I Spacetime interval and basic properties of light

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the spacetime interval in relation to the speed of light and its derivation from special relativity. Participants express concern that many explanations skip fundamental steps, particularly regarding the origin of the equation ds^2=(cdt)^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2) and the significance of the minus sign. It is noted that the spacetime interval is invariant across different inertial frames, which can be derived from either the invariance of light speed or the properties of Minkowski geometry. The conversation also touches on Einstein's original approach, emphasizing the importance of starting with the principles of relativity and light speed. Overall, the thread highlights the need for clear logical steps in teaching and understanding these complex concepts in relativity.
  • #31
Orodruin said:
Pythagoras’ theorem is a theorem in Euclidean space. Spacetime is not Euclidean, it is Minkowski space. In Minkowski space, the equivalent of Pythagoras’ theorem is ##ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2##.
ok, but if you say :In Minkowski space, the equivalent of Pythagoras’ theorem is ##ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2## : then I am back to the openings question of the topic: why, because I still do not understand. so it seems difficult to get the basic idea clearly explained at headlines without diving into the books while I hoped this is what the forum could add. I thought I understood but seems to be on the wrong track, so I think I will first check the links in #29
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
  • #33
HansH said:
this link does not seem to be accessible without giving away personal details to third parties.
My suggestion was that you buy the book!
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #34
HansH said:
This is exactly what I mean. so you cannot start with a definition but should start with how things work and then the definition is the result of that. For me that is the only way to learn things because starting an explanation with a definition directly gives me the feeling that I mis something important underlying. but pratice of teaching is ofthen not that way unfortunately.
The trouble with that in this case is that Newton's simple theories work just fine in almost everything back then in 1905. Einstein came up with his theory first and experimental results came later. The theory has no grip in everyday life. To this day the world of woe harbors skeptics numerous.

I find Einstein's original paper very down to earth, you might like it. He said he was largely motivated by Fizeau's 1851 experiment on the speed of light in flowing water and by the idea that Maxwell's equations were valid no matter what.
 
  • #35
HansH said:
then I am back to the openings question of the topic: why, because I still do not understand.
The question you should be asking is why this gives a good description of nature and makes the speed of light invariant. The answer was given by @Dale in post #7.
 
  • #36
HansH said:
thought I was only talking about flat spacetime. At least that was where the question was about. Not sure where I used properties of curved spacetime?
You were explicitly talking about something collapsing into a black hole and the effects thereof. That's a curved spacetime, even if one part of it is flat.
HansH said:
ok, but if you say :In Minkowski space, the equivalent of Pythagoras’ theorem is ##ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2## : then I am back to the openings question of the topic: why, because I still do not understand. so it seems difficult to get the basic idea clearly explained at headlines without diving into the books while I hoped this is what the forum could add. I thought I understood but seems to be on the wrong track, so I think I will first check the links in #29
What answer would you give to the question of why Pythagoras' theorem holds?

I think you have two options. First, you can assert that Pythagoras is invariant, derive the implications, and show that they accurately describe the behaviour of rulers and Cartesian coordinate grids on planes. (Other axiomatisations of Euclidean geometry are available.) Second, you can study the behaviour of Cartesian coordinates and rulers on planes and deduce Pythagoras' theorem.

If you can answer that question then we can answer "why the interval" in similar terms.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #37
Here are some good notes by Shankar from Yale Open Courses https://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/relativity_notes_2006_5.pdf
video: https://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-200/lecture-12
Might be of use for you if you want to start from the postulate "speed of light is same in all inertial systems" and then derive the invariance of the space-time interval.

