Understand 4-Vectors & Spacetime: Hartle Gravity Chapter 5

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of four-vectors and their representation in flat and curved spacetime, as presented in Chapter 5 of Hartle's book on gravity. Participants explore the definition of four-vectors, their independence from coordinate systems, and the implications of Lorentz boosts, while also addressing the limitations of this understanding in the context of general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a four-vector as a directed line segment in four-dimensional flat spacetime, similar to a three-dimensional vector, and suggests that spacetime exists independently of the coordinate system used.
  • Another participant agrees with the notion of spacetime being independent of the coordinate system but notes that this definition does not generalize to curved spacetime, where displacements do not form a vector space.
  • It is mentioned that in flat spacetime, the definition of a displacement vector as a line segment between two points holds, but this fails in curved spacetime, requiring a different definition of vectors.
  • Participants confirm that once a coordinate system is chosen, the components of the vector can change, but the vector itself remains the same, with its tip ending at the same point in spacetime.
  • A later reply emphasizes that in curved spacetime, vectors are part of a tangent space associated with each event, complicating the definition of vectors as straight lines linking two points.
  • One participant highlights that the relationship between vectors and points in affine spaces is lost in general spacetime, leading to a different understanding of tangent vectors as infinitesimal displacements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definition of four-vectors in flat spacetime and the independence from coordinate systems. However, there is disagreement regarding the applicability of this definition in curved spacetime, with multiple competing views on how vectors should be understood in that context.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the understanding of vectors as directed line segments is valid in special relativity but does not extend to general relativity, where the nature of spacetime and vectors becomes more complex. The discussion also touches on the concept of tangent spaces and the implications for vector definitions in curved spacetime.

Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
Hartle, gravity. Chapter 5

"A four-vector is defined as a directed line segment in four-dimensional flat spacetime in the same way as a three-dimensional vector (to be called a three-vector in this chapter) can be defined as a direcied line segment in three-dimensional Euclidean Space"For vectors in 3D, we know that vectors exist independently of the coordinate system used to measure them. Like a position vector. It exists there, it's tip at a point in the 3D space.
We may choose different coordinates to write the vector but all of them say the same thing. They all are representing a vector whose tip ends at the same point.

So similarly should I as the book suggests, think of spacetime as being out there independently of coordinate system, and for example a displacement vector in spacetime is just the line segment from one point to another.

Now once I choose a coordinate system I get components of the vector ( which is independent of the coordinate system) in that coordinate system.
If I apply a Lorenzt boost, I'm actually choosing another coordinate system which thus changes the coordinates of the vector. However they actually represent the same vector whose tip ends at the same point, although that point has different coordinates in different frames.

Is that a correct understanding?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kashmir said:
"A four-vector is defined as a directed line segment in four-dimensional flat spacetime in the same way as a three-dimensional vector (to be called a three-vector in this chapter) can be defined as a direcied line segment in three-dimensional Euclidean Space"
It is worth noting that this definition actually does not generalize to curved spacetime. I don't have Hartle's book so I don't know if he discusses this later on, but other books on GR certainly do.

Kashmir said:
So similarly should I as the book suggests, think of spacetime as being out there independently of coordinate system
Yes, definitely.

Kashmir said:
and for example a displacement vector in spacetime is just the line segment from one point to another.
In flat spacetime, yes, this works. But, as noted above, it does not generalize to curved spacetime. The reason is that in curved spacetime, displacements do not form a vector space. So a different definition of a vector has to be adopted, which is initially less intuitive but which allows vectors (and more generally tensors) to be used in curved spacetime.

Kashmir said:
Now once I choose a coordinate system I get components of the vector ( which is independent of the coordinate system) in that coordinate system.
Yes.

Kashmir said:
If I apply a Lorenzt boost, I'm actually choosing another coordinate system which thus changes the coordinates of the vector. However they actually represent the same vector whose tip ends at the same point, although that point has different coordinates in different frames.
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark, Kashmir and Orodruin
Kashmir said:
Is that a correct understanding?
Yes, except I expect you mean "changes the components of the vector" in the penultimate paragraph.

Just to warn that in curved spacetime vectors are slightly more abstract, and are part of a flat vector space called a "tangent space" associated with each event. That means that, although directions can be associated with vectors, the notion of a vector as the straight line linking two points (or events) doesn't work. So your definition is OK for SR, but doesn't generalise to GR.

Edit: Peter beat me to it, I see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark and Kashmir
Since the cat is out of the box I think it is worth underlining the underlying reason that viewing vectors as (finite) directed line segments works in Euclidean and Minkowski space: they are both examples of affine spaces, which means that for any point there exists a translation operation from the set of (tangent) vectors to the space itself. Because of this the space itself is isomorphic to the set of tangent vectors. This identification is lost in a general space(time). Instead, it is possible to view the tangent vector space at a point as the set of infinitesimal displacements from that point (although there are many equivalent ways of viewing this), which do form a vector space.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72, topsquark, PeterDonis and 2 others
Thank you all.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K