How can velocity be a tensor?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have just begun studying general relativity and have a question.
I know that if a tensor is zero in one coordinate system, it will be zero in all coordinate systems.
So how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?
There must be something I have misunderstood.
general-relativity special-relativity tensor-calculus
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have just begun studying general relativity and have a question.
I know that if a tensor is zero in one coordinate system, it will be zero in all coordinate systems.
So how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?
There must be something I have misunderstood.
general-relativity special-relativity tensor-calculus
2
The four velocity can't be zero in any coordinate system: In the rest system it is $(1, 0, 0, 0)$.
â Sebastian Riese
Sep 21 at 16:03
6
Can you clarify what you are asking? You seem to be asking if the individual components of the four velocity are tensors, and of course they are not. But the four velocity as a whole is a tensor.
â John Rennie
Sep 21 at 16:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have just begun studying general relativity and have a question.
I know that if a tensor is zero in one coordinate system, it will be zero in all coordinate systems.
So how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?
There must be something I have misunderstood.
general-relativity special-relativity tensor-calculus
I have just begun studying general relativity and have a question.
I know that if a tensor is zero in one coordinate system, it will be zero in all coordinate systems.
So how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?
There must be something I have misunderstood.
general-relativity special-relativity tensor-calculus
general-relativity special-relativity tensor-calculus
edited Sep 21 at 16:18
ZeroTheHero
17.5k52556
17.5k52556
asked Sep 21 at 15:50
Christine
311
311
2
The four velocity can't be zero in any coordinate system: In the rest system it is $(1, 0, 0, 0)$.
â Sebastian Riese
Sep 21 at 16:03
6
Can you clarify what you are asking? You seem to be asking if the individual components of the four velocity are tensors, and of course they are not. But the four velocity as a whole is a tensor.
â John Rennie
Sep 21 at 16:18
add a comment |Â
2
The four velocity can't be zero in any coordinate system: In the rest system it is $(1, 0, 0, 0)$.
â Sebastian Riese
Sep 21 at 16:03
6
Can you clarify what you are asking? You seem to be asking if the individual components of the four velocity are tensors, and of course they are not. But the four velocity as a whole is a tensor.
â John Rennie
Sep 21 at 16:18
2
2
The four velocity can't be zero in any coordinate system: In the rest system it is $(1, 0, 0, 0)$.
â Sebastian Riese
Sep 21 at 16:03
The four velocity can't be zero in any coordinate system: In the rest system it is $(1, 0, 0, 0)$.
â Sebastian Riese
Sep 21 at 16:03
6
6
Can you clarify what you are asking? You seem to be asking if the individual components of the four velocity are tensors, and of course they are not. But the four velocity as a whole is a tensor.
â John Rennie
Sep 21 at 16:18
Can you clarify what you are asking? You seem to be asking if the individual components of the four velocity are tensors, and of course they are not. But the four velocity as a whole is a tensor.
â John Rennie
Sep 21 at 16:18
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
The three-velocity isn't a tensor - it's the four-velocity that is: this is a four-vector whose spatial components are the three-velocity of the particle (with times measured in the proper time of the particle), but which also has a zeroth (temporal) component
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau,
$$
which basically measures the rate of time dilation between your chosen frame of reference and the rest frame of the particle. No Lorentz transformation can transform a four-vector with a nonzero temporal component into one with a vanishing temporal component (and, moreover, no orthochronous Lorentz transformation can change the sign of the temporal component of a four-vector, so generally $fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau>0$).
This means that the four-velocity of any particle will always be nonzero: you can always set the spatial components to zero by transforming to the rest-frame of the particle, but if you do that then the temporal component will be
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tau mathrm dtau = 1,
$$
and the four-vector will not vanish.
2
Based on OP's statement "how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?", I believe he may also have some misconceptions about the notation of a tensor vs components of a tensor and whether individual components of a velocity is a tensor or not. Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation to clarify this point?
â enumaris
Sep 21 at 16:48
@enumaris I'd rather get confirmation from Christine that that is indeed what the question was about. You're obviously welcome to add a supplementary / alternative / overencompassing answer.
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 16:57
Thank you for your response. I believe the problem is trouble understanding the notation.
