¡Descarga Coll+NewtonianFrames-ArXiv y más Apuntes en PDF de Matemáticas solo en Docsity!
arXiv:0707.0248v1 [gr-qc] 2 Jul 2007
Bartolom´e Coll^1 , Joan Josep Ferrando^2 and Juan Antonio Morales^2 (^1) Systemes de r´ef´erence relativistes, SYRTE-CNRS, Observatoire de Paris, 75014 Paris, France. (^2) Departament d’Astronomia i Astrof´ısica, Universitat de Valencia, E-46100 Burjassot, Val`encia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Abstract. In Newtonian space-time there exist four, and only four, causal classes of frames. Natural frames allow to extend this result to coordinate systems, so that coordinate systems may be also locally classified in four causal classes. These causal classes admit simple geometric descriptions and physical interpretations. For example, one can generate representatives of the four causal classes by means of the linear synchronization group. Of particular interest is the local Solar time synchronization, which reveals the limits of the frequent use of the concept of ‘causally oriented coordinate’, such as that of ‘time-like coordinate’. Classical positioning systems, based in sound or light signals, are, by themselves, interesting examples of location systems, i.e. of physically constructible coordinate systems. They show that one can locate events in Newtonian space-time without any use of the concept of synchronization. In fact, the coordinate systems associated to positioning systems, belong to all the classes but the standard one, i.e. the one based in the simultaneity synchronization. The relativistic analogs of these examples, emphasize the contrast between the four Newtonian and the one hundred and ninety nine Lorentzian causal classes of frames of classical and relativistic space-times, respectively.
PACS numbers: 0420-q, 45.20.Dd, 0420Cv, 9510Jk
- Introduction
Location systems are physical realizations of coordinate systems. From laboratory domains, Earth surface physics or global navigation systems to space physics, solar system or celestial astronomy, location systems allow the explicit construction of the correspondence between the events of the observable physical world and the points of its mathematical space-time model in the physical theory in use. A location system must include the protocols for the physical construction of the coordinate lines, coordinate surfaces or coordinate hypersurfaces of the coordinate system that it physically realizes. Thus, for example, these coordinate elements may be realized, among other ways, by means of clocks for timelike lines, laser pulses for
null lines, synchronized inextensible threads for spacelike lines, inextensible threads or laser beams for time like surfaces, light-front signals for null hypersurfaces and so on. The point of interest here is that every protocol physically realizes coordinate lines, coordinate surfaces or coordinate hypersurfaces of specific causal orientations. Conversely, the causal orientation of the ingredients of a coordinate system intimately constraints the physical protocols needed for the construction of the corresponding location system. The different protocols involved in the construction of location systems give rise to coordinate elements (lines, surfaces and hypersurfaces) of different causal orientations, i.e. they realize coordinate systems of different causal nature. It is known that the number of coordinate systems of different causal nature that can be constructed in relativistic space-times is of exactly one hundred and ninety nine [1]. But the corresponding question for the Newtonian space-time has never been asked until recently [2]. Here this question is analyzed and it is shown that, in strong contrast with the relativistic case, the number of Newtonian coordinate systems of different causal nature reduces drastically to four. A precise geometric description of these four classes is given and some possible physical realizations of every one of them are commented. Also, some examples are constructed of coordinate systems for every one of these causal classes. And finally the four causal classes of Newtonian coordinate systems are contrasted with the one hundred and ninety nine Lorentzian causal classes and, among them, specifically with their four relativistic analogs.
1.1. Interest and applications of the causal classification of frames
The interest of the causal classification of coordinate systems is not only taxonomic. So, for example, in a similar way as three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates frequently induce or are induced by a floor plan and elevation cut of the space, every four-dimensional coordinate system may be seen as a specific cut or foliation of (a region of) the space-time in particular pieces: those defined by the coordinate hypersurfaces, surfaces or lines of the coordinate system. But now these cuts or foliations may be of different specific causal classes. In this sense, the well known usual coordinate systems, essentially based in a three-space foliation plus a one-time congruence, are induced by, or induce, the standard evolution conception of Newtonian and relativistic physics. But other cuts or foliations, among the other three possible cuts or foliations in Newtonian theory or among the other one hundred and ninety eight possible cuts or foliations in relativity, may help us to better describe and understand other aspects of the space- time, and even to wake up our interest for variations of physical fields other than the timelike ones, intimately induced by the evolution conception. But perhaps the most imminent interest of the causal classification of coordinate systems is appearing in the at present methods for solving practical relativistic problems.
stability (constancy) of the whole causal class of the coordinate system would be also convenient in order to guarantee the physical interpretation, at least, of the components of the energetic quantities present in Einstein equations. These are the main points of interest involving related causal classes of Newtonian and relativistic coordinate systems. Other points of interest concerning specifically relativistic coordinate systems were mentioned in [1]. But, in order to better understand the role that location systems as physical objects, or coordinate systems as mathematical objects, play in the conception and analysis of experimental situations, a lot of work remains to be done, the present one being only one of the first little pieces. Recently considered emission coordinates go in this direction (see [8, 9, 10] and references therein).