Consider frame ##\tilde S## moving in ##S## with velocity ##v## in the ##+x## direction.
From the galilean transformation the relationship between coordinates ##(x,t)## and ##(\tilde x, \tilde t)## are
##\boxed{t = \tilde t}##
##\boxed{ \tilde x = x - vt \: , \, x = \tilde x + v t}##
But with this transformation, you will get that the speed of light is not the same in ##S## and ##\tilde S## (which Michelson–Morley experiment and Maxwells equations suggested).
Consider instead a more general linear transformation (linear - it is invertible, one coordinate in ##\tilde S## will correspond to exactly one coordinate in ##S##) which is called Lorentz transformation:
##

\boxed{ \tilde x = \gamma (x-vt) } \: (1)
\qquad
\boxed{ \tilde t = \gamma \left( t - \dfrac{xv}{c^2} \right) }\qquad
\boxed{ x = \gamma (\tilde x + v\tilde t) } \: (2)
\qquad
\boxed{ t = \gamma \left( \tilde t + \dfrac{\tilde x v}{c^2} \right) }
##
where ##\gamma## is a factor which should only depend on ##v## which shall fulfill ##\gamma \to 1## when ##v/c \to 0## which motivates the Galilean transformation as "low speed limit" (I know, there was a recent thread about this which is pretty good read!) and it should give that the speed of light is the same in both ##S## and ##\tilde S##.

That speed of light should be the same in both ##S## and ##\tilde S## is implemented as follows:
When the origins of ##S## and ##\tilde S## coincide, a ray of light is emitted. The position of the front of the ray is ##x = ct## in ##S## and ##\tilde x = c\tilde t## in ##\tilde S##. Insert ##t = x/c## into the Lorentz-transformation for ##\tilde x## (1) and ##\tilde t = \tilde x/c## into the Lorentz-transformation for ## x## (2).
We get ##
\tilde x = \gamma \left(x-v\dfrac{x}{c}\right)= \gamma \left(1- \dfrac{v}{c}\right) x
##
and
## x = \gamma \left(\tilde x+v\dfrac{\tilde x}{c}\right)= \gamma \left(1+ \dfrac{v}{c}\right) \tilde x ##
which means that ## \dfrac{\tilde x}{x} = \gamma \left(1- \dfrac{v}{c}\right) ## and ## \dfrac{\tilde x}{x} = \dfrac{1}{\gamma \left(1+ \dfrac{v}{c}\right)}##
solve for ##\gamma##, the result is ##\boxed{ \gamma = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} }##.

Now consider the quantity ##s^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2##. By performing the Lorentz-transformation above, we obtain

## s^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 = \dfrac{c^2\left(\tilde t + \frac{\tilde x v}{c^2}\right)^2}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} - \dfrac{\left(\tilde x + v\tilde t\right)^2}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} = \dfrac{c^2 \tilde t ^2 + 2 \tilde t \tilde x v+ \frac{\tilde x^2 v^2}{c^2} - \tilde x^2 - 2 \tilde t \tilde x v - v^2 \tilde t^2 }{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} = ##

##\dfrac{(c^2-v^2)\tilde t^2}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} - \dfrac{\left(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)\tilde x^2}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} = \dfrac{c^2\left(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)\tilde t^2}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} - \tilde x^2 = c^2 \tilde t^2 - \tilde x^2 = (c\tilde t)^2 - \tilde x^2 = \tilde s^2##

Conserved / invariant quantities are very important in physics since they hint that there is some underlying geometrical property, symmetry.

Now there are plenty of other invariant quantities in special relativity (such as the invariant mass) which can be proven to be so following a smilar calculation as above. But, it is much nicer to work with four-vector formalism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes HansH and Sagittarius A-Star
  • #38
Orodruin said:
The answer was given by @Dale in post #7.
there he says: all frames agree that the same set of events defines a sphere expanding at c. So that is where the minus sign comes from.
for me the conclusion: 'that is where the minus sign comes from' is still not clear. So there should be some additional thinung stapes in betwen that are logical to Dale but not to me. I see an expanding sphere (or 4 dmentional sphere ok) but then I would like to draw sone lines or whatever to understand the conclusion, but I do not have sufficient information to do that.
 
  • #39
Ibix said:
You were explicitly talking about something collapsing into a black hole and the effects thereof. That's a curved spacetime, even if one part of it is flat.

