Timelike separation: which of these two answers do you prefer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter daselocution
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Separation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on proving that for a timelike interval, two events cannot occur simultaneously. The first proposed solution involves demonstrating that if two events occur at coordinates (x1, t1) and (x2, t2) in frame K, there is no frame K' where these events can be simultaneous. The second solution simplifies the problem by analyzing it within a single inertial frame, concluding that if t1 equals t2, the condition for a timelike interval cannot be satisfied. Both approaches highlight the invariance of the spacetime interval, yet the second method is deemed cleaner and more straightforward.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of spacetime intervals and the concept of timelike separation
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations in special relativity
  • Knowledge of invariant quantities in physics, particularly in the context of relativity
  • Basic proficiency in algebra and manipulation of equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Lorentz transformations on simultaneity in special relativity
  • Explore the concept of invariant intervals in different reference frames
  • Learn about the geometric interpretation of spacetime diagrams
  • Investigate the role of causality in timelike and spacelike intervals
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying special relativity, educators teaching advanced physics concepts, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of spacetime and causality.

daselocution
Messages
23
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This is the problem as stated in my textbook: Prove that for a timelike interval, two events can never be considered to occur simultaneously.

I thought about two different ways to go about this; both of these ways make sense to me, but I'm not sure if they both make sense to all of you/if one is significantly better/different from the other


Homework Equations


Δs'2=∆s'2

(∆s is invariant)

s^2=x^2 - (ct)^2
s'^2=x'^2 - (ct')^2

For a timelike interval, it is given that: ∆s^2<0



The Attempt at a Solution



The first way I thought of doing the problem: At first I thought that I should be showing that if two events occur at (x1, t1) and (x2, t2) in system K, then there is NO frame K' such that these two events could occur at the same time (simultaneously). If this is a misunderstanding or seems tautological, then please correct me.

I went about proving it as follows:
∆s^2=∆x^2 - (c∆t)^2 = ∆x'^2 - (c∆t')^2 = ∆s'^2

Where, in K', we are assuming that t2'-t1'=0 such that:

∆s^2=∆x^2 - (c∆t)^2 = ∆x'^2 = ∆s'^2

From here, it follows that as ∆s^2=∆x^2 - (c∆t)^2<0 for it to be timelike separation, this entire quantity must be negative in sign. However, the right side of the equation, ∆x'^2, must necessarily be positive. Because it is given that s^2 is invariant, it must also be true that ∆s^2 is invariant from reference frame to reference frame, and so this must be impossible because ∆s^2≠∆s'^2

The second way I tried to solve the problem: At this point I had doubts about whether my first solution made sense, and so I tried to solve it all in the context of ONE inertial frame:

∆s^2=∆x^2 - (c∆t)^2

For the interval to be timelike, ∆s^2=∆x^2 - (c∆t)^2<0;
thus, if we are assuming that t1=t2, then:

∆s^2=∆x^2 - 0 CANNOT be less than 0, as it MUST be a positive number or it must be zero, neither of which allow for a timelike interval.

What do all of you have to say? Are both wrong? One right one wrong? One better?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second one is much cleaner.
I think I would begin with "for a timelike interval, there is a reference frame where ∆s^2<0. As this is invariant, ∆s^2<0 for all reference frames. Assume there is a frame where ∆t=0, ..."

At first I thought that I should be showing that if two events occur at (x1, t1) and (x2, t2) in system K, then there is NO frame K' such that these two events could occur at the same time (simultaneously).
In general, this is not true. As an example, consider (x1,0) and (x2,0), and K'=K. You have to add some constraints on those coordinates, and I don't see the advantage of this.
 
Ahhh thank you for clearing that up. I don't think I actually fully understood what I was getting into with the first attempt...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K