1.2. Structure of the present work
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 the notion of causal class of a frame is introduced and extended to coordinate systems. Sec 3 characterizes the four causal classes of frames or coordinate systems in Newtonian space-time, and extends this result to arbitrary dimension. In Sec. 4 the notions of coordinate parameter and gradient coordinate are emphasized in order to better understand the limits of the assignation of a causal character to the coordinates, and the first elements of the synchronization group are stressed for the incoming applications. Sec. 5 presents some physical examples of Newtonian coordinates of the four causal classes. It is shown that the linear synchronization group is able to generate coordinate systems of any of the four causal classes, the causal class of the ancestral local Solar time is obtained and commented, and Newtonian emission coordinates generated by positioning systems, able to locating events out of any notion of synchronization, are shown to belong to any causal class but the usual one. In Sec. 6 Newtonian and Lorentzian classes are contrasted across the relativistic analogs of the chosen Newtonian examples. Finally, in Sec. 7 we comment on the role that our results can play as training toys for a better understanding of the physical space-time. Some preliminary results about this work were presented as a contributing lecture at the school on Relativistic Coordinates, Reference and Positioning Systems [2].
- Notion of causal class
In relativity, directions and planes or hyperplanes of directions at an event are said to be spacelike, null or timelike oriented if they are respectively exterior, tangent or secant to the light-cone of this event. These causal orientations, of clear geometrical and physical meaning, extend naturally to vectors and volume forms on these sets of directions. Thus, every one of the vectors vA of a frame {vA} (A = 1, ..., 4) has a particular causal orientation cA. What about the causal orientations CAB (A < B) of the six associated planes Π(vA, vB ) of the frame? Are they determined by the sole causal
orientations cA of the vectors of the frame? Certainly not, because for example the plane associated to two spacelike vectors may have any causal orientation. So, in general, the specifications cA and CAB are independent. Moreover, in order to give a complete description of the causal properties of the frames, one needs also to specify the causal orientations cA of the four covectors θA giving the dual frame {θA}, θA(vB ) = δAB. The cA’s are one-to-one related to the causal orientations of the four associated 3-planes Π(vB , vC , vD) with θA(vB ) = θA(vC ) = θA(vD) = 0 which are not determined, in general, by the specification of both cA and CAB. The set of (4 + 6 + 4 =) 14 causal orientations {cA, CAB, cA} is called the causal signature of a frame {vA}, and characterizes completely its causal class: the causal class of a frame is the set of all the frames that have same causal signature. The causal signature of a frame provides exhaustive information about the causal properties of its geometric elements (directions, planes and hyperplanes). Elsewhere [1], the following result was obtained.
Theorem 1 In a four-dimensional Lorentzian space-time there exist 199 causal classes of frames.
As a natural frame is nothing but the set of derivations along the parameterized lines of a coordinate system, the notion of causal class extends naturally to the set of coordinate lines of the coordinate system and so, to the coordinate system itself. But because this extension of the notion of causal class to a coordinate system is by construction a point by point extension, i.e. the causal class of a coordinate system is the causal class of its natural frame at every point, a coordinate system may present different causal classes at different points of its domain of definition. Indeed, some examples of this situation will be given below. The assignment of one specific causal class to a coordinate system in a region of the space-time supposes that the causal orientations of all the geometric elements of the coordinate system (lines, surfaces and hypersurfaces) are the same at any point of the region or, in other words, that the region under consideration is a causal homogeneous region for the coordinate system in question. Theorem 1 equivalently states that there are 199 causally different ways to parameterize the events of a relativistic space-time causal homogeneous region. The complete and explicit specification of them was given in [1] and more recently in [2]. By definition, the causal class of a coordinate system {xα}^4 α=1 in a domain is the causal class {cα, Cαβ , cα} of its associated natural frame at the events of the domain.
