Orthogonal diretion on the Minkowski diagram

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the orthogonality of vectors in Minkowski space-time, specifically regarding a time-like spherical shell's world sheet. The 4-velocity of the shell is defined as uα=(˙T,˙R,0,0), where ˙T>0 and ˙R<0. The orthogonal vector nα is derived using the metric diag(-1,1,1,1), resulting in nα=s (-˙R,˙T,0,0) and nα=s (˙R,˙T,0,0). The expectation that nα is orthogonal to uα is confirmed, but the discussion highlights the misconception that Minkowski orthogonality resembles Euclidean orthogonality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Minkowski space-time and its properties
  • Familiarity with 4-velocity and its representation in physics
  • Knowledge of metric tensors, specifically diag(-1,1,1,1)
  • Concept of covectors and their relationship to vectors in differential geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of 4-velocity in special relativity
  • Learn about the implications of orthogonality in Minkowski space
  • Explore the concept of covectors and their geometric interpretations
  • Investigate the differences between Euclidean and Minkowski geometries
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying relativity, differential geometry, or anyone interested in the geometric interpretation of space-time concepts.

mersecske
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
I have a trivial question:

Let assume a world sheet of a time-like spherical shell in Minkowski space-time.
On the 2D-Minkowski diagram (R,T), where R is the radius and T is the time,
the world line is represented by a time-like curve.
Let assume that the shell collapse and its 4-velocity is

u^\alpha=(\dot{T},\dot{R},0,0)

where \dot{T}=\mathrm{d}T/\mathrm{d}\tau &gt;0 and \dot{R}=\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}\tau &lt;0.

Let n^\alpha be an orthogonal vector to the 4-velocity and the surface.
With the metric diag(-1,1,1,1) we get:

n_\alpha=s (-\dot{R},\dot{T},0,0)
n^\alpha=s (\dot{R},\dot{T},0,0)

where s is the sign depending on the orientation.

I expect that n^\alpha is orthogonal to u^\alpha on the Minkowski diagram, and its space-like. For example, I expect that the outward oriented normal vector has positive coordinates. But since \dot{T}&gt;0 and \dot{R}&lt;0 this is not true, and for example for s=+1, n^\alpha is a past directed vector on the diagram!?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mersecske said:
I have a trivial question:

Let assume a world sheet of a time-like spherical shell in Minkowski space-time.
On the 2D-Minkowski diagram (R,T), where R is the radius and T is the time,
the world line is represented by a time-like curve.
Let assume that the shell collapse and its 4-velocity is

u^\alpha=(\dot{T},\dot{R},0,0)

where \dot{T}=\mathrm{d}T/\mathrm{d}\tau &gt;0 and \dot{R}=\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}\tau &lt;0.

Let n^\alpha be an orthogonal vector to the 4-velocity and the surface.
With the metric diag(-1,1,1,1) we get:

n_\alpha=s (-\dot{R},\dot{T},0,0)
n^\alpha=s (\dot{R},\dot{T},0,0)

where s is the sign depending on the orientation.

I expect that n^\alpha is orthogonal to u^\alpha on the Minkowski diagram, and its space-like. For example, I expect that the outward oriented normal vector has positive coordinates. But since \dot{T}&gt;0 and \dot{R}&lt;0 this is not true, and for example for s=+1, n^\alpha is a past directed vector on the diagram!?

Orthogonality in Minkowski space does not "look like" Euclidean orthogonality on a diagram. Two vectors drawn on a diagram which are Minkowski-orthogonal won't (usually) have an angle of 90° on your Euclidean piece of paper.

In fact, because of the way that lowering of indexes works, you will find that the covector n_\alpha is "Euclidean-orthogonal" to the vector u^\alpha, if you draw both on the same diagram, since

n_\alpha u^\alpha = 0​

(Of course, strictly speaking vectors and covectors live in different spaces, so you shouldn't really draw them on the same diagram, but you can get away with it in Minkowski coordinates.)
 
If somehow you draw them on the same diagram, and they are Euclidean-orthogonal, this means that you suppose the basis unit vectors are the same (representations are the same) in the two kind of vector space, which is not a good choice, I think!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
835
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K