What answer would you give to the question of why Pythagoras' theorem holds?
That was another topic and also a reason for me to do first 1 step back and better understand the special relativity. (also because that topic is temporary?? closed this creates room to go back to the basics first) So I assume all questions and answers in this topic should be able to prvent general relativity in order to make it not too complex at this stage.
 
  • #40
Ibix said:
What answer would you give to the question of why Pythagoras' theorem holds?

I think you have two options. First, you can assert that Pythagoras is invariant, derive the implications, and show that they accurately describe the behaviour of rulers and Cartesian coordinate grids on planes. (Other axiomatisations of Euclidean geometry are available.) Second, you can study the behaviour of Cartesian coordinates and rulers on planes and deduce Pythagoras' theorem.

If you can answer that question then we can answer "why the interval" in similar terms.
I think your answer is too general for me to to be able to do anything with it to get better understanding. Be aware that i am not a physics student but someone with a general interest but different background and terms as 'invariant' are long time ago and probably related to different perspective than relativity. So I am looking for more straight to the point derivations that I can try to follow than doing this derivations myself getting in the wrong direction 5 times first.
 
  • #41
HansH said:
for me the conclusion: 'that is where the minus sign comes from' is still not clear.
A light pulse moves with velocity ##c## from emitting event ##E_1## to receiving event ##E_2## with spatial distance ##\sqrt{\Delta x^2+\Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2}## between them. The temporal interval ##\Delta t## between those events will be:
$$\Delta t= \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{\Delta x^2+\Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2}$$
##\Rightarrow##
$$-(c\Delta t)^2 + \Delta x^2+\Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2 = 0$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #42
HansH said:
So I am looking for more straight to the point derivations that I can try to follow than doing this derivations myself getting in the wrong direction 5 times first
What was wrong with my post? #37? You need a book to read, you have been given some suggestions already. Get one of those and read it and fill in the steps.
 
  • #43
HansH said:
there he says: all frames agree that the same set of events defines a sphere expanding at c. So that is where the minus sign comes from.
for me the conclusion: 'that is where the minus sign comes from' is still not clear. So there should be some additional thinung stapes in betwen that are logical to Dale but not to me. I see an expanding sphere (or 4 dmentional sphere ok) but then I would like to draw sone lines or whatever to understand the conclusion, but I do not have sufficient information to do that.
No, it is just moving the radius of the sphere (ct) to the same side as the squares of the spatial distances.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and malawi_glenn
  • #44
malawi_glenn said:
What was wrong with my post? #37? You need a book to read, you have been given some suggestions already. Get one of those and read it and fill in the steps.
nothing wrong. I am digesting that stuff at the moment. Regarding books: I have a nice example of someone who has a whole bookshelf with books about general relativity and still does not make any progress because it seems that he is running in circles because the books assume pre-knowledge about one part of the topic to be able to understand another part and to be able to understand the first part ypu first have to understand still something else so you will never get there. So I am a bit hesitating and assume that there must be a lot of good information at the internet too to start with first. and especially I rely on a forum like this because that gives the unique opportunity to recognize what the lack of knowledge of someone is and specifically act on that which a book can impossibly do.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore
  • #45
HansH said:
I have a nice example of someone who has a whole bookshelf with books about general relativity and still does not make any progress because it seems that he is running in circles because the books assume pre-knowledge about one part of the topic to be able to understand another part and to be able to understand the first part ypu first have to understand still something else so you will never get there. So I am a bit hesitating and assume that there must be a lot of good information at the internet too to start with first. and especially I rey on a forum like this because that gives the unique opportunity to recognize the the lack of knowledge of someone is and specifically act on that which a book can impossibly do.
Wow that was two sentences. Hard to read :)

Poor books, its like collecting sports car but don't know how to drive :(

Sure you need to have the correct pre-knowledge, not going to argue against that. Then wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask "what background knowledge do I need to have, and how can I acquire it, in order to grasp the very basic ideas of SR?" The replies on forums also assumes some background knowledge.
You basically just need some algebra, geometry, calculus and kinematics to do the entire book by Morin for instance. Then as soon as you encounter something you don't understand, you can ask here, or search for an answer online. It is good to stick to one main book all the time to get used to notation and the authors style.