The cα’s are the causal orientations of the vectors ∂α ≡
∂xα^ of the natural frame {∂α}
itself, and the cα’s are the causal orientations of the 1-forms dxα^ of the coframe {dxα}. Four families of coordinate 3-surfaces (hypersurfaces) are associated with this coframe, and their mutual intersections give six families of coordinate 2-surfaces (surfaces) whose causal orientations are precisely given by Cαβ (of course, the mutual intersections of these surfaces give the four congruences of coordinate lines of causal orientation
at every event of directions, planes and hyperplanes induced by the sole Newtonian structure provided by θ and γ∗. In this structure, a vector v is spacelike if it is instantaneous with respect to the time current θ, i.e. if θ(v) = 0. Otherwise, the vector is timelike. A timelike vector v is future (resp. past) oriented if θ(v) > 0 (resp. θ(v) < 0). Obviously, these notions apply naturally to vector fields in causal homogeneous regions. It is clear that a basis can have at most three spacelike vectors so that, denoting with Roman letters (e, t) the causal orientations (respectively spacelike, timelike) of vectors, it holds:
Lemma 1 Attending to the causal orientation of their vectors, there exist four causal types of Newtonian bases, namely: {teee}, {ttee}, {ttte}, {tttt}.
In a Newtonian structure, correspondingly, a covector ω 6 = 0 is timelike if it has no instantaneous part with respect to the space metric γ∗, i.e. if γ∗(ω) = 0. Otherwise, the covector ω is spacelike. The sole timelike codirection is that defined by the current θ at every event because γ∗^ has rank 3. Thus, if ω is timelike it is necessarily of the form ω = a θ with a 6 = 0. Then ω is future (resp. past) oriented if a > 0 (resp. a < 0). Obviously, these notions are also naturally valid for 1-forms in causal homogeneous regions. It is then clear that a cobasis has at most one timelike covector so that, denoting with Italic letters (e, t) the causal orientations (respectively spacelike, timelike) of covectors, it holds:
Lemma 2 Attending to the causal orientation of their covectors, there exist two causal types of Newtonian cobases, namely: {teee}, {eeee}.
Lemmas 1 and 2 show the lack of symmetry of causal types of Newtonian bases and cobases, in contrast to the rigorous symmetry of the relativistic case. A r-plane Π is spacelike if every vector v in it is spacelike. Otherwise, Π is timelike, i.e. it contains timelike vectors. Two (resp. three) linearly independent spacelike vectors generate a spacelike 2-plane (resp. 3-plane). A r-coplane Ω is timelike if it contains the time current θ. Otherwise Ω is spacelike. The annihilator coplane ΩΠ of a r-plane Π is the (4 − r)-coplane
ΩΠ ≡ {ω | ω(v) = 0 ∀v ∈ Π}.
Obviously, these definitions apply also to r-plane fields and r-coplane fields in causal homogeneous regions. Accordingly, we have the following result.
Lemma 3 A r-plane Π is spacelike (resp. timelike) iff ΩΠ is timelike (resp. spacelike).
Newtonian gravity, the requirement of another symmetric, non-flat and not metric connection is needed in order to introduce the gravitational field [12, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16], but we shall not need them in this work.
t e e e t t e e t t t e t t t t
T T T T TE T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T TEEE
e e e e
t e e e
( T T T E )
( T T T T )
Figure 1. The four causal classes of Newtonian frames. Roman letters (e, t), capital letters (E, T), calligraphic (E, T ) and Italic (e, t) letters represent the causal orientations (spacelike, timelike) respectively of the vectors of the frame, of their associated 2-planes, of their associated 3-planes and of the covectors of the coframe. This causal classification extends naturally to coordinate systems in causal homogeneous regions.
In particular, given a Newtonian frame {v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , v 4 }, a covector θα^ of its dual frame {θ^1 , θ^2 , θ^3 , θ^4 } is timelike (resp. spacelike) iff the 3-plane generated by {vβ }β 6 =α is spacelike (resp. timelike). On account of the above considerations, the causal orientations of the four vectors of a Newtonian frame determine unambiguously the causal orientations of their six associated 2-planes and the causal orientations of their four associated 3-planes. Consequently, we reach the following result. Theorem 2 In the 4 -dimensional Newtonian space-time there exist four, and only four, causal classes of frames. The four Newtonian causal classes are represented in Fig. 1 whose reading is as follows. (i) The first column shows the sets of causal orientations cA = {e e e e}, cA = {t e e e} of the covectors of the coframe (or correspondingly, of the sets of causal orientations c¯A = {T T T T }, ¯cA = {T T T E} of the four 3-planes of the frame or of the four families of coordinate hypersurfaces of a coordinate system). As stated in Lemma 2, only these two sets are possible, up to permutations. (ii) The first file shows the sets of causal orientations cA = {t e e e}, cA = {t t e e}, cA = {t t t e}, cA = {t t t t} of the vectors of the frames or, correspondingly, the sets of causal orientations of the congruences of coordinate lines of a coordinate system. As stated in Lemma 1, only four sets are possible, up to permutations.
