I What is Spacelike vs. Timelike Coordinate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GR191511
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coordinate
Click For Summary
Coordinates in spacetime are classified as "spacelike," "timelike," or "null" based on the nature of their corresponding basis vectors. To determine the classification of a coordinate, one must associate it with a vector field and evaluate its length at a specific point. The classification can vary depending on whether the contravariant vector field or the covariant vector field is considered. Most discussions favor the contravariant vector field for clarity in classification. The relationship between the coordinate and vector field can differ based on the metric used, as seen in examples like the Schwarzschild and Painleve metrics.
GR191511
Messages
76
Reaction score
6
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any coordinate ##x^\mu## has a corresponding coordinate basis vector ##\partial / \partial x^\mu##. The coordinate is called "spacelike", "timelike", or "null" according to the type of its coordinate basis vector. Or, equivalently, according to the type of direction in spacetime that you are moving along a curve in which ##x^\mu## changes but all other coordinates are held constant.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, vanhees71, topsquark and 3 others
One thing that can be confusing. Suppose we have some coordinates ##t,x,y,z##. And we wish to know if the coordinate x is spacelike, timelike, or null at some point P. To do so, we have to associate the coordinate x with some vector field, and evaluate the length of the vector field at some particular point P. The length of the vector at the particular point P can be classified as time-like, space-like, or null, depending on the sign of the length and the sign convention that one adopts.

However, the answer depends on whether we look at the contravariant vector filed ##\partial_x## = ##\frac{\partial} {\partial x}##, or the covariant vector field dx.

Most PF posters seems to be the convention to look at the vector field ##\partial_x## rather than the covector field dx. But it's clearer to talk about whether a vector field is time-like, space-like, or null at some point P rather than to talk about whether a coordinate is time-like, space-like, or null at some point P, as we need a map from a coordinate to a vector field in order to perform the classification. Of course it also depends on what point P we choose - for instance, in the Schwarzschild coordinates (t,r,##\theta##, ##\phi##), ##\partial_t## is well-known to be a time-like vector outside the event horizion, null at the horizon, and space-like inside the horizon.

Because the Schwarzschild metric is diagonal, dt has the same sign as ##\partial_t##. But this is not true in general. For metrics that are not diagonal, such as the Painleve metrics, the sign of ##\partial_t## and dt can be different.
 
  • Like
Likes GR191511 and vanhees71
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
911
Replies
4
Views
758
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 158 ·
6
Replies
158
Views
5K