there are many routes to minkowski space .
but the most physical one still seems to me via the law of inertia . and even along these lines
alternative approaches exist .
many papers were published in physics and mathematics journals over the last 100 years in which incremental progress was reported as regards the minimal set of hypotheses from which the structure of minkowski space could be deduced .
one could imagine a hesse - diagram - like picture in which all these contributions ( being the nodes ) together with their logical dependencies ( being the directed links ) were depicted .
it would look surprisingly complex .    from a general - relativistic point of view
, minkowski space just models an _ empty _ spacetime , that is , a spacetime devoid of any material content .
it is worth keeping in mind , that this was not minkowski s view .
close to the beginning of _ raum und zeit _ he stated :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in order to not leave a yawning void , we wish to imagine that at every place and at every time something perceivable exists . _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    this already touches upon a critical point .
our modern theoretical view of spacetime is much inspired by the typical hierarchical thinking of mathematics of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century , in which the _ set _ comes first , and then we add various structures on it .
we first think of spacetime as a set and then structure it according to various physical inputs .
but what are the elements of this set ?
recall how georg cantor , in his first article on transfinite set - theory , defined a set : von bestimmten wohlunterschiedenen objecten @xmath0 unserer anschauung oder unseres denkens ( welche die ` elemente ' von @xmath1 genannt werden ) zu einem ganzen . '' ( @xcite , p.481 ) ]    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by a ` set ' we understand any gathering - together @xmath1 of determined well - distinguished objects @xmath0 of our intuition or of our thinking ( which are called the ` elements ' of @xmath1 ) into a whole . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    do we think of spacetime points as `` determined well - distinguished objects of our intuition or of our thinking '' ?
i think minkowski felt a need to do so , as his statement quoted above indicates , and also saw the problematic side of it : if we mentally individuate the points ( elements ) of spacetime , we  as physicists  have no other means to do so than to fill up spacetime with actual matter , hoping that this could be done in such a diluted fashion that this matter will not dynamically affect the processes that we are going to describe . in other words : the whole concept of a rigid background spacetime is , from its very beginning , based on an assumption of  at best  approximate validity .
it is important to realise that this does not necessarily refer to general relativity : even if the need to incorporate gravity by a variable and matter - dependent spacetime geometry did not exist would the concept of a rigid background spacetime be of approximate nature , _ provided we think of spacetime points as individuated by actual physical events_.    it is true that modern set theory regards cantor s original definition as too nave , and that for good reasons .
it allows too many `` gatherings - together '' with self - contradictory properties , as exemplified by the infamous _ antinomies _ of classical set theory .
also , modern set theory deliberately stands back from any characterisation of elements in order to not confuse the axioms themselves with their possible _
interpretations_. however , applications to physics require _ interpreted _ axioms , where it remains true that elements of sets are thought of as definite as in cantors original definition .
modern textbooks on special relativity have little to say about this , though an increasing unease seems to raise its voice from certain directions in the philosophy - of - science community ; see , e.g. , @xcite@xcite .
physicists sometimes tend to address points of spacetime as _ potential events _ , but that always seemed to me like poetry , begging the question how a mere potentiality is actually used for individuation . to me
the right attitude seems to admit that the operational justification of the notion of spacetime events is only approximately possible , but nevertheless allow it as primitive element of theorising .
the only thing to keep in mind is to not take mathematical rigour for ultimate physical validity .
the purpose of mathematical rigour is rather to establish the tightest possible bonds between basic assumptions ( axioms ) and decidable consequences . only then can we  in principle
learn anything through falsification .
the last remark opens another general issue , which is implicit in much of theoretical research , namely how to balance between attempted rigour in drawing consequences and attempted closeness to reality when formulating once starting platform ( at the expense of rigour when drawing consequences ) .
as the mathematical physicists glance & wightman once formulated it in a different context ( that of superselection rules in quantum mechanics ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the theoretical results currently available fall into two categories : rigorous results on approximate models and approximate results in realistic models . _
( @xcite , p.204 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    to me this seems to be the generic situation in theoretical physics . in that respect ,
minkowski space is certainly an approximate model , but to a very good approximation indeed : as global model of spacetime if gravity plays no dynamical rle , and as local model of spacetime in far more general situations .
this justifies looking at some of its rich mathematical structures in detail .
some mathematical background material is provided in the appendices .
consider first the general situation where one is given a set @xmath2 . without any further structure
being specified , the _ automorphisms _ group of @xmath2 would be the group of bijections of @xmath2 , i.e. maps @xmath3 which are injective ( into ) and surjective ( onto ) .
it is called @xmath4 , where ` perm ' stands for ` permutations ' . now endow @xmath2 with some structure @xmath5 ; for example , it could be an equivalence relation on @xmath2 , that is , a partition of @xmath2 into an exhaustive set of mutually disjoint subsets ( cf .
sect.[sec : groupactions ] ) .
the automorphism group of @xmath6 is then the subgroup of @xmath7 that preserves @xmath5 .