(iii) Each not empty (p, q)-cell (p = 1, 2; q = 1, 2 , 3 , 4) shows the set of causal orientations CAB of the associated 2-planes of vectors of the q-th frame, that corresponds to the p-th coframe or, correspondingly, the set of causal orientations of the six coordinate surfaces of a coordinate system.
(iv) Permutations of the vectors of the frame or of the covectors of the coframe induce permutations of the associated 2-planes and 3-planes, but do not alter their causal
In what follows, we will construct some examples of transformations of GL(n) that change the causal class of a starting coordinate system and also we will give direct examples of coordinate systems of the unusual causal classes. But previously we need to specify some simple but important notions.
- Coordinate parameters, gradient coordinates and synchronizations
Whatever be the complete description of a coordinate system, it may be equivalently determined by its coordinate hypersurfaces, that is to say, by the four one-parameter families of hypersurfaces whose mutual cuts give the six families of coordinates surfaces, which in turn cut in the four congruences of coordinate lines. Conversely, when the coordinate system is already know, say {xα}, these geometric elements may be easily discerned: the four one-parameter families of coordinate hypersurfaces are given by {xα^ = constant}, the six two-parameter families of coordinate surfaces are given by {xα^ = constant, xβ^ = constant}, and the four three-parameter families of coordinate lines are given by {xα^ = constant, xβ^ = constant, xγ^ = constant} for superscripts α, β, γ such that α 6 = β 6 = γ 6 = α. What Fig. 1 shows is nothing but the four possibilities of causal orientation of these geometric elements in Newtonian space-time. Thus, for example, the class {ttte, TTTTTT, eeee} represents those coordinate systems whose four coordinate hypersurfaces are all timelike {T T T T }, cut in six families of timelike coordinate surfaces {TTTTTT}, which in turn cut in four congruences of coordinate lines {ttte}, three of them timelike and the other one spacelike.
4.1. Coordinate parameters and gradient coordinates
In fact, in any space-time, every coordinate xα^ plays two extreme roles: that of a (coordinate) hypersurface for every constant value, of gradient dxα, and that of a (coordinate) line when the other coordinates remain constant, of tangent vector ∂α. This simple fact shows that, in spite of our deep-seated custom of associating to a coordinate a causal orientation, saying that it is timelike, lightlike or spacelike, this appellation is not generically coherent. Causal orientations are generically associated with directions or sets of directions of geometric objects, but not with space-time variables or parameters associated to them. In the case of a coordinate xα, this generic incoherence appears because its two natural variations in the coordinate system, dxα^ and ∂α, have generically different causal orientations. Only when both causal orientations coincide, it is conceptually clear to extend to xα^ itself the appellation of the common causal orientation of its two mentioned variations. Consequently, we shall say generically of a coordinate xα^ that it is a cα gradient coordinate and a cα coordinate parameter when the causal orientations of its variations dxα^ and ∂α be respectively cα and cα. In addition, of a coordinate t which is a timelike coordinate parameter and a
timelike (resp. spacelike) gradient coordinate, we shall say also that it defines a spacelike (resp. timelike) synchronization (the coordinate hypersurfaces t = constant being the synchronous event loci of the coordinate lines t = variable. See below). It is to be noted that the appellation “timelike coordinate parameter” in place of the usual “timelike coordinate” when t is also a timelike synchronization is the correct one, because in that case t may be a constant or even a decreasing parameter along future oriented timelike trajectories of the space-time coordinate region, an odd property for a “time coordinate”. A paradigmatic example of this situation is the oldest timelike coordinate parameter known by humanity, the local Solar time, that will be considered in Section 5. But before analyzing it, it is worthwhile to first present the group of (pure) synchronizations and its finite dimensional subgroup, the group of (pure) linear synchronizations.