â Christine
Sep 21 at 18:43
1
Fair enough, but "I don't understand the notation" is very little to go on when explaining it. What is it about the notation that you don't understand?
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 18:46
1
@Christine you should explain in more detail why you think the four-velocity shouldn't be a tensor.
â Javier
Sep 21 at 19:42
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
velocity should not be a tensor
Why not? 4-velocity is a tensor: a $1 choose 0$ tensor. It is the tangent vector to the worldline of a material particle, parametrized by proper time.
Its components obey an identity:
$$g_munu u^mu u^nu = 1$$
($g_munu$ the metric tensor).
(I beg your pardon: there are two sign conventions here. I used the one I like better, but am not sure it is the one you are accustomed to.)
Also note that in GR you are widely free in the choice of coordinates (subject to some constraints I shall not dwell upon). In general you should not expect that coordinates themselves behave as components of a 4-vector. Still stranger as it may appear, you are not allowed (in general) to assign to one of the coordinates the character of a time and to the other three the one of space coordinates.
In other words, a coordinate line (e.g. $x^1=rm const.$, $x^2=rm const.$, $x^3=rm const.$) is not bound to have a timelike tangent vector and the other three spacelike. All that is required is that the four vectors are independent.
Things are easier with orthogonal coordinates: then the metric tensor has $ne0$ only the diagonal components, and in this case it is true that one of the coordinate lines is timelike and the remaining three spacelike. In many important cases such a choice of coordinates is possible, but not always. A counterexample is Kerr (rotating, uncharged) black hole.
Has it been explicitly proven that there does not exist an orthogonal set of coordinates for the Kerr black hole? Or has such a set just not been found? (these are two very differnt things)
â N. Steinle
Sep 21 at 20:22
@N. Steinle No, I know of no proof. But I would be very surprised if orthogonal coordinates were found, given that Kerr coordinates have existed for over 50 years.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 22 at 12:22
1
Ty. It's an interesting question: I might turn it into a new question on here actually!
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:58
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73514/â¦
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:59
1
@N. Steinle I've read the question you linked and the answers. I find them quite unconvincing. Apart some simply wrong, it appears to me that nobody understood that the problem is an exquisitely mathematical one. If orthogonal coordinates exist or not, it is not on physical grounds that it can be proven or disproved. At best, a physical argument can give a heuristic hint thereto. Furthermore, it's easy to give a counterexample: one that satisfies the same conditions cited for Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and yet trivially diagonalizable. Maybe the topic would deserve opening a question.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 23 at 12:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
In your question, you ask "how can the $mu$-th component of $fracd x^mud tau$ be a tensor?"
To put it simply, it is not a tensor. The thing that is actually the tensor is the four-velocity $v$. The numbers $fracd v^mud tau$ are the components of this tensor in some particular coordinate system $x^mu$. This could be Cartesian, spherical, etc.
You are correct that if you have an equation that sets the components of a tensor equal to zero, i.e.
$$
A^munu = 0, text for a rank (2,0) tensor, or B^mu = 0 text for a rank (1,0) tensor,
$$
then these components are zero in every coordinate system. However, for the four-velocity there is no such true equation. You can't write $dx^mu/dtau = 0$, because even if the object is at rest (i.e. it has zero 3-velocity $vecv$ ), the four velocity will be
$$
v^mu = begincasesc & mu = 0 \ 0 & mu = 1 \ 0 & mu = 2 \ 0 & mu = 3 endcases
$$
(This is not typical notation, usually people say would $v^mu = (c,0,0,0)$, but for clarity I write it as a statement for each value of $mu$). This is because the four velocity generally looks like this in Cartesian coordinates:
$$
v^mu = begincases gamma c & mu = 0 \ gamma v_x & mu = 1 \ gamma v_y & mu = 2 \ gamma v_z & mu = 3 endcases,
$$
with $gamma = left(sqrtvecvright)^-1$ the Lorentz factor, and $v_x, v_y, v_z$ the usual components of the 3-velocity in Cartesian coordinates.
Thus the four-velocity can never be entirely zero.
