Minkowski space












2












$begingroup$


1) In Minkowski space, coordinates which satisfy



x2=t2-X2>0



Region of spacetime is time-like.



2) If its



x2=t2-X2<0



Region is space-like.



3) But if



x2=t2-X2=0



then its "trajectory of light-like particles".



I have understood the first two points about time and space like region but I could not get the third one about "light like particles".
My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.






special-relativity mass metric-tensor causality







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In the future, please use MathJax, not HTML markup, to display math. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    3 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


1) In Minkowski space, coordinates which satisfy



x2=t2-X2>0



Region of spacetime is time-like.



2) If its



x2=t2-X2<0



Region is space-like.



3) But if



x2=t2-X2=0



then its "trajectory of light-like particles".



I have understood the first two points about time and space like region but I could not get the third one about "light like particles".
My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.






special-relativity mass metric-tensor causality







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In the future, please use MathJax, not HTML markup, to display math. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    3 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


1) In Minkowski space, coordinates which satisfy



x2=t2-X2>0



Region of spacetime is time-like.



2) If its



x2=t2-X2<0



Region is space-like.



3) But if



x2=t2-X2=0



then its "trajectory of light-like particles".



I have understood the first two points about time and space like region but I could not get the third one about "light like particles".
My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.






special-relativity mass metric-tensor causality







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




1) In Minkowski space, coordinates which satisfy



x2=t2-X2>0



Region of spacetime is time-like.



2) If its



x2=t2-X2<0



Region is space-like.



3) But if



x2=t2-X2=0



then its "trajectory of light-like particles".



I have understood the first two points about time and space like region but I could not get the third one about "light like particles".
My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.






special-relativity mass metric-tensor causality




special-relativity mass metric-tensor causality






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









Qmechanic♦

107k121991239




107k121991239






New contributor




sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









sk9298sk9298

645




645




New contributor




sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






sk9298 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    In the future, please use MathJax, not HTML markup, to display math. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    3 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    In the future, please use MathJax, not HTML markup, to display math. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    3 hours ago
















$begingroup$
In the future, please use MathJax, not HTML markup, to display math. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
In the future, please use MathJax, not HTML markup, to display math. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$


My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.




You are correct. The terminology is historical in nature. Light was the first massless particle to be discovered. The terminology “lightlike” was established before any other massless particles were discovered. Once other massless particles were discovered it was shown that they also travel along lightlike geodesics, but by then the term “lightlike” was well established.



An alternative term with the same meaning as “lightlike” is “null”. If you prefer then you can always use “null” and just understand that people saying “lightlike” mean the same thing.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    Only particles with zero mass can travel between two events which are separated by a light-like distance. The trajectory is called light-like because photons (light) are massless, and historically the first example of a massless particle, as well as the only example in the 1910's. There are other massless particles, like gluons which would also be able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance.



    The reason why only massless particles are able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance is that it requires you to travel at exactly the speed of light. You can see this by considering the equation $t^2-x^2=0$, this means that $x=pm t$. These equations are with the units such that the speed of light $c=1$. Thus the particle taking this trajectory is travelling at the speed of light.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      sk9298 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470979%2fminkowski-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4












      $begingroup$


      My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.




      You are correct. The terminology is historical in nature. Light was the first massless particle to be discovered. The terminology “lightlike” was established before any other massless particles were discovered. Once other massless particles were discovered it was shown that they also travel along lightlike geodesics, but by then the term “lightlike” was well established.



      An alternative term with the same meaning as “lightlike” is “null”. If you prefer then you can always use “null” and just understand that people saying “lightlike” mean the same thing.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        4












        $begingroup$


        My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.




        You are correct. The terminology is historical in nature. Light was the first massless particle to be discovered. The terminology “lightlike” was established before any other massless particles were discovered. Once other massless particles were discovered it was shown that they also travel along lightlike geodesics, but by then the term “lightlike” was well established.



        An alternative term with the same meaning as “lightlike” is “null”. If you prefer then you can always use “null” and just understand that people saying “lightlike” mean the same thing.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$


          My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.




          You are correct. The terminology is historical in nature. Light was the first massless particle to be discovered. The terminology “lightlike” was established before any other massless particles were discovered. Once other massless particles were discovered it was shown that they also travel along lightlike geodesics, but by then the term “lightlike” was well established.



          An alternative term with the same meaning as “lightlike” is “null”. If you prefer then you can always use “null” and just understand that people saying “lightlike” mean the same thing.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




          My confusion is about why just light like particles? there are many other particles at quantum level.




          You are correct. The terminology is historical in nature. Light was the first massless particle to be discovered. The terminology “lightlike” was established before any other massless particles were discovered. Once other massless particles were discovered it was shown that they also travel along lightlike geodesics, but by then the term “lightlike” was well established.