4.2. The Synchronization Group
Consider a set of clocks in some region of a space-time. Their histories constitute a set of timelike lines on the region, naturally parameterized by the time t of the clocks. A synchronization is the stipulation of the locus of events where the clocks display the time t = t 0 for some chosen constant value t 0. We are interested here for ‘smooth situations’, in which the smallness of the clocks, their number and their histories are such that they can be efficiently described by a (sufficiently differentiable) congruence of timelike lines, γ(t), and for which the locus of events t = t 0 defining the synchronization constitute a (sufficiently differentiable, transverse) hypersurface, ϕ(x) = t 0. Once the trajectories so synchronized, the loci of events t =constant for any constant define a one-parameter family of hypersurfaces, to which the initial hypersurface ϕ(x) = t 0 belongs; let ϕ(x) = t be its equation. Any of these hypersurfaces ϕ(x) = t is said to define the same synchronization that the hypersurface ϕ(x) = t 0. Denoting by ˙γ the tangent vector to the histories of the clocks, ˙γ ≡ (^) dtd γ(t), such space-time function ϕ(x) verifies L( ˙γ)ϕ = 1, where L( ˙γ) is the Lie derivative♯ with respect to ˙γ. Conversely, it is easy to see that the level hypersurfaces ψ(x) = k, k = constant, of any function ψ(x) that verifies L( ˙γ)ψ = 1, define a synchronization for the (congruence of histories of the) clocks, i.e. there exists a canonical parameter t for the field γ˙, d dt γ(t) = ˙γ, such that^ k^ =^ t. Consequently, for a congruence of (histories of) clocks of tangent vector field ˙γ, the set of all its possible synchronizations is the set of all the scalar functions ψ(x) such that L( ˙γ)ψ = 1. And it is obvious that, if ϕ is such a synchronization, any other synchronization ψ is of the form ψ = ϕ+ω, where ω is an invariant function of the field ˙γ, L( ˙γ)ω = 0. The group of transformations of (pure) synchronizations for the congruence of clocks, or synchronization group, is thus isomorphic to the additive group of functions
♯ On functions ϕ the Lie derivative reduces to a directional derivative, L( ˙γ)ϕ = ˙γ(dϕ) = ˙γρ∂ρϕ.
are tangent to these instantaneous spaces, γ∗(∂i) = 0. Its natural frame is thus of the causal type {te... e}. Let us apply the transformation (2) to this coordinate system. By construction (definition of a change of synchronization) the new coordinate X^0 is a timelike coordinate parameter, because ∂X^0 is the expression, in this coordinate system {Xα}, of ˙γ , which is timelike. However, X^0 results to be a spacelike gradient coordinate whenever ~a 6 = 0, because then, according to (4), one has dX^0 ∧ dt 6 = 0. On the other hand, every new coordinate Xi^ is a timelike coordinate parameter whenever the corresponding component ai of ~a does not vanish, because ∂Xi , which is given by the second of expressions (3), is timelike in this case, γ∗(∂Xi ) 6 = 0. Nevertheless Xi^ remains a spacelike gradient coordinate, because ∀i, dXi^ ∧ dt 6 = 0. We see thus that, in the n-dimensional Newtonian space-time, starting from a standard coordinate system {t, xi} of causal type {t, (n−1)e}, the linear synchronization transformations (2) for every one of the vectors ~a = (1, k.. .,−^1 1 , 0 , n.. .,−k 0), (k = 1,... , n), define a coordinate system {Xα} of causal type {kt, (n − k)e}, belonging to the k-th causal class of the n possible ones, according to theorem 3. Then, for every r = 1,... , n, the
(n r
associated r-planes are of causal type {[
(n r
(n−k r
]T,
(n−k r
E}.
For n = 4, this gives of course the four causal classes of Figure 1. It is worthwhile to note that all the different causal classes have been obtained by simple, pure, changes of synchronization of the same system of clocks, excluding any other change of coordinates or of observers. Apparently, this is not an intuitive idea for most of us.
