T constant lines in Minkowski Conformal Diagram

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the characteristics of t=constant and r=constant lines in Minkowski conformal diagrams. Participants explore the mathematical relationships and transformations involved in deriving these lines, as well as the implications of conformal diagrams on geodesic structures.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach using the Minkowski metric in polar coordinates, transitioning through null coordinates, and applying arctan transformations to derive relationships for t=constant lines.
  • Another participant references a book that discusses the arbitrary nature of transformations in Minkowski space and notes that geodesics appear complex in conformal diagrams.
  • A participant mentions an equation for r=constant lines that seems to satisfy certain conditions but notes discrepancies in the solutions provided by Maple, suggesting potential missing branches in the solutions.
  • Another participant emphasizes that conformal diagrams focus on preserving conformal structure rather than geodesic structure, indicating that the complexity of geodesics may not be of primary concern in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the complexity of deriving equations for constant lines in conformal diagrams, with some finding the process more complicated than expected. There is no consensus on the simplicity or complexity of these equations, nor on the relevance of geodesic structures in conformal diagrams.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential limitations of their approaches, including the dependence on specific transformations and the arbitrary nature of the equations used in mapping geodesics in conformal diagrams.

LAHLH
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
Hi,

I've been trying to work out exactly why the t=const and r=const lines look like they do in the Minkowski conformal diagram.

I started with the usual Minkowski metric in polar coords (t,r) then go into null coords, then pull in the infinities by using arctan transformations, finally I then go back to non-null coords (T,R).

I find that the coords must be related as: [tex]t=\frac{1}{2}\left(\tan{\left(\frac{T-R}{2}\right)}+\tan{\left(\frac{T+R}{2}\right)}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sin{(T)}}{\cos{(T)}+\cos{(R)}}[/tex]

The last equality following from a few sum product trig idents etc. Thus it would seem to me that t=constant lines satisfy:

[tex]\cos{(T)}+\cos{(R)}=c\sin{(T)}[/tex] and there is also the condition [tex]0\leq R < \pi[/tex] and [tex]|T|+R < \pi[/tex]

Having Maple solve these, they kind of look correct if I choose to piece together the correct +/- solutions it spits out, but I'm not sure, and I thought finding these t=const lines would be simpler some how. Is there another way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This book http://homepages.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~winitzki/T7/ has a good explanation of the extent to which the standard transformation for Minkowski space is or is not arbitrary, and what criteria we'd like it to obey. In general, geodesics look very complicated when you put them on a conformal diagram (strange asymmetric S shapes), so it doesn't surprise me too much if the t=const lines are complicated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the reply. Also the equation for lines of constant r seem to satify [tex]\cos{(T)}+\sin{(R)}=a\sin{(R)}[/tex] where the constant [tex]a \geq 0[/tex]. These reproduce the r constant lines perfectly in the upper half of the triangle but cut off at the lower half, very strange, there must be some branch of the solution Maple is missing when it solves this equation I guess.

I just really thought it would easier to get the equations than it seems, but I guess not if they really are arc trig type functions of other trig functions and there is no simpler form? seems like no book on GR I can find actually solves and shows explicitley the equations for these lines in the conformal diagram but just shows the diagram
 
The whole point of conformal diagrams is that they throw away all geodesic structure and only preserve conformal structure. Therefore the question of what geodesics look like on a conformal diagram isn't one that most authors would probably care about. The equations used for mapping also have a high degree of arbitrariness built into them (as discussed in the Winitzki book), so an equation for a geodesic is not anything fundamental about physics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K