Proving Orthogonality of Vector w/ Schnutz Special Relativity Tensors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the orthogonality of a vector using the projection operator defined by Schnutz in the context of special relativity. Participants explore the implications of different metric signatures and the normalization of the velocity four-vector.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a tensor P defined as Pμν = ημν + UμUν and attempts to show that it projects an arbitrary vector V into one orthogonal to U.
  • Concerns are raised about the orthogonality condition depending on the metric signature and the value of c, with one participant questioning the validity of the orthogonality if c ≠ 1.
  • Another participant suggests including a normalization factor of U·U in the denominator to ensure proper orthogonality.
  • There is a discussion about whether the operator works independently of the signature convention, with some participants expressing uncertainty about its application.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the form of the projection operator and its dependence on conventions used in the textbook.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of normalization and the implications of metric signatures on the orthogonality of the vector. There is no consensus on the resolution of these issues, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the orthogonality condition may vary with different metric signatures and that assumptions about the value of c affect the conclusions drawn. The normalization of the velocity four-vector is also a point of contention.

fengqiu
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
There's a question in Schnutz - A first course in special relativity
Consider a Velocity Four Vector U , and the tensor P whose components are given by
Pμν = ημν + UμUν .
(a) Show that P is a projection operator that projects an arbitrary vector V into one orthogonal to U . That is, show that the vector V⊥ whose components are
Vα ⊥ = Pα βVβ = (ηα β + UαUβ)Vβ is
(i) orthogonal to U

Now I've attempted the solution and it is the following

PβαVα = Vβ+UβUαVα

So now if I calculate

Vα ⊥ ⋅ U = VαUα+UαUαUαVα

which is orthogonal if c=1 ... as |U|^2= -c^2

but.. this is just in the metric -+++ , if I change metrics to +--- then it won't be orthogonal? Also it's not orthogonal if c=/=1 .. which doesn't seem right to me either
how can that be?

Thank for you help!

Adam
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general, you should include a factor of ##U\cdot U## in the denominator.
That is to say, you should do the normalization explicitly, in your signature.
 
robphy said:
In general, you should include a factor of ##U\cdot U## in the denominator.
That is to say, you should do the normalization explicitly, in your signature.
Hmmm, how do you mean?
do you mean I need to normalise ##U\cdot U## with itself?
 
[tex]P_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}- \frac{U_{\mu}U_{\nu}}{\eta_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha}U^{\beta}}[/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fengqiu
robphy said:
[tex]P_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}- \frac{U_{\mu}U_{\nu}}{\eta_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha}U^{\beta}}[/tex]
Thanks for that, but I don't understand why you do this?
 
Does this operator do what you want it to do, independent of signature convention?
Use it and see.
 
robphy said:
Does this operator do what you want it to do, independent of signature convention?
Use it and see.
I think it should, but I can't get it to work out.
The operator is given in the question in the textbook.
 
fengqiu said:
I think it should, but I can't get it to work out.
The operator is given in the question in the textbook.
Yes, and the textbook uses all of the conventions which makes the operator a projection operator. If it did not, it would have had to write out the form given in post #4.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fengqiu
Orodruin said:
Yes, and the textbook uses all of the conventions which makes the operator a projection operator. If it did not, it would have had to write out the form given in post #4.
Ahhh right I see, that makes sense!

thanks for the help guys
 
  • #10
Do you mean Schutz, A First Course in General Relativity?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K