5.2. The causal class of the ancestral local Solar time
The local Solar time, i.e. the time shown by a sundial, is the oldest timelike coordinate parameter known by humanity, and still remains indefinitely alive and currently in use, although slightly deformed by the at present stepped time zones. As we have already mentioned, this local Solar time is a paradigmatic example of the situations where the current but particular notion of “timelike coordinate” becomes incoherent. Specifically, we will consider here the causal class of a coordinate system at rest with respect to a spherical Earth in uniform rotation when the (absolute time rhythmed) clocks are synchronized by the local Solar time or sundial synchronization, i.e. are such that at any place they watch the same fixed time (say 12h) when the Sun is just on the local meridian. For simplicity, we have not taken into account the inclination of the ecliptic and have neglected the translational motion of the Earth. Let {t, r, θ, φ} be a standard coordinate system where {r, θ, φ} are the usual geocentric inertial spherical coordinates. This system thus belongs to the standard causal class {teee, TTTEEE, teee}. The geocentric rotating spherical coordinate system {t, r, θ, Φ}, is obviously given by the (pure) rotation
Φ = φ − ωt , (5)
where ω is the Earth’s angular velocity. Here the coordinate lines where only t varies are no longer inertial, but the timelike helices that they describe remain synchronized by the instantaneous spaces of the time current. This point, and the fact that the sole new coordinate Φ verifies dΦ ∧ dt 6 = 0, make the causal class of this rotating coordinate system to remain the standard one. Now, starting from this coordinate system {t, r, θ, Φ}, let us perform a (pure) synchronization change of the form (2) to the Solar time geocentric rotating spherical
Φ φ (^) ωt
ω
ωt Φ
φ
S
S
Figure 2. The geocentric inertial spherical standard coordinates {t, r, θ, φ} and the local Solar time geocentric rotating spherical coordinates {T, r, θ, Φ} are related by T = (^) ωφ , Φ = φ − ωt, where ω is the angular velocity of the Earth. The fixed direction S is that of the sun (the inclination of the ecliptic is not taken into account and the translational motion of the Earth is neglected). The picture on the right shows the Earth equator, r = R⊕, θ = 0, whose history in the plane {T, Φ} is represented in Fig.
Φ = 0
T = 0h T = 6hT = 12hT = 18hT = 24h
Φ = 180
Φ = − Φ = 0
Φ = 0
Φ = 90
Φ = −
Φ = −
Φ = 90
t = 0h
t = 6h
t = 12h
t = 18h
t = 24h
φ = 0 φ = π/2 φ^ =^ πφ^ =^ 3π/2φ^ =^ 2π Figure 3. History of the Earth equator r = R⊕, θ = 0 in the plane {T, Φ}. (a) In geocentric inertial spherical coordinates: the vertical thin straight lines are coordinate lines of the absolute time t, and the horizontal thick straight lines correspond to the absolute synchronization (hypersurfaces of simultaneity t = constant). (b) In an Earth rotating frame: the histories of the equator events, which constitute the coordinate lines of the ‘solar time’ T , are represented by the inclined thin straight lines Φ ≡ φ − ωt = constant, meanwhile the ‘solar synchronization’ hypersurfaces T = constant are represented by the vertical thick straight lines. Note that this ‘solar instants’ contain the coordinate lines of the absolute time t = variable.
A
D
C
B
sAB
sBA
iAB
Figure 4. At any instant t = constant, the positions κA(t) ≡ A (A = 1, 2 , 3 , 4) of the four clocks generically define the four vertices A, B, C, D (all 6 =) of a 3-dimensional tetrahedron. If the clocks are at rest in an inertial system, the outer open segments sAB and sBA of the straight line ℓAB containing the edge iAB between the vertices A and B represent the shadows of the signals B and A respectively produced by A and B.
To know the causal class of the emission coordinates {tA} it is convenient to consider the coordinate r-forms. From (9), the coframe of 1-forms {dtA} may be written
dtA^ = dt + ωA^ , ωA^ ≡ −
v uA^ , (10)
where uA^ is the 1-form associated to the generically unit spacelike vector ~uA, given by
~uA^ ≡ ~r − ~cA |~r − ~cA|
uA^ = γ(~uA), γ being the 3-dimensional inverse of the structure metric γ∗^ associated to the inertial observers ∂t , γ.γ∗^ = I −θ⊗∂t , and θ being the time current††. The Jacobian matrix of the transformation (9) is not defined at the events (t, ~r) where ~r = ~cA^ , that is to say, along the clock worldlines κA. Below we shall see other events where the Jacobian matrix is not defined. Out of these worldlines one has ωA^6 = 0 and thus dtA is spacelike (it is not collinear to the time current). Consequently, the coframe of the Newtonian emission coordinate system is of causal type {e e e e}. The co-planes of the coordinate system are determined by the 2-forms dtA^ ∧ dtB^ = dt ∧ (ωB^ − ωA) + ωA^ ∧ ωB^ , (12)
so that the co-plane AB is generically spacelike, and can be timelike only when ωA^ ∧ ωB^ = 0 , that is to say on the timelike plane of events ΠAB that contains the
†† Note that, meanwhile γ∗^ is an intrinsic element of the geometry of Newtonian space-time, its ‘three- dimensional inverse’ γ is an observer-dependent quantity, given by γ.γ∗^ = I − θ ⊗ u, where u is the unit velocity of the chosen observer. To two different observers, they correspond two different degenerate four-dimensional covariant metrics γ of rank three, although their induced spatial components on the instantaneous space take the same value, as it is well experienced in the usual three-dimensional formalism.