Here is a free online college physics book https://openstax.org/details/books/college-physics-2e the treatment of SR there is very crude, so I would just bother with chapters 1-8.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #46
HansH said:
especially I rely on a forum like this because that gives the unique opportunity to recognize what the lack of knowledge of someone is and specifically act on that which a book can impossibly do.
Better is to start working through a suitable textbook, and use the forum to help you when you’re stuck at a particular hard spot.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, malawi_glenn and PeroK
  • #47
Orodruin said:
No, it is just moving the radius of the sphere (ct) to the same side as the squares of the spatial distances.
I still don't get your point. I have drawn a circle with radius ct and a spatial distance I called d. but then what is next? what do you mean by 'moving the radius of the sphere (ct) to the same side as the squares' ? and how does that lead to the conclusion of the minus sign.
ds2.gif
 
  • #48
Try Bondi, as I suggested in #21.
The “minus sign” shows up in the last step (if you want to take that step).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #49
Nugatory said:
Better is to start working through a suitable textbook, and use the forum to help you when you’re stuck at a particular hard spot.
perhaps better indeed. However I already read the part about lorenz transformation and a lot of stuff about the basic principles of light several times at different places and a lot of video's about that also and that was exactly the hard spot to get clear where the minus sign comes from. So for me easy to accept that the speed of light is constant in all frames so that is not the point.
 
  • #50
HansH said:
I still don't get your point. I have drawn a circle with radius ct and a spatial distance I called d. but then what is next? what do you mean by 'moving the radius of the sphere (ct) to the same side as the squares' ? and how does that lead to the conclusion of the minus sign. View attachment 305666
The equation of the circle of radius ##c \Delta t## is ##(c \Delta t)^2 = \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2##. Subtract ##(c\Delta t)^2## from both sides and you get
$$
0 = -(c\Delta t)^2 + \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2.
$$
The right hand side is just ##\Delta s^2##, which is invariant in Minkowski space.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #51
Orodruin said:
The right hand side is just ##\Delta s^2##, which is invariant in Minkowski space.
...which you can demonstrate by using the Lorentz transforms to express ##\Delta t## etc in terms of ##\Delta t'## etc and seeing that you get an identical formula in terms of the primed quantities.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #52
HansH said:
However I already read the part about lorenz transformation and a lot of stuff about the basic principles of light several times at different places and a lot of video's
That’s not “working through a suitable textbook”, that’s a haphazard and disjointed activity that is unlikely to ever lead to a coherent understanding.

Taylor and Wheeler’s “Spacetime Physics” is available free online. Start at the first page. We can help you over the hard spots.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and PeterDonis
  • #53
Ibix said:
...which you can demonstrate by using the Lorentz transforms to express ##\Delta t## etc in terms of ##\Delta t'## etc and seeing that you get an identical formula in terms of the primed quantities.
I'd rather go the other way. Lorentz transformations are those transformations that keep the form of the Minkowski line element.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and malawi_glenn
  • #54
HansH said:
So for me easy to accept that the speed of light is constant in all frames so that is not the point.
The point is not, that the speed of light is constant. What you need to understand is, that the speed of light is invariant.

Example: A ship moves with constant velocity ##v## away from the harbor and a person ##A## at rest at the harbor sent a light-pulse to the ship. According to the principle of relativity, a person ##B## on the ship can regard the ship as being at rest and the harbor as moving. Person ##B## will measure, that the light-pulse has velocity ##c## relative to the ship and not velocity ##c-v##, as you might intuitively think.
 
