Particle in Minkowski Space: Motion in a Flat Universe

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter adsquestion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Minkowski Particle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the motion of a test particle in 2D Minkowski space and the implications of special relativity on the concept of motion. Participants explore the nature of geodesics in flat spacetime compared to other spacetimes like AdS, questioning the analysis of motion and the role of inertial frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a test particle in flat Minkowski space should remain stationary, yet derives that it moves along a timelike geodesic due to the integral of motion related to the Killing vector.
  • Another participant emphasizes that absolute motion does not exist in special relativity, noting that different inertial frames can perceive the particle as either moving or at rest.
  • A participant questions the validity of their analysis in Minkowski space compared to AdS, where they previously observed periodic motion and closed timelike curves.
  • Some participants clarify that the energy value \(E\) varies across different inertial frames, affecting the perception of motion.
  • A follow-up question is raised regarding the interpretation of trajectories in AdS and whether they represent a single particle from different frames or multiple particles with different energies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the absence of absolute motion in special relativity, but there is ongoing debate regarding the analysis of geodesic motion in different spacetimes, particularly between Minkowski and AdS. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of trajectories in AdS.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the applicability of their analysis across different spacetimes, highlighting limitations in understanding the relationship between energy, motion, and inertial frames.

adsquestion
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Suppose I take 2d Minkowski space [tex]ds^2=-dt^2+dx^2[/tex] and put a test particle in there. I would expect that since we have a flat space with no matter inside that it should just "sit still" so to speak i.e. not move anywhere.

However, there will be an integral of motion (since we have a timelike Killing vector) given by [tex]E=\dot{t}[/tex] where dot denotes differentiation with respect to proper time.

Then I can use the fact that [tex]ds^2=-1[/tex] for timelike geodesics and rearrange to get [tex]-1=-E^2+\dot{x}^2 \Rightarrow \dot{x} = \sqrt{E^2-1} \Rightarrow x(\tau)=\sqrt{E^2-1} \tau[/tex]

In other words the particle will move to infinity along a timelike geodesic. Why is it moving?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no such thing as absolute motion in special relativity (nor in classical mechanics). There will exist inertial frames where it is moving and there will exist inertial frames where it is standing still.
 
Orodruin said:
There is no such thing as absolute motion in special relativity (nor in classical mechanics). There will exist inertial frames where it is moving and there will exist inertial frames where it is standing still.
Thanks. I thought the reason would be something like this. What is wrong with my analysis though?

This is how I am used to obtaining geodesic motion in GR and for most spacetimes I've considered so far e.g. AdS, I can tell whether the particle will move or not. For example in AdS, I can do a similar analysis and find that particles have periodic motion i.e. we get closed timelike curves which presumably can't be cured by changing frames. So why is it ok to do this analysis for AdS (also a vacuum) but not for Minkowski?
 
adsquestion said:
What is wrong with my analysis though?
Nothing. Depending on which inertial frame you use, the value of ##E## will be different. In the inertial frame where the test particle is at rest you will have ##E = 1##.
 
Orodruin said:
Nothing. Depending on which inertial frame you use, the value of ##E## will be different. In the inertial frame where the test particle is at rest you will have ##E = 1##.

Thanks very much. This makes sense. I do have a follow up (related) question regarding the situation in AdS. In this case, timelike geodesics are given (in global coords) by [tex]\sin{\rho}=\sqrt{1-\frac{L^2}{E^2}} \sin{\tau}[/tex] where L is the AdS radius.

By analogy with your post, I see that the rest energy of such a particle would be E=L. Now I can draw various trajectories on a Penrose diagram (sin curves of differing amplitudes depending on the value of E) and my question is do these different sin curves represent:

A) a single particle from the perspective of different inertial frames
B) multiple particles with different energies
C) both A and B are true

Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K