worldlines of κA^ and κB^. Because the clocks are at rest with respect to the starting inertial system, at any t = constant their positions κA(t) ≡ A will generically define the four vertices A, B, C, D (all 6 =) of a 3-dimensional tetrahedron (see Figure 4). Denote by ℓAB the straight line passing through A and B and, in it, by iAB the corresponding open edge of the tetrahedron and by sAB (respect. sBA) the other open segment contiguous to A (respect. contiguous to B). It is then clear that the timelike plane ΠAB is the history of the straight line ℓAB , and we will denote by IAB the history of iAB , the (timelike) open strip of ΠAB whose boundaries are κA^ and κB^. Similarly, SAB (respect. SBA) will denote the (timelike) open strip of ΠAB contiguous to κA^ (respect. contiguous to κB^ ). Now we see that the condition ωA^ ∧ ωB^ = 0 takes place along ℓAB , thus on the events of ΠAB. In addition, because from (10) all the ωA^ have same length, one has ωA^ = −ωB on iAB , thus on the events of IAB , and ωA^ = ωB^ on the two other open segments sAB and sBA, thus of the events of SAB and SBA, where one has
dtA^ ∧ dtB^ = 0 , (13)
and the coordinate system degenerates. These open strips of ΠAB , SAB and SBA, are also the half-planes describing the history of the shadows that the clocks A and B make respectively to the signals of the clocks B and A. These considerations on expressions (12) and (13) show that either all the coordinate coplanes are spacelike, or one of them is timelike, so that, on account of lemma 3, it results that generically the type of the coordinate planes is {T T T T T T} but on the events of the six timelike strips IAB , and only on them, the type is {T T T T T E}, the coordinate system being degenerate on the shadows SAB and SBA and undetermined on the worldlines κA. To analyze the coordinate lines, let us consider the dual 3-forms: dtA^ ∧ dtB^ ∧ dtC^ = ωA^ ∧ ωB^ ∧ ωC
ωA^ ∧ ωB^ + ωB^ ∧ ωC^ + ωC^ ∧ ωA
The 3-coplane ABC is generically spacelike, and can be timelike only when ωA^ ∧ ωB^ ∧ ωC^ = 0, what happens on the events of the timelike 3-plane ΠABC that contains the worldlines κA, κB^ , κC^. In the stationary 3-dimensional sections t = constant, these events correspond to the planes ℓABC that contain the three clocks A, B, C, and thus the three lines ℓAB , ℓBC , ℓCA, including the tetrahedral faces iABC that their edges iAB , iBC and iCA delimit, and the six strips sAB , sBA, sBC , sCB , sCA, sAC. We already know that, apart from on the clocks A, B, C themselves, on these last six strips the coordinate coplanes degenerate; are there other events than that on which the coordinate 3-coplanes be degenerate? In other words, there where ωA^ ∧ ωB^ ∧ ωC^ = 0 out of the edges, can the other term in (14) also vanish? We have:
ωC^ = αωA^ + βωB^ , (15)
so that (14) becomes
dtA^ ∧ dtB^ ∧ dtC^ = (1 − α − β)dt ∧ ωA^ ∧ ωB^ , (16)
which cannot degenerate, being ωA^ ∧ ωB^6 = 0, unless α + β = 1. But
1 = (ωC^ )^2 = α^2 + β^2 + 2αβ(ωA^ · ωB^ ) = 1 + 2αβ(ωA^ · ωB^ − 1) , (17)
one can always choose local coordinate systems belonging, in some region, to any of the 199 causal classes and, in particular, having the same causal signature that any given Newtonian coordinate system. But it must be emphasized that going from 4 to 199 causal classes, the change from the Newtonian conception of the space-time to the relativistic one implies a richness of causally different ways of locating space-time events that, in spite of the appearances extracted from the current scientific publications, is far from being well understood. Here, we shall analyze in Minkowski space-time the situations that we have already analyzed in the Newtonian case.
