A Proving $g(u,v)≠0$ with Linear Independence

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that for a lightlike vector u, there exists a vector w such that g(u,w) ≠ 0, emphasizing the importance of linear independence. The participants explore using proof by contradiction, noting that if g(u,w) = 0 for all w, it would imply u is the zero vector, contradicting its lightlike nature. They discuss the non-degeneracy condition of the pseudo-Riemannian metric g and how it relates to the linear independence of the vectors involved. The conversation highlights the challenge of translating coordinate-based proofs into a coordinate-free framework. Ultimately, the participants clarify that the non-degeneracy of g in the context of the set S is crucial for their argument.
isaacdl
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Contraction of a lightlike vector with another vector in a free coordinate scheme.
I'm trying to prove that there exist always a vector w whose contraction with a lightlike vector u (g(u,u)=0) it's always different from zero:
$g(u,v)≠0$I know how to do this with coordinates, but in a free cordinate scheme I'm totally lost.

Any help?

PD: Both vectors are linearly independent.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What have you tried so far?
How did you do it in a coordinate system?
Can you generalize that to work without coordinates?
 
  • Like
Likes isaacdl
In a coordinates it's straight forward. If u=(1,1,0,0) and w=(1,0,0,0) timelike or same to ligthlike, it's not difficult to prove they are colinear. But I don't know how to traduce it in a free coordinate way.
 
pseudo-Riemannian metrics are non-degenerate; can you argue by contradiction?
 
  • Like
Likes isaacdl
Mmm, I think I have to use the fact w and u are linearly independent. My first idea was to use the properties of bilinearity of the metric. So by contradiction you mean to consider g(u,v)=0 and get to u is not lightlike?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As in, if there were no ##\mathbf{w}## giving ##g(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w}) \neq 0## that’s the same as saying ##g(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w}) = 0## for all ##\mathbf{w} \in \mathbf{R}^4##. How does that mesh with the non-degeneracy condition on ##g##?
 
  • Like
Likes isaacdl and vanhees71
Consider the common plane for the two vectors…. Given the lightlike vector, can you write the “other vector” using it?
 
  • Like
Likes isaacdl
ergospherical said:
As in, if there were no ##\mathbf{w}## giving ##g(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w}) \neq 0## that’s the same as saying ##g(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w}) = 0## for all ##\mathbf{w} \in \mathbf{R}^4##. How does that mesh with the non-degeneracy condition on ##g##?
Ok, I was using proof by contradiction wrong. Ok, if ##g(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w}) = 0## for all ##\mathbf{w} \in \mathbf{R}^4##, by non-degenacy condition if S is non-degenerated u is a null vector u=0. But I'm not sure if the space S or equiv, g | S is non-degenerate. The only info I have is that ##S=(v_1,...,u,..._w,...,v_m)## is a linearly independent set.

What I have to find now is that ##u## is not lightlike, right?PD: I don't know why LATEX is not showing properly.
 
robphy said:
Consider the common plane for the two vectors…. Given the lightlike vector, can you write the “other vector” using it?
Yes, I can see it graphically, but my problem is to show it in a free cordinate way.
 
  • #10
@isaacdl if ##g(\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{w}) = 0## for all possible ##\mathbf{w}## then the non-degeneracy of ##g## would imply that ##\mathbf{u} = 0##, but this is not true by assumption (##\mathbf{u}## is a non-zero lightlike vector).
 
  • Like
Likes isaacdl
  • #11
ergospherical said:
@isaacdl if ##g(\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{w}) = 0## for all possible ##\mathbf{w}## then the non-degeneracy of ##g## would imply that ##\mathbf{u} = 0##, but this is not true by assumption (##\mathbf{u}## is a non-zero lightlike vector)
Yeah totally understood that part, but what I said in the previous post is that I don't know if g in S is non-degenerated. It's not given in the exercise.

PD: Wait, u are totally right, we can use it, it's given in a previous part of the exercise! Thanks a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
552
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K