# Tensor calculation, giving|cos A|>1: how to interpret

• I
Gold Member

## Summary:

In the Minkowski metric, using the usual inner product relationship, finding the angle A between (1,0,0,0) and (2^0.5, 0, 0, (3^0.5)/c gives cos A = -2^0.5, which indicates that A is not real, but what is it? (source given)

## Main Question or Discussion Point

On pages 42-43 of the book "Tensors: Mathematics of Differential Geometry and Relativity" by Zafar Ahsan (Delhi, 2018), the calculation for the angle between Ai=(1,0,0,0) (the superscript being tensor, not exponent, notation) and Bi=(√2,0,0,(√3)/c), where c is the speed of light, in the Minkowski metric with the (- - - +) convention, i.e.,
ds2=-dx2-dy2-dz2+c2⋅dt2,
is carried out with the calculation cos A = gijAiBi/√((AiAi)(BjBj)) (Einstein summation convention). The result, -√2, then tells us that |cos A| = √2, which the author uses to conclude: "the angle between Ai and Bi is not real." I do not understand this: does he mean that the concept of angle has no meaning here, or that the angle is complex (whatever that means), or what?

Related Linear and Abstract Algebra News on Phys.org
mathman
Let u and v be vectors then $u\cdot v=|u||v|cosA$. Your calculation neglected }u|}v|.

Gold Member
By }u|}v| I presume you mean the inner product. But the calculation is less straightforward because we are in curved space. The author defines the inner product between the vectors as AiBi=gijAiBj, and the square of the norm (length)of vector Ai is thus AiAi= gijAiAj. With the Minkowski metric, g11=g22=g33= -1, , g44=c2, and gij=0 for i≠j. This makes the two vectors unit vectors, and the calculation for the inner product is -√2.

mathman
|u||v| is the product of the norms, not the inner product.

Gold Member
Ah, OK. I did not forget the product of the norms in the calculation; as I pointed out, these are (in this metric) unit vectors, so the product of the norms is 1:
A2=gijAiAj=g11A1A1=1
B2=gijBiBj=g11B1B1+g44B4B4=1

mathman
I can't comment any further, since I am not familiar with this subject.

WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
Does the identity $u.v=|u||v|cos\theta$
hold in Minkowski space?

Gold Member
WWGD, the author of the book I am citing assumes that the identity holds in Minkowski space (and other metric spaces), with the definitions of inner product and norm taking into account the metric tensor in the manner I cited in my other posts in this thread. But he also allows for the angle to be "not real", giving a cosine value outside of that usually defined for cosine, which is what puzzles me, and which prompted my original question.

• WWGD
mathman
If $u\cdot v=|u||v|cos(\theta)$, how is $cos(\theta) \gt 1$? It requires a weird definition for dot product.

WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
I guess it is a variant of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

Gold Member
IMHO it is not such an unusual definition (defined in post #3): after all, usually ds2=<dr, dr>= <eidxi,ejdxj> =<ei,ej>dxidxj=gijdxidxj, where <.,.> is the inner product, and ei is a coordinate basis vector. So, the definition of the inner product as given seems to be natural, and fulfills all the requirements of an inner product. I am glad to be corrected, of course.

• WWGD
WWGD
Gold Member
2019 Award
IMHO it is not such an unusual definition (defined in post #3): after all, usually ds2=<dr, dr>= <eidxi,ejdxj> =<ei,ej>dxidxj=gijdxidxj, where <.,.> is the inner product, and ei is a coordinate basis vector. So, the definition of the inner product as given seems to be natural, and fulfills all the requirements of an inner product. I am glad to be corrected, of course.
I would be interested in understanding the meaning of orthogonality regarding the time coordinate.

Gold Member
I would be interested in understanding the meaning of orthogonality regarding the time coordinate.
The key point to go on would be, I suppose, the definition of two vectors being orthogonal if their inner product (as defined in my previous post) is equal to zero. One remark out of this source (which I need to work out an example for) is that a null vector, that is, one with magnitude zero, need not be the zero vector (which means that null vectors are self-orthogonal, which sounds rather paradoxical). To complete the connection with relativity, the author defines vectors with real magnitudes as "time-like" and those with imaginary magnitudes as "space-like." Intuition flew out the window some time ago.

• WWGD
WWGD
• 