Quantcast
  • 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.

News

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,851 answers , 20,616 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

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

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
72 views

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
Your question essentially reduces to the following: in a time-oriented Lorentzian manifold $(M,g)$ with timelike boundary, given two chronologically related points $q\ll p$, is it possible to have a maximal, past-directed causal curve $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow M$ such that $\gamma(0)=q$, $\gamma(1)=p$ and $\gamma|_{[\epsilon,1]}$ is a(n achronal) null geodesic for some $\epsilon\in(0,1)$? It is clear that strict monotonicity of $(*)$ holds iff the answer is negative, since any segment of $\gamma$ must be maximal (non-strict monotonicity always holds by the reverse triangle inequality).

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
I'm not aware of any characterization of maximal causal curves in space-times with timelike boundary. At least, once again due to the fact that segments of maximal causal curves are also maximal, one has that any segment with nonvoid interior belonging either to the interior or to the boundary should be a causal (pre)geodesic in the submanifold to which it belongs. However, in principle there is nothing preventing the intersection of the curve with (say) the boundary from happening in a pretty nasty subset of parameters in $[0,1]$, so it's hard to say more without a more detailed analysis.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Ah yes, actually I meant $\gamma(0)=p$ and $\gamma(1)=q$ there, so it fits your context better. Unfortunately, I can no longer edit that comment...

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
I believe the usual characterization still holds if the space-time is strongly causal and the boundary is totally geodesic. In a geodesically and causally convex neighborhood, two causally related points are connected by a unique causal geodesic segment which must be the unique maximal causal segment connecting both points, whose interior either belongs to the interior (if one of the endpoints also is) or to the boundary (if both endpoints also do). See, for instance, Propositions 4.32, 4.33 and Theorem 4.34, pp. 165-166 of Beem-Ehrlich-Easley's "Global Lorentzian Geometry" (2.ed., CRC, 1996).

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro
Good point, @Pedro. Thanks. Now if only one could argue more generally... :-)

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2016-03-09 19:32 (UTC), posted by SE-user Umberto Lupo
Most recent comments show all comments
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

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:
p$\hbar$y$\varnothing$icsOverflow
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).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




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

Your rights
...