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
The three-velocity isn't a tensor - it's the four-velocity that is: this is a four-vector whose spatial components are the three-velocity of the particle (with times measured in the proper time of the particle), but which also has a zeroth (temporal) component
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau,
$$
which basically measures the rate of time dilation between your chosen frame of reference and the rest frame of the particle. No Lorentz transformation can transform a four-vector with a nonzero temporal component into one with a vanishing temporal component (and, moreover, no orthochronous Lorentz transformation can change the sign of the temporal component of a four-vector, so generally $fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau>0$).
This means that the four-velocity of any particle will always be nonzero: you can always set the spatial components to zero by transforming to the rest-frame of the particle, but if you do that then the temporal component will be
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tau mathrm dtau = 1,
$$
and the four-vector will not vanish.
2
Based on OP's statement "how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?", I believe he may also have some misconceptions about the notation of a tensor vs components of a tensor and whether individual components of a velocity is a tensor or not. Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation to clarify this point?
â enumaris
Sep 21 at 16:48
@enumaris I'd rather get confirmation from Christine that that is indeed what the question was about. You're obviously welcome to add a supplementary / alternative / overencompassing answer.
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 16:57
Thank you for your response. I believe the problem is trouble understanding the notation.
â Christine
Sep 21 at 18:43
1
Fair enough, but "I don't understand the notation" is very little to go on when explaining it. What is it about the notation that you don't understand?
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 18:46
1
@Christine you should explain in more detail why you think the four-velocity shouldn't be a tensor.
â Javier
Sep 21 at 19:42
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
The three-velocity isn't a tensor - it's the four-velocity that is: this is a four-vector whose spatial components are the three-velocity of the particle (with times measured in the proper time of the particle), but which also has a zeroth (temporal) component
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau,
$$
which basically measures the rate of time dilation between your chosen frame of reference and the rest frame of the particle. No Lorentz transformation can transform a four-vector with a nonzero temporal component into one with a vanishing temporal component (and, moreover, no orthochronous Lorentz transformation can change the sign of the temporal component of a four-vector, so generally $fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau>0$).
This means that the four-velocity of any particle will always be nonzero: you can always set the spatial components to zero by transforming to the rest-frame of the particle, but if you do that then the temporal component will be
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tau mathrm dtau = 1,
$$
and the four-vector will not vanish.
2
Based on OP's statement "how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?", I believe he may also have some misconceptions about the notation of a tensor vs components of a tensor and whether individual components of a velocity is a tensor or not. Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation to clarify this point?
â enumaris
Sep 21 at 16:48
@enumaris I'd rather get confirmation from Christine that that is indeed what the question was about. You're obviously welcome to add a supplementary / alternative / overencompassing answer.
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 16:57
Thank you for your response. I believe the problem is trouble understanding the notation.
â Christine
Sep 21 at 18:43
1
Fair enough, but "I don't understand the notation" is very little to go on when explaining it. What is it about the notation that you don't understand?
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 18:46
1
@Christine you should explain in more detail why you think the four-velocity shouldn't be a tensor.
â Javier
Sep 21 at 19:42
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
The three-velocity isn't a tensor - it's the four-velocity that is: this is a four-vector whose spatial components are the three-velocity of the particle (with times measured in the proper time of the particle), but which also has a zeroth (temporal) component
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau,
$$
which basically measures the rate of time dilation between your chosen frame of reference and the rest frame of the particle. No Lorentz transformation can transform a four-vector with a nonzero temporal component into one with a vanishing temporal component (and, moreover, no orthochronous Lorentz transformation can change the sign of the temporal component of a four-vector, so generally $fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau>0$).
This means that the four-velocity of any particle will always be nonzero: you can always set the spatial components to zero by transforming to the rest-frame of the particle, but if you do that then the temporal component will be
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tau mathrm dtau = 1,
$$
and the four-vector will not vanish.
The three-velocity isn't a tensor - it's the four-velocity that is: this is a four-vector whose spatial components are the three-velocity of the particle (with times measured in the proper time of the particle), but which also has a zeroth (temporal) component
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau,
$$
which basically measures the rate of time dilation between your chosen frame of reference and the rest frame of the particle. No Lorentz transformation can transform a four-vector with a nonzero temporal component into one with a vanishing temporal component (and, moreover, no orthochronous Lorentz transformation can change the sign of the temporal component of a four-vector, so generally $fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau>0$).
This means that the four-velocity of any particle will always be nonzero: you can always set the spatial components to zero by transforming to the rest-frame of the particle, but if you do that then the temporal component will be
$$
fracmathrm d x^0mathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tmathrm dtau = fracmathrm d tau mathrm dtau = 1,
$$
and the four-vector will not vanish.
answered Sep 21 at 16:04
Emilio Pisanty
77.1k20185381
77.1k20185381
2
Based on OP's statement "how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?", I believe he may also have some misconceptions about the notation of a tensor vs components of a tensor and whether individual components of a velocity is a tensor or not. Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation to clarify this point?
â enumaris
Sep 21 at 16:48
@enumaris I'd rather get confirmation from Christine that that is indeed what the question was about. You're obviously welcome to add a supplementary / alternative / overencompassing answer.
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 16:57
Thank you for your response. I believe the problem is trouble understanding the notation.
â Christine
Sep 21 at 18:43
1
Fair enough, but "I don't understand the notation" is very little to go on when explaining it. What is it about the notation that you don't understand?
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 18:46
1
@Christine you should explain in more detail why you think the four-velocity shouldn't be a tensor.
â Javier
Sep 21 at 19:42
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2
Based on OP's statement "how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?", I believe he may also have some misconceptions about the notation of a tensor vs components of a tensor and whether individual components of a velocity is a tensor or not. Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation to clarify this point?
â enumaris
Sep 21 at 16:48
@enumaris I'd rather get confirmation from Christine that that is indeed what the question was about. You're obviously welcome to add a supplementary / alternative / overencompassing answer.
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 16:57
Thank you for your response. I believe the problem is trouble understanding the notation.
â Christine
Sep 21 at 18:43
1
Fair enough, but "I don't understand the notation" is very little to go on when explaining it. What is it about the notation that you don't understand?
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 18:46
1
@Christine you should explain in more detail why you think the four-velocity shouldn't be a tensor.
â Javier
Sep 21 at 19:42
2
2
Based on OP's statement "how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?", I believe he may also have some misconceptions about the notation of a tensor vs components of a tensor and whether individual components of a velocity is a tensor or not. Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation to clarify this point?
â enumaris
Sep 21 at 16:48
Based on OP's statement "how can the $mu$'th component of the velocity $dx^mu/dtau$ be a tensor?", I believe he may also have some misconceptions about the notation of a tensor vs components of a tensor and whether individual components of a velocity is a tensor or not. Perhaps you could include a little bit of explanation to clarify this point?
â enumaris
Sep 21 at 16:48
@enumaris I'd rather get confirmation from Christine that that is indeed what the question was about. You're obviously welcome to add a supplementary / alternative / overencompassing answer.
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 16:57
@enumaris I'd rather get confirmation from Christine that that is indeed what the question was about. You're obviously welcome to add a supplementary / alternative / overencompassing answer.
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 16:57
Thank you for your response. I believe the problem is trouble understanding the notation.
â Christine
Sep 21 at 18:43
Thank you for your response. I believe the problem is trouble understanding the notation.
â Christine
Sep 21 at 18:43
1
1
Fair enough, but "I don't understand the notation" is very little to go on when explaining it. What is it about the notation that you don't understand?
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 18:46
Fair enough, but "I don't understand the notation" is very little to go on when explaining it. What is it about the notation that you don't understand?
â Emilio Pisanty
Sep 21 at 18:46
1
1
@Christine you should explain in more detail why you think the four-velocity shouldn't be a tensor.
â Javier
Sep 21 at 19:42
@Christine you should explain in more detail why you think the four-velocity shouldn't be a tensor.
â Javier
Sep 21 at 19:42
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
velocity should not be a tensor
Why not? 4-velocity is a tensor: a $1 choose 0$ tensor. It is the tangent vector to the worldline of a material particle, parametrized by proper time.
Its components obey an identity:
$$g_munu u^mu u^nu = 1$$
($g_munu$ the metric tensor).
(I beg your pardon: there are two sign conventions here. I used the one I like better, but am not sure it is the one you are accustomed to.)
Also note that in GR you are widely free in the choice of coordinates (subject to some constraints I shall not dwell upon). In general you should not expect that coordinates themselves behave as components of a 4-vector. Still stranger as it may appear, you are not allowed (in general) to assign to one of the coordinates the character of a time and to the other three the one of space coordinates.
