What Defines Future-Directed Vectors in Physics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Einj
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of future-directed vectors in the context of general relativity (GR) and their implications for checking the null energy condition. Participants explore the conditions under which a vector can be considered future-directed, particularly focusing on the temporal components and the choice of time-like vector fields.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether future-directed vectors are defined by having a positive or strictly positive temporal component.
  • Another participant clarifies that in special relativity (SR), future-directed vectors have a positive t-component, while in general relativity (GR), the definition requires more careful consideration.
  • A participant emphasizes the need to define what "future" means in GR, noting that in a general coordinate system, a time coordinate may not be universally applicable.
  • It is suggested that a time-like vector field must be defined, which should be non-zero everywhere and satisfy certain conditions for a manifold to be time-orientable.
  • One participant inquires about the criteria for selecting the time-like vector field V, specifically in the context of anti-de Sitter space (AdS), and whether future-directed simply implies k^t>0 in that case.
  • A response indicates that if a global coordinate system exists where one coordinate is time-like everywhere, that coordinate vector field can be used to define future-directed vectors, suggesting that different time-like vector fields can yield equivalent definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the strictness of the positivity condition for future-directed vectors and the criteria for selecting the time-like vector field V. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the existence of a globally defined time-like vector field in certain manifolds, which may affect the definition of future-directed vectors. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the choice of coordinate systems and the implications for specific geometries like AdS.

Einj
Messages
464
Reaction score
59
Hello everyone,
I have a very basic question about future-directed vectors. Are they defined as those vectors whose temporal component is positive or strictly positive?

I need to check wether a certain system satisfies the null energy condition or not and I was wondering if I am allowed to take a vector [itex]k^M[/itex] such that [itex]k^2=0[/itex] and [itex]k^t=0[/itex].

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are we talking special or general relativity here?

In SR (given a set of Minkowski coordinates), being future directed is equivalent to having a positive t-component. In GR, you have to take more care.
 
I was asking about general relativity and I'm particularly interested to know if we're talking about strict positivity or just positivity. Thanks!
 
In GR you first have to define what is "future". In a general coordinate system, it is not certain that there is a "time" coordinate as this may differ from event to event. Instead, you want to introduce a time-like vector field ##V##, which by definition has to be non-zero everywhere (##V^2 > 0## - with +--- convention). In a general manifold, it is not even certain that such a vector field exists, but if it does, the manifold is time-orientable. A vector ##k## is future-directed if it is non-space-like and ##k\cdot V > 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bcrowell
Ok thanks! Is there any criterion to pick [itex]V[/itex]? For example, in AdS, can I just choose [itex]V=(1,\vec 0)[/itex]? In this case, doesn't future-directed simply mean [itex]k^t>0[/itex]?
 
Einj said:
Ok thanks! Is there any criterion to pick [itex]V[/itex]? For example, in AdS, can I just choose [itex]V=(1,\vec 0)[/itex]? In this case, doesn't future-directed simply mean [itex]k^t>0[/itex]?
If you have a global coordinate system where one coordinate is time-like everywhere, then yes. You can pick that coordinate vector field as the defining one. It is not going to matter which vector field you select as different vector fields which are both time-like wrt each other will give equivalent definitions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K