• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,079 questions , 2,229 unanswered
5,348 answers , 22,758 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
819 active unimported users
More ...

  Time-separation function on "globally hyperbolic" spacetimes with everywhere timelike boundary

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

It is well-known that, in globally hyperbolic spacetimes, the time separation function $\tau$ (aka Lorentzian distance function) enjoys the following property: fix a point $p$ and a point $q \in I^-(p)$. Then if $\gamma : [0,1] \to M$ is a past-directed causal curve starting at $q$, the function \begin{equation} \lambda \mapsto \tau(p,\gamma(\lambda)) \qquad (*) \end{equation} is strictly increasing. A proof of this fact follows simply by noting that, in this context: (a) a maximal causal curve between $p$ and any point in $I^-(p)$ exists and is necessarily a smooth timelike geodesic; (b) due to the reverse triangle inequality, one only needs to worry about the case where $\gamma$ is an achronal null geodesic segment. The conclusion then easily follows (see e.g. the proof of Proposition 3.1 in http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5032).

Suppose one were interested in studying (time-oriented) spacetimes with smooth boundary and suppose also that the boundary is everywhere timelike. Then one could fairly straightforwardly come up with a notion of global hyperbolicity for such spacetimes: namely strong causality plus, as usual, compactness of the sets $J^-(x) \cap J^+(y)$ (where causal and chronological curves are defined in the same way as in the case with no boundaries, say using piecewise smooth curves). This has in fact been already done and the causal theory of such spacetimes was studied by D. A. Solis in his PhD thesis (University of Miami, 2006). See also Section 2.2 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3233. It turns out that globally hyperbolic spacetimes with timelike boundary are causally simple, the time-separation function is continuous, and there exist maximal continuous causal curves between any two causally related points.

To get a flavour of the kind of result that does not still hold in this category, notice that it is no longer true that if $q \in J^-(p) \setminus I^-(p)$ then every causal curve from $p$ to $q$ is an achronal null (pre)geodesic. Consider for instance (1+2)-dimensional Minkowski space with a timelike cylinder removed, a point $q$ on the boundary and a point $p$ (either on the boundary or in the interior) "behind" the cylinder. It is clear that for some such $p$ there are causal but not timelike curves to $q$, but also that none of these curves are null geodesics. On the other hand, one can prove the weaker result that if $\gamma : [0,1] \to M$ is a causal past-directed curve from $p$ to $q$ with $\gamma(0,1) \subset \mathrm{Int} \, M$ then either $q \in I^-(p)$ or $\gamma$ is a smooth null (pre)geodesic. Similarly, the "smooth geodesic" bit in remark (a) in my first paragraph clearly fails to hold here.

Having said all that (!): can anyone think of an example showing that the function defined by $(*)$ should not be expected to be strictly increasing if one allows for timelike boundaries (but under the assumption of "global hyperbolicity")? I should say that I don't necessarily believe that a counterexample exists; but it is clear IMHO that the strategy outlined in my first paragraph does not straightforwardly adapt, and I am not aware of any alternative methods.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Umberto Lupo
asked Sep 10, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by Umberto Lupo (30 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 9, 2016
Most voted comments show all comments
Think, for instance, of the causal diamond $U=\{(t,x)\in M\ |\ |t|<1-|x|\}$ in the 2-dim. half-Minkowski space-time $M=\{(t,x)\ |\ x\geq 0\}$. It is obviously geodesically convex and causally convex, but its image in the full 2-dim. Minkowski space-time (which is the double of $M$) is not causally convex since one can slightly deform any timelike curve with a boundary segment into a timelike curve whose corresponding segment has its interior inside the other half of the double.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Of course! The problem is that above I repeatedly wrote "causally convex" when I was really thinking "causally compatible". But then again I'm not sure why I ever thought causal compatibility could help in the first place. Sorry for the waste of time.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Umberto Lupo
I believe the loss of causal convexity in the double is not such a big deal, though. If you have a (say, locally Lipschitz) causal curve in the double linking two points of the original manifold, you can reflect back the pieces in the other half. The result, it seems to me, is another locally Lipschitz curve (probably with more breaks) with the same Lorentzian arc length since reflection across the boundary in the double is an isometry. The big problem is really the lack of regularity of the double's metric across the boundary.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Hence, one has to see if the available results on causality for continuous and / or $C^1$ metrics suffice to yield a characterization of maximal causal curves on the double, and use reflection across the boundary to complete the job.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
I am not sure if that is what you are after but if the metric is just continuous and the spacetime globally hyperbolic, then maximal curves still exist: Prop. 6.4, p. 23 in link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00023-015-0425-x (or arxiv.org/abs/1412.2408).

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user C_S
Most recent comments show all comments
I also have the feeling that things could work if it holds that, locally around every point $p$ of the boundary, there exists a neighbourhood $U$ and an isometric embedding of $U$ into a spacetime without boundary $N$, such that $U$ is mapped to a causally convex subset of $N$. But this hardly seems to me like the most helpful of criteria!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Umberto Lupo
Well, you can use the double of the space-time manifold, but in this case one has two problems: (1) the metric in the double extending the original metric is at best continuous (it is at least $C^1$ if the boundary is totally geodesic), and (2) even if it is smooth, the image of $U$ won't be causally convex, no matter how small, precisely because the boundary is timelike. It is possible to generalize results from causality theory to space-times with rough metrics, but I'm not sure how much of the theory survives with metrics this rough (specially if the boundary is not totally geodesic).

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights