Understanding Special Relativity and Coordinates

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 2K views
lriuui0x0
Messages
101
Reaction score
25
I'd like to get some help on checking my understanding of special relativity, specifically I'm trying to clarify the idea of coordinates. Any comment is really appreciated!

The spacetime is an affine space ##M^4##, which is associated with a 4 dimensional real vector space ##\mathbb{R}^4##. This vector space is abstract, and no basis is prechosen, so there's no canonical way to define what the coordinate might be.

There's a metirc g defined on the vector space ##\mathbb{R}^4##. This inner product has the property that for a particular set of basis, it has ##(+,−,−,−)## signature. Such a basis is a standard Cartesian basis, which is not unique.

The linear maps ##\mathbb{R}^4 \to \mathbb{R}^4## between the sets of standard basis form the Lorentz group. The affine maps ##M^4 \to M^4## between the set of standard basis form the Poincare group. All such maps have the metric signature ##(+, -, -, -)##.

Coordinates is a map ##M^4 \to \mathbb{R}^4## (here ##\mathbb{R}^4## means a four real number tuple, not an abstrct vector space). Any Cartesian basis at a point defines a Cartesian coordinates by defining the coordinates to be the components of the vector. The standard Cartesian coordinates defined as above is the same as the coordinates being inertial. Other coordinates are non-inertial, in which the metric components don't have ##(+, -, -, -)## signature.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
vanhees71 said:
The signature of a fundamental form (it's a better word than "metric", because the "metric" in relativity is not really a metric, because it's not positive definite) is independent of the choice of basis.
Fundamental form is already used in "the first and second fundamental forms".
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71