0

Given any Lorentzian manifold containing three distinct time-like world lines $L$, $A$ and $B$ such that
$L$ and $A$ have exactly one common coincidence event, $\mathcal{E}_{AL}$,
$L$ and $B$ have exactly one common coincidence event, $\mathcal{E}_{BL}$, and
$A$ and $B$ have no coincidence event in common at all (therefore $\mathcal{E}_{AL} \ne \mathcal{E}_{BL}$),
is the following conclusion correct?:

There also exist four distinct time-like world lines $F$, $J$, $P$, and $U$ in the given Lorentzian manifold, which have the coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{AL} \equiv \mathcal{E}_{ALFJPU}$ in common and
there exist another four distinct time-like world lines $G$, $K$, $Q$, and $V$ in the given Lorentzian manifold, such that

(1)
$F$ and $G$ have the coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{FG}$ in common,
$J$ and $K$ have the coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{JK}$ in common,
$P$ and $Q$ have the coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{PQ}$ in common, and
$U$ and $V$ have the coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{UV}$ in common,

(2)
there is no time-like world line at all having taken part in any two (or more) of the five coincidence events $\mathcal{E}_{FG}$, $\mathcal{E}_{JK}$, $\mathcal{E}_{PQ}$, $\mathcal{E}_{UV}$, or $\mathcal{E}_{BL}$
(therefore the coincidence events $\mathcal{E}_{FG}$, $\mathcal{E}_{JK}$, $\mathcal{E}_{PQ}$, $\mathcal{E}_{UV}$, and $\mathcal{E}_{BL}$ are all distinct; and the nine time-like world lines $F$, $G$, $J$, $K$, $P$, $Q$, $U$, $V$, and $L$ are all distinct from each other),

and such that

(3)
for any coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{WX}$ in which any time-like world line $W$ took part which also took part in coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{BL} \equiv \mathcal{E}_{BLW}$ there exists a time-like world line $Y$ which took part in coincidence event $\mathcal{E}_{WX} \equiv \mathcal{E}_{WXY}$ as well as in one of the five coincidence events $\mathcal{E}_{FG}$, $\mathcal{E}_{JK}$, $\mathcal{E}_{PQ}$, $\mathcal{E}_{UV}$, or $\mathcal{E}_{AL}$
?

user12262
  • 4,258
  • 17
  • 40
  • In the fourth line after (1), are X and Y supposed to be U and V? – Vectornaut Jun 20 '14 at 01:10
  • Also, can I assume that "time-like world line" means a smooth path with timelike tangent lines, rather than, say, a continuous path which is contained in the light cones of all its points? The latter might be really awful: for example, you could probably construct such a path in $\mathbb{R}^{1,3}$, with coordinates $(\tau(s), \vec{\xi}(s))$, such that $\vec{\xi}(s)$ is a space-filling curve. – Vectornaut Jun 20 '14 at 01:49
  • @Vectornaut: "In the fourth line after (1) [...]" -- Right. (Good catch! ;), I'll correct it right away. "Also, can I assume that "time-like world line" means [...]" -- The point is (perhaps a bit covertly): That's up to you. I try not to presume anything about what "time-like world line" means to people dealing with manifolds, "tangent lines" etc.; I just try to find out: Does "it" match my intuition about "participants"?. I'd even have to accept plain "Yes." or "No." answers. I'd stick to the "Yes." side; then deal with whatever the "No." side may have meant by "time-like world line". – user12262 Jun 20 '14 at 15:04
  • @Vectornaut: p.s. "[...] a path in $\mathbb R^{1, 3}$, with coordinates $(\tau(s), \vec \xi(s))$ [...]" -- If "$s$" there is supposed to denote an "affine parameter" (and not the magnitude of a spacetime interval) I'd really wish it could be instead denoted by some other symbol; for instance "$\lambda$". – user12262 Jun 20 '14 at 15:21

1 Answers1

1

If no two points on your manifold $M$ can be joined by both a spacelike curve and a timelike curve, I believe I can construct curves satisfying (1) and (2). However, I suspect that (3) can never also be satisfied. [Edit: I misread (3), and now I think it may be possible to satisfy (3) with a variant of the construction I gave for (1) and (2). See comments for details.] Here's a rough sketch of my argument. I've made the answer community wiki so that anyone can add clarifications or corrections.


As far as I can tell, the curves $A$, $B$, $G$, $K$, $Q$, and $V$ serve only to mark points on the other curves, $L$, $F$, $J$, $P$, and $U$. Every point in $M$ has an infinite number of timelike curves running through it, so any point in $M$ can be marked by a timelike curve distinct from $L, \ldots, U$. Therefore, we don't have to worry about $A, \ldots, V$ at all; we can just keep track of the points they mark, which I'll call

  • $a = \mathcal{E}_{AL}$
  • $b = \mathcal{E}_{BL}$
  • $f = \mathcal{E}_{FG}$
  • $j = \mathcal{E}_{JK}$
  • $p = \mathcal{E}_{PQ}$
  • $u = \mathcal{E}_{UV}$.

Starting with the curve $L$ and its distinct marked points $a$ and $b$, let's construct $F$, $J$, $P$, and $U$. Let $L'$ be a compact segment of $L$ containing $a$ and $b$ (and extending out beyond $a$ and $b$, for good measure). You should be able to construct a spacelike vector field $\xi$ on some open neighborhood of $L'$ which vanishes at $a$ but does not vanish anywhere else on $L'$. Every point on $L'$ has a neighborhood in which the flow $\phi$ generated by $\xi$ is well-defined for more than zero time. Since $L'$ is compact, it follows that $L'$ has a neighborhood in which the flow is well-defined for more than zero time.

