I Metric Nomenclature: Lorentz & Minkowski

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter kent davidge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Nomenclature
kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
Can I say that the Lorentz metric is the specific form ##-c^2dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2## whereas the Minkowski metric is the metric of Minkowski space which can take the Lorentz form I just gave, but can also, e.g., be written in spherical coordinates?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AFAIK the terms "Lorentz metric" and "Minkowski metric" are used interchangeably, and there are at least two usages of both terms, one to just refer to the geometry independently of any choice of coordinates, and the other to refer specifically to the line element in Cartesian coordinates.
 
I usually interpret "Minkowskii metric" to be the specific form ##-c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2##. I couldn't say, though, that it might not be applied to a cylindrical flat line element like ##-c^2\,dt^2 + dr^2 + r^2\,d\phi^2 + dz^2## or a spherical flat line element. The difference is that in one case, one assumes that it singles out a specific metric, in the other case one assumes it singles out any of a class of equivalent metrics.

I would assume that a "lorentz metric" was any metric with a -1,1,1,1 or a +1,-1,-1,-1 signature, and not even necessarily flat.

But I could be wrong, I don't have a reference to back that up.
 
pervect said:
I would assume that a "lorentz metric" was any metric with a -1,1,1,1 or a +1,-1,-1,-1 signature, and not even necessarily flat.

I think the usual term for this is "Lorentzian", or if one wants more precision, "locally Lorentzian". "Lorentz" without the "ian" seems to me to be a specific reference to the flat metric with this signature.
 
  • Like
Likes Martin Scholtz
The term "metric" is highly misleading to begin with. Since it's not a positive definite bilinear form but just a non-deggenerate one, it's a "funcamental form" rather than a metric of relativistic space-time models. Another good term, I like is "pseudo-metric" since formally it behaves in many ways just like a metric.

In GR the space-time model is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with a pseudo-metric of dignature ##(1,3)## if you are a west-coast guy (or equivalently ##(3,1)## if you are an east-coast guy). This is sometimes also called a Lorentzian manifold.

Minkowski space is the special case of a flag (affine) Lorentzian manifold.
 
  • Haha
Likes DEvens
Thumbs up for "dignature."
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top