6.1. The Linear Synchronization Group
Let us consider, in Minkowski space-time, the linear synchronization group (2) acting on an inertial laboratory referred to a standard coordinate system {x^0 , xi}. The metric components ηαβ of the Minkowski flat metric η in this coordinate system are the usual ηαβ = diag(− 1 , 1 ,... , 1) so that the associated natural frame is of the causal type {t e... e}. The natural frame and coframe of the new system {Xα} are given by (3) and (4). It follows, by direct scalar products of these expressions, that the covariant and contravariant components, gαβ and gαβ^ respectively, of the metric η in this new system are:
gαβ =
− 1 ~a ~a I − ~a ⊗ ~a
, gαβ^ =
−1 + ~a 2 ~a ~a I
where ~a ≡ (a 1 ,... , an− 1 ), ~a 2 ≡
∑n− 1 i=1 a 2 i and^ I^ is the^ n−1 identity matrix. We can see from (19) that, like in the Newtonian case, the new coordinate X^0 is a timelike coordinate parameter. However, X^0 results to be a spacelike gradient coordinate only when |~a| > 1 , meanwhile in the Newtonian case the condition is simply ~a 6 = 0. When |~a| = 1 or |~a| < 1 , X^0 is a null or timelike gradient coordinate, respectively. Obviously, the first of these last two situations is forbidden in the Newtonian case, and the second one cannot be attained by the linear synchronization group (up to, trivially, by the identity transformation, ~a = 0). On the other hand, every new coordinate Xi^ remains, like in the Newtonian case, a spacelike gradient coordinate. However Xi^ results to be a timelike coordinate parameter only when |ai| > 1 , meanwhile in the Newtonian case the condition is simply ai 6 = 0. When |ai| = 1 or |ai| < 1 , Xi^ is a null or spacelike coordinate parameter, respectively. Both situations are also absent in the Newtonian case (up to for ~a = 0). Finally, the coordinate two-forms satisfy: dXi^ ∧ dXj^ = dxi^ ∧ dxj^ , dX^0 ∧ dXi^ = dx^0 ∧ dxi^ + aj dxi^ ∧ dxj^ , (20) (dXi^ ∧ dXj^ )^2 = 1 , (dX^0 ∧ dXi)^2 = −1 + ~a 2 − a^2 i. (21)
Consequently, the (n−2)-coordinate surfaces Xi^ = constant, Xj^ = constant (i, j given) are timelike and the (n−2)-coordinate surfaces X^0 = constant, Xi^ = constant (i given)
are timelike, null or spacelike if ~a 2 − a^2 i is greater, equal or smaller than 1, respectively. This information, insufficient for n > 4, completely determines the causal class of the coordinate system {X^0 , Xi} in the four-dimensional Minkowski space-time: All the causal classes obtained by a linear synchronization transformations have a causal signature of the form:
{t c 1 c 2 c 3 , T T T C 12 C 13 C 23 , c 0 e e e} (22)
where the non-fixed causal orientations, c 1 , c 2 , c 3 , C 12 , C 13 , C 23 , c 0 depend on the ai parameters as follows:
ci =
t |ai| > 1 l |ai| = 1 e |ai| < 1
Cij =
T a^2 i + a^2 j > 1 L a^2 i + a^2 j = 1 E a^2 i + a^2 j < 1
c 0 =
t |~a| < 1 l |~a| = 1 e |~a| > 1
A more detailed analysis of the compatible orientations shows that the number of different causal classes that may be generated by a linear synchronization transformation is 29 , in contrast with the only 4 Newtonian ones. We will consider them elsewhere [17]. Evidently the four Newtonian analogues exist in relativity. In fact, the Lorentzian causal classes of same causal signature that the four Newtonian ones correspond to the following values of the parameters ai:
{t t t t, T T T T T T, e e e e} if ∀ i, |ai| > 1
{t t t e, T T T T T T, e e e e} if
∃! i, ∀ j 6 = i,
|ai| < 1 |aj | > 1
{t t e e, T T T T T E, e e e e} if
∃! i, j, k 6 = i,
|ai| > 1 a^2 j + a^2 k < 1
{t e e e, T T T E E E, t e e e} if ∀ i, |ai| < 1
6.2. The local Solar time synchronization.
In the Newtonian example of the rotating Earth of subsection 5.2, the latitude of the observer plays in fact no role, because we are interested only in the time synchronization, not in the angular height of the Sun. For this reason, we shall consider here, in place of the Earth, a rigidly rotating disk and, in place of spherical coordinates, cylindrical ones. So, let {t, φ, ρ, z} be an inertial laboratory referred to a standard cylindrical coordinate system in Minkowski space-time. This coordinate system is known to belong to the standard causal class {teee, TTTEEE, teee}. The rotating cylindrical coordinate system {t, Φ, ρ, z}, adapted to the congruences of the observers in rigid rotation motion is defined by the transformation (5). In the Newtonian case this system remains in the standard class, as happens for the rotating spherical coordinate system considered in subsection 5.2.