Under the flow $\phi$, the curve $L'$ moves smoothly through $M$, and its tangent bundle $TL'$ moves smoothly through $TM$. For every point $x$ on $L'$, the tangent space $T_xL'$ remains timelike for more than zero time during the flow. Thus, using comapctness, $L'$ remains timelike for more than zero time during the flow. Pick four times $t_F$, $t_J$, $t_P$, and $t_U$ at which $L'$ remains timelike, and call the images of $L'$ at these times $F$, $J$, $P$, and $U$.

Since $\xi$ vanishes at $a$, the curves $F, \ldots, U$ all pass through $a$. By tweaking $t_F, \ldots, t_U$, you should be able to ensure that $F, \ldots, U$ intersect $L$ only at $a$.


Let $f$ be the image of $b$ under the flow $\phi$ at time $t_F$. Define $j$, $p$, and $u$ similarly. Clearly $f$ lies on $F$, $j$ lies on $J$, and so forth. Notice that $b$, $f$, $j$, $p$, and $u$ lie on a spacelike curve: the path of $b$ under $\phi$. Therefore, by our initial assumption, no timelike curve can pass through two or more of these points.

We've now constructed curves with marked points satisfying (1) and (2).


Finally, here's why I suspect that (3) can never also be satisfied. [Edit: I misread (3), and now I think it may be possible to satisfy (3) with a variant of the construction I gave for (1) and (2). See comments for details.] Suppose we have some curves with marked points satisfying (1) and (2). I suspect that (2) prevents the light cones of $f$, $j$, $p$, and $u$ from covering all of $L'$. In fact, I think there has to be a neighborhood $\Omega$ of $b$ which does not intersect the light cones of $f, \ldots, u$. Draw any timelike curve $W$ through $b$ and pick a point $w = \mathcal{E}_{WX}$ in $W \cap \Omega$. Since $w$ lies outside the light cones of $f, \ldots, u$, it can't be connected to any of those points by a timelike curve $Y$.

  • Vectornaut: Nice quick effort! +1. "[...] points they mark, which I'll call $a, b, f,$ [...]." -- If it helps you, and if it's one-to-one, fine. (I like to write "$\mathcal E_{XY}$" as coincidence event of $X$ and $Y$ so I can still denote and discuss "$X_Y$" and "$Y_X$" separately; as the distinct "indications" of these two participants.) "I suspect that (2) prevents the light cones of $f, j, p,$ and $u$ from covering all of $L'$." -- Very astute!, that was "my idea". "Since $w$ lies outside the light cones of $f ... u$ [...]" -- Right, but what about $a$, i.e. $\mathcal E_{AL}$ in (3)? – user12262 Jun 20 '14 at 15:40
  • Vectornaut: p.s. "I suspect that (2) prevents the light cones of $f, j, p,$ and $u$ from covering all of $L'$." -- Do you find it relevant that these are four light cones being prescribed in my question (and not fewer, for instance, which might have made the question simpler to write down and to deal with)? – user12262 Jun 20 '14 at 15:47
  • Oops, I didn't see the $a$ option in (3)! In that case, I think maybe the answer is yes, because in the construction I used, you can keep $f, \ldots, u$ very close to $b$, so their their forward light cones cover most of the forward light cone of $b$, their backward light cones cover most of the backward light cone of $b$, and the remaining patch of the double light cone of $b$ is covered by the forward or backward light cone of $a$. Now I see why you wanted four points $f, \ldots, u$! I'm not sure of the details, though. – Vectornaut Jun 20 '14 at 17:25
  • Vectornaut: "I think maybe the answer is yes, [...] I'm not sure of the details, though." -- So ... 1: Anyone offering a "No."? (Perhaps even including yourself, on "second, more considered" thoughts?) Then perhaps the notion of "time-like world line, by means of manifolds/coordinates" could be analysed in more detail. Such as 2: Is there nothing (for me) to be learned about the above mentioned "tangent lines"?, or 3: Is there at least anything (for me) to be learned about the "manifold $M$" you supposed, such as: Which subsets (of all coincidence events) should be called "open", etc.? – user12262 Jun 21 '14 at 08:35
  • What do you mean when you ask, "Is there nothing (for me) to be learned about..."? I've been talking about Lorentzian manifolds because you asked a question about Lorentzian manifolds, I've been talking about smooth timelike paths because they're much easier to deal with than general continuous timelike paths, and I've been talking about tangent spaces because a smooth path is timelike if and only if all its tangent lines are timelike. Looking at tangent lines is a really good way to check whether a smooth path is timelike, which is what I'm using them for here. – Vectornaut Jun 21 '14 at 17:24
  • Vectornaut: "[...] because you asked a question about Lorentzian manifolds" -- I asked about Lorentzian manifolds because 1. the notion timelike seems to be represented as if requiring "Lorentzian manifolds" as their foundation (and I can't recognize that "causal set" were not); and (perhaps therefore) 2. There are no questions here dealing with "participants" as such. [to be contd.] – user12262 Jun 22 '14 at 06:44
  • Vectornaut: "[...] I've been talking about smooth timelike paths because they're much easier to deal with than general continuous timelike paths" -- I'm sorry, I had been under the impression your answer covered even those "difficult general" cases (and that you had mentioned notions such as "flow" perhaps in order to reduce the "difficult" to what could be rather "dealt with"). "Looking at tangent lines is a really good way to check [...]" -- What is "tangent line" before/without having interval magnitudes $s$, or at least "some topology" ...? – user12262 Jun 22 '14 at 06:45