I Minkowski to Euclidean line element from coordinate changes?

Pencilvester
Messages
206
Reaction score
48
TL;DR Summary
I haven’t studied coordinate change law— what am I doing here that’s illegal?
I would guess there’s some subtlety in the relationship between basis vectors and coordinates that I’m ignoring, but I really have no idea.

$$ ds^2 = -dt^2 + d\tilde{x}^2 $$


$$ d\tilde{t} = dt / \sqrt{\tilde{x}} $$
$$ \downarrow $$
$$ ds^2 = -\tilde{x} ~ d\tilde{t}^2 + d\tilde{x}^2 $$


$$ dx = -d\tilde{x} ~ \Rightarrow ~ \frac{d\tilde{x}}{dx} = -1 ~ \Rightarrow ~ \tilde{x} = -x ~ (+ C) $$
$$ \downarrow $$
$$ ds^2 = x ~ d\tilde{t}^2 + dx^2 $$


$$ dy = \sqrt{x} ~ d\tilde{t} $$
$$ \downarrow $$
$$ ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 $$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given your definitions of ##d\tilde t##, ##dy## and ##dx## you have that ##dy=\sqrt{x/\tilde x}\ dt=i\ dt##. So you have effectively picked up the old ##ict## convention in ##c=1## units.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale, Pencilvester, PeterDonis and 1 other person
Pencilvester said:
$$ d\tilde{t} = dt / \sqrt{\tilde{x}} $$
Apart from what was already said, what kind of coordinate transformation do you imagine that would satisfy this? Coordinate differentials by their nature as the differential of coordinate functions must be exact. The RHS here is not exact and therefore there can be no function ##\tilde t(t,\tilde x)## that satisfies this relation. (That it is not exact is clear from the fact that it is not closed and all exact forms are closed.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Pencilvester
Orodruin said:
The RHS here is not exact and therefore there can be function ##\tilde t(t,\tilde x)## that satisfies this relation.
I assume you mean cannot here.

To rephrase what you are saying in a way that might be more accessible to the OP, the function ##\tilde{t} (t, \tilde{x} )## must be a function of both ##t## and ##\tilde{x}## since ##1 / \sqrt{\tilde{x}}## appears in the ##dt## term; but that means ##d \tilde{t}## must have both a ##dt## and a ##d \tilde{x}## term in it. So the formula given in the OP for ##d \tilde{t}## can't be right as it stands.
 
  • Like
Likes Pencilvester
PeterDonis said:
I assume you mean cannot here.
I think I intended to write out ”can be no function”, but yes, the same idea. Fixed it.

Edit: Indeed, more hands-on even, if the factor in front of ##dt## is ##1/\sqrt{\tilde x}## then ##\partial \tilde t/\partial t = 1/\sqrt{\tilde x}## implying that ##\tilde t = t/\sqrt{\tilde x} + f(\tilde x)##. But this in turn would imply that
$$
d\tilde t = dt/\sqrt{\tilde x} +\left[f’(\tilde x) - \frac{t}{2\sqrt{\tilde x}^3}\right] d\tilde x
$$
where there is no way to get rid of the ##t##-dependent term in front of ##d\tilde x##.
 
  • Like
Likes Pencilvester and PeterDonis
Orodruin said:
Apart from what was already said, what kind of coordinate transformation do you imagine that would satisfy this? Coordinate differentials by their nature as the differential of coordinate functions must be exact. The RHS here is not exact and therefore there can be no function ##\tilde t(t,\tilde x)## that satisfies this relation. (That it is not exact is clear from the fact that it is not closed and all exact forms are closed.)
I think this is the crucial point of which I was ignorant. Coordinate differentials were new to me, and I was having trouble contextualizing them with coordinate transformations. The fact that they need to be exact seems obvious now that you’ve told me, but it’s definitely what I was missing, so thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and Dale
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...

Similar threads

Back
Top