note that @xmath8 contains only those maps @xmath9 preserving @xmath5 whose inverse , @xmath10 , also preserve @xmath5 .
now consider another structure , @xmath11 , and form @xmath12 .
one way in which the two structures @xmath5 and @xmath11 may be compared is to compare their automorphism groups @xmath8 and @xmath12 . comparing the latter means , in particular , to see whether one is contained in the other .
containedness clearly defines a partial order relation on the set of subgroups of @xmath4 , which we can use to define a partial order on the set of structures .
one structure , @xmath5 , is said to be strictly stronger than ( or equally strong as ) another structure , @xmath11 , in symbols @xmath13 , iff the automorphism group of the former is properly contained in ( or is equal to ) the automorphism group of the latter . here .
] in symbols : @xmath14 .
note that in this way of speaking a substructure ( i.e. one being defined by a subset of conditions , relations , objects , etc . ) of a given structure is said to be weaker than the latter .
this way of thinking of structures in terms of their automorphism group is adopted from felix klein s _ erlanger programm _
@xcite in which this strategy is used in an attempt to classify and compare geometries .
this general procedure can be applied to minkowski space , endowed with its usual structure ( see below ) .
we can than ask whether the automorphism group of minkowski space , which we know is the inhomogeneous lorentz group @xmath15 , also called the poincar group , is already the automorphism group of a proper substructure .
if this were the case we would say that the original structure is redundant .
it would then be of interest to try and find a minimal set of structures that already imply the poincar group .
this can be done by trial and error : one starts with some more or less obvious substructure , determine its automorphism group , and compare it to the poincar group .
generically it will turn out larger , i.e. to properly contain @xmath15 . the obvious questions to ask then are : how much larger ? and : what would be a minimal extra condition that eliminates the difference ?      these questions have been asked in connection with various substructures of minkowski space , whose definition is as follows :    [ def : minkowskispace ] * minkowski space * of @xmath16 dimensions , denoted by @xmath17 , is a real @xmath18-dimensional affine space , whose associated real @xmath18-dimensional vector space @xmath19 is endowed with a non - degenerate symmetric bilinear form @xmath20 of signature @xmath21 ( i.e. there exists a basis @xmath22 of @xmath19 such that @xmath23 ) .
@xmath17 is also endowed with the standard differentiable structure of @xmath24 .
we refer to appendix[sec : affinespaces ] for the definition of affine spaces .
note also that the last statement concerning differentiable structures is put in in view of the strange fact that just for the physically most interesting case , @xmath25 , there exist many inequivalent differentiable structures of @xmath26 .
finally we stress that , at this point , we did not endow minkowski space with an orientation or time orientation .
[ def : poincaregroup ] the * poincar group * in @xmath16 dimensions , which is the same as the * inhomogeneous lorentz group * in @xmath16 dimensions and therefore will be denoted by @xmath27 , is that subgroup of the general affine group of real @xmath18-dimensional affine space , for which the uniquely associated linear maps @xmath28 are elements of the lorentz group @xmath29 , that is , preserve @xmath30 in the sense that @xmath31 for all @xmath32 .
see appendix[sec : affinemaps ] for the definition of affine maps and the general affine group .
again we stress that since we did not endow minkowski space with any orientation , the poincar group as defined here would not respect any such structure .    as explained in [ sec : affineframes ] , any choice of an affine frame allows us to identify the general affine group in @xmath18 dimensions with the semi - direct product @xmath33 .
that identification clearly depends on the choice of the frame . if we restrict the bases to those where @xmath23 , then @xmath27 can be identified with @xmath34 .
we can further endow minkowski space with an _ orientation _ and , independently , a _ time orientation_. an orientation of an affine space is equivalent to an orientation of its associated vector space @xmath19 . a time orientation is also defined trough a time orientation of @xmath19 , which is explained below .
the subgroup of the poincar group preserving the overall orientation is denoted by @xmath35 ( proper poincar group ) , the one preserving time orientation by @xmath36 ( orthochronous poincar group ) , and @xmath37 denotes the subgroup preserving both ( proper orthochronous poincar group ) .    upon the choice of a basis we may identify @xmath35 with @xmath38 and @xmath37 with @xmath39 , where @xmath40 is the component of the identity of @xmath41 .
let us add a few more comments about the elementary geometry of minkowski space .
we introduce the following notations : @xmath42 we shall also simply write @xmath43 for @xmath44 .
a vector @xmath45 is called _ timelike , lightlike _ , or _ spacelike _ according to @xmath43 being @xmath46 , @xmath47 , or @xmath48 respectively .
non - spacelike vectors are also called _ causal _ and their set , @xmath49 , is called the _ causal - doublecone_. its interior , @xmath50 , is called the _ chronological - doublecone _ and its boundary , @xmath51 , the _ light - doublecone _ :    [ eq : vecdc ] @xmath52    a linear subspace @xmath53 is called timelike , lightlike , or spacelike according to @xmath54 being indefinite , negative semi - definite but not negative definite , or negative definite respectively . instead of the usual cauchy - schwarz - inequality we have    [ eq : cauchyschwarz ] @xmath55    given a set @xmath56 ( not necessarily a subspace ) , its @xmath30-orthogonal complement is the subspace @xmath57 if @xmath45 is lightlike then @xmath58 .
