B Why is time orthogonal to space?

  • Thread starter jk22
  • Start date
25,301
6,423
Using a classical Galileo transform also implies that time inclines over space by an angle ##\arctan(v)##.
No, with a Galilean transformation, the "direction" of time doesn't change at all, because the Galilean transform only transforms space, it does nothing to time.

if the equivalence principle were used that would also give a curved classical spacetime for gravitation and hence a local description of classical gravity ?
No. You can describe Newtonian gravity in geometric terms, as Cartan showed [1], but not the way you're describing here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton–Cartan_theory
 
560
18
In a Galilean transformation : ##x'=x-vt##. If ##x'=0##, hence the time primed axis, the equation is ##x=vt##, which describe a straight line not orthogonal to x ?
 

Ibix

Science Advisor
Insights Author
5,010
3,329
The Galilean transforms are$$\begin{eqnarray*}t'&=&t\\x'&=&x-vt\end{eqnarray*}$$So the ##t'## axis is not ##x'=0##.

In relativity, because space and time are part of spacetime, changing your notion of "rest" changes your coordinates on spacetime, which includes changing your notion of time.

But Newtonian physics models time as something completely distinct from space. Changing your notion of rest doesn't change your notion of time - there is an absolute time parameter that is the same for all observers. So the time axis doesn't change when you change frames.
 
560
18
Yes took the line of the origin of the x-axis as the time axis, a misunderstanding of my self.

Or is it from differential geometry that ##\vec{e}_{t'}=\frac{\partial\vec{r'}}{\partial t}## ?
 
Last edited:

FactChecker

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2018 Award
4,877
1,673
We naturally think of time and position as being independent and unrelated because, in our experience, positions do not generally move uniformly with time. Consider what would happen if you lived all your life floating in a moving stream of water. Then you would associate the passage of time with a uniform motion of all objects in the stream. Predicting the position of an object would always change as time passed. Your concept of time and space would not be orthogonal.
But that is not our experience. When one goes back home after a day of work, he goes to the same positional coordinates that he left home in the morning. Our concepts of time and position are orthogonal. Our mathematical definition of spacetime is made to match our natural concepts. That is practical, but not forced by mathematics.

[EDIT] I think we can see that in a Minkowski diagram, where the axes of a moving reference frame are not orthogonal.
 
Last edited:
27,837
4,291
In a Galilean transformation : ##x'=x-vt##. If ##x'=0##, hence the time primed axis, the equation is ##x=vt##, which describe a straight line not orthogonal to x ?
It is still orthogonal to x. Orthogonality is based on some inner product. In relativity the metric that defines the inner product has a signature (-+++), but in Newtonian theory it is two degenerate metrics with signatures (+000) and (0+++) respectively. Thus the inner product of ##\hat x’## and ##\hat t’## is zero for both of the degenerate metrics.
 

robphy

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,378
657
In a Galilean transformation : ##x'=x-vt##. If ##x'=0##, hence the time primed axis, the equation is ##x=vt##, which describe a straight line not orthogonal to x ?
Just adding to Dale's comment...
recall from my earlier post above that
"the tangent line to the circle [the metric]" is (following Minkowski) "orthogonal to the timelike radial direction".
That characterization is an extension of the Euclidean case and can be extended further to the Galilean case.
So, in a Galilean spacetime, the spatial direction [where t=constant] is Galilean-perpendicular (but not necessarily Euclidean-perpendicular) to the timelike-worldline. [This corresponds to the "temporal metric" with signature +000.]
 

robphy

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,378
657
Using a classical Galileo transform also implies that time inclines over space by an angle ##\arctan(v)##.
No, with a Galilean transformation, the "direction" of time doesn't change at all, because the Galilean transform only transforms space, it does nothing to time.
In the Galilean case, it turns out that the "Galilean-rapidity" (the "Galilean-angle"= "arc-length [using the degenerate spatial metric mentioned by Dale] along the Galilean-circle) is equal to the ordinary velocity v. [There is a "Galilean-analogue" of the tangent function---called [itex] tang(\theta)[/itex] by the mathematician I.M Yaglom... and it's defined as [itex] tang(\theta)\equiv \theta[/itex]... using "dimensionless units". Along these lines, [itex] cosg(\theta)\equiv 1[/itex].]

(The additivity of rapidity (angles = "spatial arc-lengths on unit circles) always holds...
but the corresponding slopes [physically, spatial-velocities] are not generally additive...
except in the Galilean case. Unfortunately, we hold on so tightly to the special-case Galilean additivity of spatial velocity that we have trouble with the more general non-additivity of slopes [velocities].)

Note that, in a boost, all timelike worldlines are transformed [in accordance with the principle of relativity... no preferred reference frame... no timelike eigenvectors].
  • So, in this sense, the "direction of time" (direction of the observer's 4-velocity) does change [e.g. it can be transformed to being the "observer at rest" in the spacetime diagram]...
    however,
    in the Galilean case, the "time-coordinate" doesn't change: [itex]t'=t [/itex]... that is "1 sec after event O" is still "1 sec after event O".
  • Along these lines, in Galilean boost, the spatial hypersurfaces are mapped onto themselves... the set of events with "t=1 sec" are the same after a Galilean boost. However, the coordinate labeling of those events are different [itex]x'=x-vt [/itex].
 
Last edited:
313
120
It is orthogonal because you can fix your position in space and measure time independently.

Similarly x is orthogonal to y and z because you can fix your position in y and z and measure x independently.
A coordinate system with linearly independent but not orthogonal x, y, and z axes would satisfy your condition while not being orthogonal.
 
208
19
But we can go foward and backward in space. In time we can only go in one direction.
 
27,837
4,291
But we can go foward and backward in space. In time we can only go in one direction.
What are you objecting to? You start with a “but”, but no quote to apply it to.
 
560
18
I understood I made a mistake : I computed ##x^\mu=(t',x')=(t,x-vt)##

Then ##\vec{e}_i=\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial i}## and ##g_{\mu\nu}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1+v^2&-v\\-v &1\end{array}\right)##

But this makes no sense since it's a change of coordinates and not a manifold and that we can always use a background metric of some signature.
 
1,349
87
But we can go foward and backward in space. In time we can only go in one direction.
remember this is strictly about time, geometry. not the breaking / "unbreaking" of eggs
 
27,837
4,291
I understood I made a mistake : I computed ##x^\mu=(t',x')=(t,x-vt)##

Then ##\vec{e}_i=\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial i}## and ##g_{\mu\nu}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1+v^2&-v\\-v &1\end{array}\right)##

But this makes no sense since it's a change of coordinates and not a manifold and that we can always use a background metric of some signature.
Right, it is a coordinate change not a metric, but you wrote it as a metric. If you are writing a linear coordinate transform then you can write it in the form of a matrix. Typically you would label it something like ##\Lambda_{\mu}^{\mu’}## to indicate that it changes between the primed and unprimed coordinates.
 
560
18
It is still orthogonal to x. Orthogonality is based on some inner product. In relativity the metric that defines the inner product has a signature (-+++), but in Newtonian theory it is two degenerate metrics with signatures (+000) and (0+++) respectively. Thus the inner product of ##\hat x’## and ##\hat t’## is zero for both of the degenerate metrics.
I got ##e_x=(1,0)^t## and ##e_t=(-v,1)^t##

So for metric (+0) we get ##e_x.e_t=-v## and for (0+) gives inner product 0.

But the equation ##t=t'## could hide a simplification like ##t'=a/a*t## where the numerator is due to inclination of the axis and denominator to dilatation ?
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Why is time orthogonal to space?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top