In other words, a coordinate line (e.g. $x^1=rm const.$, $x^2=rm const.$, $x^3=rm const.$) is not bound to have a timelike tangent vector and the other three spacelike. All that is required is that the four vectors are independent.
Things are easier with orthogonal coordinates: then the metric tensor has $ne0$ only the diagonal components, and in this case it is true that one of the coordinate lines is timelike and the remaining three spacelike. In many important cases such a choice of coordinates is possible, but not always. A counterexample is Kerr (rotating, uncharged) black hole.
Has it been explicitly proven that there does not exist an orthogonal set of coordinates for the Kerr black hole? Or has such a set just not been found? (these are two very differnt things)
â N. Steinle
Sep 21 at 20:22
@N. Steinle No, I know of no proof. But I would be very surprised if orthogonal coordinates were found, given that Kerr coordinates have existed for over 50 years.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 22 at 12:22
1
Ty. It's an interesting question: I might turn it into a new question on here actually!
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:58
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73514/â¦
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:59
1
@N. Steinle I've read the question you linked and the answers. I find them quite unconvincing. Apart some simply wrong, it appears to me that nobody understood that the problem is an exquisitely mathematical one. If orthogonal coordinates exist or not, it is not on physical grounds that it can be proven or disproved. At best, a physical argument can give a heuristic hint thereto. Furthermore, it's easy to give a counterexample: one that satisfies the same conditions cited for Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and yet trivially diagonalizable. Maybe the topic would deserve opening a question.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 23 at 12:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
velocity should not be a tensor
Why not? 4-velocity is a tensor: a $1 choose 0$ tensor. It is the tangent vector to the worldline of a material particle, parametrized by proper time.
Its components obey an identity:
$$g_munu u^mu u^nu = 1$$
($g_munu$ the metric tensor).
(I beg your pardon: there are two sign conventions here. I used the one I like better, but am not sure it is the one you are accustomed to.)
Also note that in GR you are widely free in the choice of coordinates (subject to some constraints I shall not dwell upon). In general you should not expect that coordinates themselves behave as components of a 4-vector. Still stranger as it may appear, you are not allowed (in general) to assign to one of the coordinates the character of a time and to the other three the one of space coordinates.
In other words, a coordinate line (e.g. $x^1=rm const.$, $x^2=rm const.$, $x^3=rm const.$) is not bound to have a timelike tangent vector and the other three spacelike. All that is required is that the four vectors are independent.
Things are easier with orthogonal coordinates: then the metric tensor has $ne0$ only the diagonal components, and in this case it is true that one of the coordinate lines is timelike and the remaining three spacelike. In many important cases such a choice of coordinates is possible, but not always. A counterexample is Kerr (rotating, uncharged) black hole.
Has it been explicitly proven that there does not exist an orthogonal set of coordinates for the Kerr black hole? Or has such a set just not been found? (these are two very differnt things)
â N. Steinle
Sep 21 at 20:22
@N. Steinle No, I know of no proof. But I would be very surprised if orthogonal coordinates were found, given that Kerr coordinates have existed for over 50 years.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 22 at 12:22
1
Ty. It's an interesting question: I might turn it into a new question on here actually!
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:58
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73514/â¦
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:59
1
@N. Steinle I've read the question you linked and the answers. I find them quite unconvincing. Apart some simply wrong, it appears to me that nobody understood that the problem is an exquisitely mathematical one. If orthogonal coordinates exist or not, it is not on physical grounds that it can be proven or disproved. At best, a physical argument can give a heuristic hint thereto. Furthermore, it's easy to give a counterexample: one that satisfies the same conditions cited for Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and yet trivially diagonalizable. Maybe the topic would deserve opening a question.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 23 at 12:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
velocity should not be a tensor
Why not? 4-velocity is a tensor: a $1 choose 0$ tensor. It is the tangent vector to the worldline of a material particle, parametrized by proper time.
Its components obey an identity:
$$g_munu u^mu u^nu = 1$$
($g_munu$ the metric tensor).
(I beg your pardon: there are two sign conventions here. I used the one I like better, but am not sure it is the one you are accustomed to.)