  • #55
Orodruin said:
The equation of the circle of radius ##c \Delta t## is ##(c \Delta t)^2 = \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2##. Subtract ##(c\Delta t)^2## from both sides and you get
$$
0 = -(c\Delta t)^2 + \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2.
$$
The right hand side is just ##\Delta s^2##, which is invariant in Minkowski space.
isn't that exactly the background of what I also had in mind in #25 ?, but seemed to be wrong because there is was conclued that I was not allowed to apply the pythagoras rule but an equivalent rule for (in#30) that was the reason that I got lost. I assume now you apply the pythagoras rule .
 
  • #56
HansH said:
there he says: all frames agree that the same set of events defines a sphere expanding at c. So that is where the minus sign comes from.
for me the conclusion: 'that is where the minus sign comes from' is still not clear. So there should be some additional thinung stapes in betwen that are logical to Dale but not to me. I see an expanding sphere (or 4 dmentional sphere ok) but then I would like to draw sone lines or whatever to understand the conclusion, but I do not have sufficient information to do that.
I do wish you had actually said this in response to my post. Based on our exchange I thought everything was clear to you after you refreshed your browser.

Ok, let’s go step by step.

1) we start with the equation of a sphere of radius ##r##. $$\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2+\Delta z^2=r^2$$
2) since ##c## is invariant all frames will agree on the events that form a sphere whose radius is expanding at ##r=c\Delta t##, this is called the light cone. $$\Delta x^2+\Delta y^2+\Delta z^2=c^2 \Delta t^2$$
3) then we simply do one step of algebra to get: $$-c^2 \Delta t^2 + \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2 = 0$$
This explains where the minus sign comes from.

The expression on the left seems important so we give it a name: “the spacetime interval”. Not only have we found the reason for the minus sign, we also have shown that all frames agree on the set of events where the interval is 0, or null. In other words, the null interval defines the light cone, which is invariant.

4) we now make the small intuitive leap and ask ourselves “what happens if all spacetime intervals are invariant, not just null ones” $$-c^2 \Delta t^2 + \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2 = \Delta s^2$$
The answer to that question is that we get all of the experimental predictions of relativity, which we can compare against experimental data.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and malawi_glenn
  • #57
HansH said:
isn't that exactly the background of what I also had in mind in #25 ?, but seemed to be wrong because there is was conclued that I was not allowed to apply the pythagoras rule but an equivalent rule for (in#30) that was the reason that I got lost. I assume now you apply the pythagoras rule .
The Pythagorean theorem holds in space. Not in spacetime.

The point is that the quantity
$$
\Delta s^2 = -c^2 \Delta t^2 + \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2
$$
is invariant in Minkowski space just as the Pythagorean theorem
$$
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
$$
holds regardless of the coordinate system in Euclidean space.

The ##\Delta s^2## is what corresponds to the squared length of the hypothenuse.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and malawi_glenn
  • #58
More generally, consider the four quantities ##a_0##, ##a_x##, ##a_y## and ##a_z##.
If ##a_0## transform in the same way as ##ct## and ##a_{x,y,z}## transforms as ##x,y,z##, the following combined quantity is invariant ##a_0^2 - (a_x^2+a_y^2+a_z^2)##.
Moreover, if you also had four other quantities ##b_0##, ##b_x##, ##b_y## and ##b_z## which also transforms in that way, the following combined quantities are also invariant ##b_0^2 - (b_x^2+b_y^2+b_z^2)## and ##a_0b_0 - (a_xb_x+a_yb_y +a_zb_z)##
 
  • #59
HansH said:
... I was not allowed to apply the pythagoras rule but an equivalent rule for (in#30) that was the reason that I got lost. I assume now you apply the pythagoras rule .

The Pythagoras rule is valid, but only for 3D-space, not for 4D-spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #60
regarding #54-59: I think the problem for me is to exactly understand what is meant by the the concept of something being invariant. therefore I am lost at #56 2) already for example. That could probably also explain why I do not understand why pythagoras does not hold in 4d spacetime. so the question is if I read the proposed textbooks of pdf's don't I then run into the same problem? and if so how to solve?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K