          An alternative term with the same meaning as “lightlike” is “null”. If you prefer then you can always use “null” and just understand that people saying “lightlike” mean the same thing.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 6 hours ago









          DaleDale

          6,6071829




          6,6071829























              3












              $begingroup$

              Only particles with zero mass can travel between two events which are separated by a light-like distance. The trajectory is called light-like because photons (light) are massless, and historically the first example of a massless particle, as well as the only example in the 1910's. There are other massless particles, like gluons which would also be able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance.



              The reason why only massless particles are able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance is that it requires you to travel at exactly the speed of light. You can see this by considering the equation $t^2-x^2=0$, this means that $x=pm t$. These equations are with the units such that the speed of light $c=1$. Thus the particle taking this trajectory is travelling at the speed of light.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                3












                $begingroup$

                Only particles with zero mass can travel between two events which are separated by a light-like distance. The trajectory is called light-like because photons (light) are massless, and historically the first example of a massless particle, as well as the only example in the 1910's. There are other massless particles, like gluons which would also be able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance.



                The reason why only massless particles are able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance is that it requires you to travel at exactly the speed of light. You can see this by considering the equation $t^2-x^2=0$, this means that $x=pm t$. These equations are with the units such that the speed of light $c=1$. Thus the particle taking this trajectory is travelling at the speed of light.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  Only particles with zero mass can travel between two events which are separated by a light-like distance. The trajectory is called light-like because photons (light) are massless, and historically the first example of a massless particle, as well as the only example in the 1910's. There are other massless particles, like gluons which would also be able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance.



                  The reason why only massless particles are able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance is that it requires you to travel at exactly the speed of light. You can see this by considering the equation $t^2-x^2=0$, this means that $x=pm t$. These equations are with the units such that the speed of light $c=1$. Thus the particle taking this trajectory is travelling at the speed of light.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Only particles with zero mass can travel between two events which are separated by a light-like distance. The trajectory is called light-like because photons (light) are massless, and historically the first example of a massless particle, as well as the only example in the 1910's. There are other massless particles, like gluons which would also be able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance.



                  The reason why only massless particles are able to travel between two events separated by a light-like distance is that it requires you to travel at exactly the speed of light. You can see this by considering the equation $t^2-x^2=0$, this means that $x=pm t$. These equations are with the units such that the speed of light $c=1$. Thus the particle taking this trajectory is travelling at the speed of light.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 6 hours ago









                  LucashWindowWasherLucashWindowWasher

                  32312




                  32312






















                      sk9298 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      sk9298 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      sk9298 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      sk9298 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470979%2fminkowski-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Contact image not getting when fetch all contact list from iPhone by CNContact

                      Image
                      up vote 0 down vote favorite I know this question already asked but not getting solution. From this code I will get all the information from the contact but image not found when open vcf files on mac os, also not getting when share this file. I use this stackoverflow link here but It's not help full. var contacts = [CNContact]() let keys = [CNContactVCardSerialization.descriptorForRequiredKeys() ] as [Any] let request = CNContactFetchRequest(keysToFetch: keys as! [CNKeyDescriptor]) do { try self.contactStore.enumerateContacts(with: request) { (contact, stop) in // Array containing all unified contacts from everywhere contacts.append(contact) } } catch { print("unable to fetch contacts") } do { let data = try
                      Read more

                      count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets

                      Image
                      up vote 6 down vote favorite 1 This program is for count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets I am confusing here return k*countP(n-1, k) + countP(n-1, k-1); can some one explain what is happening here? why we are multiplying with k? NOTE->I know this is not the best way to calculate number of partitions that would be DP // A C++ program to count number of partitions // of a set with n elements into k subsets #include<iostream> using namespace std; // Returns count of different partitions of n // elements in k subsets int countP(int n, int k) { // Base cases if (n == 0 || k == 0 || k > n) return 0; if (k == 1 || k == n) return 1; // S(n+1, k) = k*S(n, k) + S(n, k-1) return k*countP(n-1, k) + countP(n-1, k-1); } // Driver program int ma
                      Read more

                      A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

                      Image
                      0 I found a lot of questions abount appendices and ToC. Many users want appendices to be grouped in an Appendix part, however some problems arise with ToC, hyperref, PDF viewer bookmarks, and so on. There are different solutions which require extra packages, command patching and other extra code, however none of them satisfies me. I almost found an easy way to accomplish a good result, where appendices are added to bookmarks in the right way and hyperref links point to the right page. However, the number of the "Appendix" part page is wrong (it's the number of appendix A). Is there any EASY way to fix that? This is a MWE: documentclass{book} usepackage[nottoc,notlot,notlof]{tocbibind} usepackage{hyperref} begin{document} frontmatter tableofcontents mainmatter part{First} chapter{
                      Read more