Also note that in GR you are widely free in the choice of coordinates (subject to some constraints I shall not dwell upon). In general you should not expect that coordinates themselves behave as components of a 4-vector. Still stranger as it may appear, you are not allowed (in general) to assign to one of the coordinates the character of a time and to the other three the one of space coordinates.
In other words, a coordinate line (e.g. $x^1=rm const.$, $x^2=rm const.$, $x^3=rm const.$) is not bound to have a timelike tangent vector and the other three spacelike. All that is required is that the four vectors are independent.
Things are easier with orthogonal coordinates: then the metric tensor has $ne0$ only the diagonal components, and in this case it is true that one of the coordinate lines is timelike and the remaining three spacelike. In many important cases such a choice of coordinates is possible, but not always. A counterexample is Kerr (rotating, uncharged) black hole.
velocity should not be a tensor
Why not? 4-velocity is a tensor: a $1 choose 0$ tensor. It is the tangent vector to the worldline of a material particle, parametrized by proper time.
Its components obey an identity:
$$g_munu u^mu u^nu = 1$$
($g_munu$ the metric tensor).
(I beg your pardon: there are two sign conventions here. I used the one I like better, but am not sure it is the one you are accustomed to.)
Also note that in GR you are widely free in the choice of coordinates (subject to some constraints I shall not dwell upon). In general you should not expect that coordinates themselves behave as components of a 4-vector. Still stranger as it may appear, you are not allowed (in general) to assign to one of the coordinates the character of a time and to the other three the one of space coordinates.
In other words, a coordinate line (e.g. $x^1=rm const.$, $x^2=rm const.$, $x^3=rm const.$) is not bound to have a timelike tangent vector and the other three spacelike. All that is required is that the four vectors are independent.
Things are easier with orthogonal coordinates: then the metric tensor has $ne0$ only the diagonal components, and in this case it is true that one of the coordinate lines is timelike and the remaining three spacelike. In many important cases such a choice of coordinates is possible, but not always. A counterexample is Kerr (rotating, uncharged) black hole.
edited Sep 21 at 19:42
answered Sep 21 at 19:36
Elio Fabri
1995
1995
Has it been explicitly proven that there does not exist an orthogonal set of coordinates for the Kerr black hole? Or has such a set just not been found? (these are two very differnt things)
â N. Steinle
Sep 21 at 20:22
@N. Steinle No, I know of no proof. But I would be very surprised if orthogonal coordinates were found, given that Kerr coordinates have existed for over 50 years.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 22 at 12:22
1
Ty. It's an interesting question: I might turn it into a new question on here actually!
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:58
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73514/â¦
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:59
1
@N. Steinle I've read the question you linked and the answers. I find them quite unconvincing. Apart some simply wrong, it appears to me that nobody understood that the problem is an exquisitely mathematical one. If orthogonal coordinates exist or not, it is not on physical grounds that it can be proven or disproved. At best, a physical argument can give a heuristic hint thereto. Furthermore, it's easy to give a counterexample: one that satisfies the same conditions cited for Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and yet trivially diagonalizable. Maybe the topic would deserve opening a question.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 23 at 12:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Has it been explicitly proven that there does not exist an orthogonal set of coordinates for the Kerr black hole? Or has such a set just not been found? (these are two very differnt things)
â N. Steinle
Sep 21 at 20:22
@N. Steinle No, I know of no proof. But I would be very surprised if orthogonal coordinates were found, given that Kerr coordinates have existed for over 50 years.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 22 at 12:22
1
Ty. It's an interesting question: I might turn it into a new question on here actually!
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:58
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73514/â¦
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:59
1
@N. Steinle I've read the question you linked and the answers. I find them quite unconvincing. Apart some simply wrong, it appears to me that nobody understood that the problem is an exquisitely mathematical one. If orthogonal coordinates exist or not, it is not on physical grounds that it can be proven or disproved. At best, a physical argument can give a heuristic hint thereto. Furthermore, it's easy to give a counterexample: one that satisfies the same conditions cited for Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and yet trivially diagonalizable. Maybe the topic would deserve opening a question.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 23 at 12:51
Has it been explicitly proven that there does not exist an orthogonal set of coordinates for the Kerr black hole? Or has such a set just not been found? (these are two very differnt things)
â N. Steinle
Sep 21 at 20:22
Has it been explicitly proven that there does not exist an orthogonal set of coordinates for the Kerr black hole? Or has such a set just not been found? (these are two very differnt things)
â N. Steinle
Sep 21 at 20:22
@N. Steinle No, I know of no proof. But I would be very surprised if orthogonal coordinates were found, given that Kerr coordinates have existed for over 50 years.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 22 at 12:22
@N. Steinle No, I know of no proof. But I would be very surprised if orthogonal coordinates were found, given that Kerr coordinates have existed for over 50 years.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 22 at 12:22
1
1
Ty. It's an interesting question: I might turn it into a new question on here actually!
