Minkowski Metric: Timelike vs Spacelike

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jaljon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Minkowski
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Minkowski metric and the distinctions between its two common representations, focusing on the implications for timelike and spacelike intervals. Participants explore the conventions used in different contexts, such as special relativity (SR) and quantum field theory (QFT).

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that both metrics, ds^2 = -(cdt)^2 + (dX)^2 and ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - (dX)^2, represent the same Minkowski metric but with different sign conventions.
  • Others note that the first metric is often preferred in classical SR and GR literature, while the second is more common in QFT texts.
  • A participant questions the implications of using each metric for determining spacelike intervals, leading to different interpretations of the conditions (dX/dt > c versus dX/dt < c).
  • One participant clarifies that for the second metric convention, spacelike intervals correspond to ds^2 < 0, which contradicts the earlier interpretation.
  • Another participant elaborates on the conditions for spacelike intervals, emphasizing that they imply faster-than-light behavior and the relationship between spatial and temporal components.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that both metrics are valid representations of the Minkowski metric, but there is disagreement regarding the implications of each metric for spacelike intervals, leading to confusion about the conditions for (dX/dt).

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on sign conventions and the potential for confusion when interpreting spacelike and timelike intervals based on different metric representations.

jaljon
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
hello

Whic one of these to metric are Minkowski metric
ds^2 =-(cdt)^2+(dX)^2

ds^2 =(cdt)^2-(dX)^2

and what about timelike (ds^2<0) and spacelike (ds^2>0) for each metric?

With my appreciation to those who answer
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

These are both ways of writing the Minkowski metric. People refer to this as (-+++) and (+---) signatures. It doesn't matter which one you use as long as you're consistent. It can be confusing reading the literature, because different people use different signatures.
 
Both are considered the same metric, just with a different sign convention. My personal preference is the first one, but both are well accepted.

When I want to use a metric with positive timelike intervals squared I tend to use [itex]c^2d\tau^2=c^2dt^2-dX^2[/itex]. It is just a convention, but that is my preference.
 
Last edited:
The first convention seems to be more popular in texts about classical SR and GR. The second convention seems to be more popular in books on quantum field theory.
 
bcrowell, DalesPam, robphy Thank you very much

my queastion is

if I use first one

ds^2 =-(cdt)^2+(dX)^2

spacelike: (ds^2>0) then -(cdt)^2+(dX)^2>0 then (dX/dt)>c



if I use second one

ds^2 =(cdt)^2-(dX)^2

spacelike: (ds^2>0) then (cdt)^2-(dX)^2>0 then (dX/dt)<c


we know in light cone spacelike out of cone that mean (dX/dt)>c but why second one (dX/dt)<c
 
jaljon said:
if I use second one

ds^2 =(cdt)^2-(dX)^2

spacelike: (ds^2>0)

No, for this convention for the metric, spacelike means ds^2 < 0.
 
spacelike: outside the lightcone... so "faster than light"
(dx/dt)^2 > c^2 (i.e. either (dx/dt) > c or (dx/dt) < -c).

Thus, spacelike means dx^2 > c^2 dt^2
("larger square-of-the-magnitude of the spatial-part than that of c-times-the-temporal-part")

So, spacelike is dx^2 - c^2 dt^2 > 0.

Now on to the conventions...
If ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 (-+++), then spacelike is ds^2 > 0 (in -+++... that is, "+ for space").

If ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 (+---), then spacelike is ds^2 < 0 (in +---... that is "- for space").
 
thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K