Minkowski Spacetime vs Euclidean Spacetime

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of Minkowski spacetime and Euclidean spacetime in the context of mapping black holes and their connection to white holes. Participants explore the appropriateness of these spacetime models for representing such phenomena, with a focus on Schwarzschild spacetime and Kruskal diagrams.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Euclidean spacetime does not exist, suggesting that Minkowski spacetime is not suitable for representing black holes, and instead propose Schwarzschild spacetime as the appropriate model.
  • Others mention that Kruskal diagrams can be drawn on a Euclidean plane to represent Schwarzschild spacetime, but caution that such representations are not fully accurate due to the absence of a negative sign in the Pythagorean theorem.
  • There is a discussion about the "honesty" of the Euclidean representation, with some participants asserting that it provides a one-to-one mapping of a region of spacetime, while others emphasize that it remains non-trivial to interpret.
  • Participants note that Kruskal diagrams cover a finite region of spacetime unless an infinite piece of paper is used, and mention that Penrose diagrams can represent the entire spacetime manifold on a finite surface, albeit with additional coordinate transformations.
  • There is a clarification regarding the attribution of Kruskal diagrams, with some participants suggesting that they are complete diagrams of the underlying Schwarzschild spacetime manifold, while others specify that they represent a 2D subspace of the maximal analytic extension of the manifold.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of using Euclidean spacetime for black hole mapping, with some rejecting its existence outright. There is no consensus on the accuracy of Euclidean representations or the completeness of Kruskal diagrams, indicating multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the unresolved nature of the accuracy of Euclidean representations and the complexities involved in interpreting Kruskal diagrams. The discussion also highlights the dependence on definitions of spacetime and the specific contexts in which these models are applied.

bobrubino
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Which one would you use in order to map out a black hole and its connection to a white hole?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bobrubino said:
Which one would you use in order to map out a black hole and its connection to a white hole?
Neither.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and vanhees71
Neither.

First of all, there is no such thing as Euclidean spacetime so that’s out. Second, Minkowski spacetime is a flat affine spacetime and doesn’t contain anything like a black hole. What you are looking for is Schwarzschild spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Vanadium 50
thanks
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
You can draw a thing called a Kruskal diagram on a Euclidean plane, which is a map of the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime, which is probably what you are talking about (the wiki article on Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates is pretty good). But it's important to realise that the Euclidean representation is honest but not accurate. No representation of spacetime on a Euclidean plane can really be accurate because there's no minus sign in Pythagoras' theorem and there always is one in the equivalent thing in locally-Minkowski spacetimes. No matter if you try to hide it by using imaginary coordinates - the effects of it are still there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale, vanhees71 and cianfa72
Ibix said:
But it's important to realise that the Euclidean representation is honest but not accurate.
Honest since it is an one-to-one mapping of a region of spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
cianfa72 said:
Honest since it is an one-to-one mapping of a region of spacetime.
Well, I just meant "honest" in contrast to the "marble on a dip in a sheet", which is hopelessly misleading for almost anything. Kruskal diagrams are actually working tools, but the interpretation remains non-trivial.
 
Ibix said:
it's important to realise that the Euclidean representation is honest but not accurate
That is an excellent way to put it
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Ibix said:
Kruskal diagrams are actually working tools, but the interpretation remains non-trivial.
KS diagrams (region I - IV) cover the entire spacetime manifold ?
 
  • #10
cianfa72 said:
KS diagrams (region I - IV) cover the entire spacetime manifold ?
Ideally they cover the entirety of two dimensions of it, yes. An actual diagram only covers a finite region unless you know where to buy an infinite sized piece of paper. Penrose diagrams cover the whole of the same two dimensions on a finite piece of paper, at the expense of yet more coordinate transforms.

Edit: although the coordinates are called Kruskal-Szekeres I believe the diagram is attributed to Kruskal alone. So it's not a KS diagram.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and cianfa72
  • #11
Ibix said:
I believe the diagram is attributed to Kruskal alone. So it's not a KS diagram.
However I believe it is a complete diagram of the underlying Schwarzschild spacetime manifold.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
cianfa72 said:
I believe it is a complete diagram of the underlying Schwarzschild spacetime manifold.
It is a complete diagram of a 2D subspace of the maximal analytic extension of the Schwarzschild spacetime manifold. The 2D subspace is the one that is orthogonal to the 2-sphere subspace of the manifold that is induced by spherical symmetry. So every point on the diagram that is within the manifold (i.e., within the boundaries given by the two singularities) represents a 2-sphere.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and cianfa72

Similar threads

  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K