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:58
Ty. It's an interesting question: I might turn it into a new question on here actually!
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:58
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73514/â¦
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:59
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73514/â¦
â N. Steinle
Sep 22 at 12:59
1
1
@N. Steinle I've read the question you linked and the answers. I find them quite unconvincing. Apart some simply wrong, it appears to me that nobody understood that the problem is an exquisitely mathematical one. If orthogonal coordinates exist or not, it is not on physical grounds that it can be proven or disproved. At best, a physical argument can give a heuristic hint thereto. Furthermore, it's easy to give a counterexample: one that satisfies the same conditions cited for Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and yet trivially diagonalizable. Maybe the topic would deserve opening a question.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 23 at 12:51
@N. Steinle I've read the question you linked and the answers. I find them quite unconvincing. Apart some simply wrong, it appears to me that nobody understood that the problem is an exquisitely mathematical one. If orthogonal coordinates exist or not, it is not on physical grounds that it can be proven or disproved. At best, a physical argument can give a heuristic hint thereto. Furthermore, it's easy to give a counterexample: one that satisfies the same conditions cited for Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and yet trivially diagonalizable. Maybe the topic would deserve opening a question.
â Elio Fabri
Sep 23 at 12:51
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
In your question, you ask "how can the $mu$-th component of $fracd x^mud tau$ be a tensor?"
To put it simply, it is not a tensor. The thing that is actually the tensor is the four-velocity $v$. The numbers $fracd v^mud tau$ are the components of this tensor in some particular coordinate system $x^mu$. This could be Cartesian, spherical, etc.
You are correct that if you have an equation that sets the components of a tensor equal to zero, i.e.
$$
A^munu = 0, text for a rank (2,0) tensor, or B^mu = 0 text for a rank (1,0) tensor,
$$
then these components are zero in every coordinate system. However, for the four-velocity there is no such true equation. You can't write $dx^mu/dtau = 0$, because even if the object is at rest (i.e. it has zero 3-velocity $vecv$ ), the four velocity will be
$$
v^mu = begincasesc & mu = 0 \ 0 & mu = 1 \ 0 & mu = 2 \ 0 & mu = 3 endcases
$$
(This is not typical notation, usually people say would $v^mu = (c,0,0,0)$, but for clarity I write it as a statement for each value of $mu$). This is because the four velocity generally looks like this in Cartesian coordinates:
$$
v^mu = begincases gamma c & mu = 0 \ gamma v_x & mu = 1 \ gamma v_y & mu = 2 \ gamma v_z & mu = 3 endcases,
$$
with $gamma = left(sqrtvecvright)^-1$ the Lorentz factor, and $v_x, v_y, v_z$ the usual components of the 3-velocity in Cartesian coordinates.
Thus the four-velocity can never be entirely zero.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In your question, you ask "how can the $mu$-th component of $fracd x^mud tau$ be a tensor?"
To put it simply, it is not a tensor. The thing that is actually the tensor is the four-velocity $v$. The numbers $fracd v^mud tau$ are the components of this tensor in some particular coordinate system $x^mu$. This could be Cartesian, spherical, etc.
