the terms "Lorentz metric" and "Minkowski metric" are used interchangeably, and there are at least two usages of both terms, one to just refer to the geometry independently of any choice of coordinates, and the other to refer specifically to the line element in Cartesian coordinates.
 
I usually interpret "Minkowskii metric" to be the specific form ##-c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2##. I couldn't say, though, that it might not be applied to a cylindrical flat line element like ##-c^2\,dt^2 + dr^2 + r^2\,d\phi^2 + dz^2## or a spherical flat line element. The difference is that in one case, one assumes that it singles out a specific metric, in the other case one assumes it singles out any of a class of equivalent metrics.

I would assume that a "lorentz metric" was any metric with a -1,1,1,1 or a +1,-1,-1,-1 signature, and not even necessarily flat.

But I could be wrong, I don't have a reference to back that up.
 
pervect said:
I would assume that a "lorentz metric" was any metric with a -1,1,1,1 or a +1,-1,-1,-1 signature, and not even necessarily flat.

I think the usual term for this is "Lorentzian", or if one wants more precision, "locally Lorentzian". "Lorentz" without the "ian" seems to me to be a specific reference to the flat metric with this signature.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Martin Scholtz
The term "metric" is highly misleading to begin with. Since it's not a positive definite bilinear form but just a non-deggenerate one, it's a "funcamental form" rather than a metric of relativistic space-time models. Another good term, I like is "pseudo-metric" since formally it behaves in many ways just like a metric.

In GR the space-time model is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with a pseudo-metric of dignature ##(1,3)## if you are a west-coast guy (or equivalently ##(3,1)## if you are an east-coast guy). This is sometimes also called a Lorentzian manifold.

Minkowski space is the special case of a flag (affine) Lorentzian manifold.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: DEvens
Thumbs up for "dignature."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
952
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K