You are correct that if you have an equation that sets the components of a tensor equal to zero, i.e.
$$
A^munu = 0, text for a rank (2,0) tensor, or B^mu = 0 text for a rank (1,0) tensor,
$$
then these components are zero in every coordinate system. However, for the four-velocity there is no such true equation. You can't write $dx^mu/dtau = 0$, because even if the object is at rest (i.e. it has zero 3-velocity $vecv$ ), the four velocity will be
$$
v^mu = begincasesc & mu = 0 \ 0 & mu = 1 \ 0 & mu = 2 \ 0 & mu = 3 endcases
$$
(This is not typical notation, usually people say would $v^mu = (c,0,0,0)$, but for clarity I write it as a statement for each value of $mu$). This is because the four velocity generally looks like this in Cartesian coordinates:
$$
v^mu = begincases gamma c & mu = 0 \ gamma v_x & mu = 1 \ gamma v_y & mu = 2 \ gamma v_z & mu = 3 endcases,
$$
with $gamma = left(sqrtvecvright)^-1$ the Lorentz factor, and $v_x, v_y, v_z$ the usual components of the 3-velocity in Cartesian coordinates.
Thus the four-velocity can never be entirely zero.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
In your question, you ask "how can the $mu$-th component of $fracd x^mud tau$ be a tensor?"
To put it simply, it is not a tensor. The thing that is actually the tensor is the four-velocity $v$. The numbers $fracd v^mud tau$ are the components of this tensor in some particular coordinate system $x^mu$. This could be Cartesian, spherical, etc.
You are correct that if you have an equation that sets the components of a tensor equal to zero, i.e.
$$
A^munu = 0, text for a rank (2,0) tensor, or B^mu = 0 text for a rank (1,0) tensor,
$$
then these components are zero in every coordinate system. However, for the four-velocity there is no such true equation. You can't write $dx^mu/dtau = 0$, because even if the object is at rest (i.e. it has zero 3-velocity $vecv$ ), the four velocity will be
$$
v^mu = begincasesc & mu = 0 \ 0 & mu = 1 \ 0 & mu = 2 \ 0 & mu = 3 endcases
$$
(This is not typical notation, usually people say would $v^mu = (c,0,0,0)$, but for clarity I write it as a statement for each value of $mu$). This is because the four velocity generally looks like this in Cartesian coordinates:
$$
v^mu = begincases gamma c & mu = 0 \ gamma v_x & mu = 1 \ gamma v_y & mu = 2 \ gamma v_z & mu = 3 endcases,
$$
with $gamma = left(sqrtvecvright)^-1$ the Lorentz factor, and $v_x, v_y, v_z$ the usual components of the 3-velocity in Cartesian coordinates.
Thus the four-velocity can never be entirely zero.
In your question, you ask "how can the $mu$-th component of $fracd x^mud tau$ be a tensor?"
To put it simply, it is not a tensor. The thing that is actually the tensor is the four-velocity $v$. The numbers $fracd v^mud tau$ are the components of this tensor in some particular coordinate system $x^mu$. This could be Cartesian, spherical, etc.
You are correct that if you have an equation that sets the components of a tensor equal to zero, i.e.
$$
A^munu = 0, text for a rank (2,0) tensor, or B^mu = 0 text for a rank (1,0) tensor,
$$
then these components are zero in every coordinate system. However, for the four-velocity there is no such true equation. You can't write $dx^mu/dtau = 0$, because even if the object is at rest (i.e. it has zero 3-velocity $vecv$ ), the four velocity will be
$$
v^mu = begincasesc & mu = 0 \ 0 & mu = 1 \ 0 & mu = 2 \ 0 & mu = 3 endcases
$$
(This is not typical notation, usually people say would $v^mu = (c,0,0,0)$, but for clarity I write it as a statement for each value of $mu$). This is because the four velocity generally looks like this in Cartesian coordinates:
$$
v^mu = begincases gamma c & mu = 0 \ gamma v_x & mu = 1 \ gamma v_y & mu = 2 \ gamma v_z & mu = 3 endcases,
$$
with $gamma = left(sqrtvecvright)^-1$ the Lorentz factor, and $v_x, v_y, v_z$ the usual components of the 3-velocity in Cartesian coordinates.
Thus the four-velocity can never be entirely zero.
answered Sep 26 at 17:33
Davis
212
212
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f430063%2fhow-can-velocity-be-a-tensor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
The four velocity can't be zero in any coordinate system: In the rest system it is $(1, 0, 0, 0)$.
â Sebastian Riese
Sep 21 at 16:03
6
Can you clarify what you are asking? You seem to be asking if the individual components of the four velocity are tensors, and of course they are not. But the four velocity as a whole is a tensor.
â John Rennie
Sep 21 at 16:18