in fact , @xmath59 is the unique lightlike hyperplane ( cf .
sect.[sec : affinespaces ] ) containing @xmath60 . in this case
the hyperplane @xmath59 is called degenerate because the restriction of @xmath30 to @xmath59 is degenerate . on the other hand , if @xmath60 is timelike / spacelike @xmath59 is spacelike / timelike and @xmath61 .
now the hyperplane @xmath59 is called non - degenerate because the restriction of @xmath30 to @xmath59 is non - degenerate .
given any subset @xmath56 , we can attach it to a point @xmath62 in @xmath63 : @xmath64 in particular , the causal- , chronological- , and light - doublecones at @xmath65 are given by :    [ eq : affdc ] @xmath66    if @xmath67 is a subspace of @xmath19 then @xmath68 is an affine subspace of @xmath63 over @xmath67 .
if @xmath67 is time- , light- , or spacelike then @xmath68 is also called time- , light- , or spacelike .
of particular interest are the hyperplanes @xmath69 which are timelike , lightlike , or spacelike according to @xmath60 being spacelike , lightlike , or timelike respectively .
two points @xmath70 are said to be timelike- , lightlike- , or spacelike separated if the line joining them ( equivalently : the vector @xmath71 ) is timelike , lightlike , or spacelike respectively . non - spacelike separated points are also called causally separated and the line though them is called a causal line .
it is easy to show that the relation @xmath72 defines an equivalence relation ( cf .
[ sec : groupactions ] ) on the set of timelike vectors .
( only transitivity is non - trivial , i.e. if @xmath73 and @xmath74 then @xmath75 . to show this , decompose @xmath76 and @xmath77 into their components parallel and perpendicular to @xmath60 .
) each of the two equivalence classes is a _ cone _ in @xmath19 , that is , a subset closed under addition and multiplication with positive numbers .
vectors in the same class are said to have the same time orientation . in the same fashion
, the relation @xmath78 defines an equivalence relation on the set of causal vectors , with both equivalence classes being again cones .
the existence of these equivalence relations is expressed by saying that @xmath63 is _ time orientable_. picking one of the two possible time orientations is then equivalent to specifying a single timelike reference vector , @xmath79 , whose equivalence class of directions may be called the _ future_. this being done we can speak of the future ( or forward , indicated by a superscript @xmath80 ) and past ( or backward , indicated by a superscript @xmath81 ) cones :    [ eq : vecc ] @xmath82    note that @xmath83 and @xmath84 . usually @xmath85 is called the future and @xmath86 the past lightcone . mathematically speaking
this is an abuse of language since , in contrast to @xmath87 and @xmath88 , they are not cones : they are each invariant ( as sets ) under multiplication with positive real numbers , but adding to vectors in @xmath89 will result in a vector in @xmath88 unless the vectors were parallel .    as before
, these cones can be attached to the points in @xmath63 .
we write in a straightforward manner :    [ eq : affc ] @xmath90    the cauchy - schwarz inequalities ( [ eq : cauchyschwarz ] ) result in various generalised triangle - inequalities . clearly , for spacelike vectors , one just has the ordinary triangle inequality .
but for causal or timelike vectors one has to distinguish the cases according to the relative time orientations .
for example , for timelike vectors of equal time orientation , one obtains the reversed triangle inequality : @xmath91 with equality iff @xmath60 and @xmath77 are parallel .
it expresses the geometry behind the ` twin paradox ' .
sometimes a minkowski ` distance function ' @xmath92 is introduced through @xmath93 clearly this is not a distance function in the ordinary sense , since it is neither true that @xmath94 nor that @xmath95 for all @xmath96 .      in this section
we consider general isometries of minkowski space . by this we mean general bijections @xmath97 ( no requirement like continuity or even linearity
is made ) which preserve the minkowski distance ( [ eq : def : minkowskidistance ] ) as well as the time or spacelike character ; hence @xmath98 poincar transformations form a special class of such isometries , namely those which are affine .
are there non - affine isometries ?
one might expect a whole pandora s box full of wild ( discontinuous ) ones .
but , fortunately , they do not exist : any map @xmath28 satisfying @xmath99 for all @xmath60 must be linear . as a warm up , we show    [ thm : nowildisometries ] let @xmath28 be a surjection ( no further conditions ) so that @xmath100 for all @xmath32 , then @xmath9 is linear .
consider @xmath101 .
surjectivity allows to write @xmath102 , so that @xmath103 , which vanishes for all @xmath104
. hence @xmath105 for all @xmath106 , which by non - degeneracy of @xmath30 implies the linearity of @xmath9 .
this shows in particular that any bijection @xmath97 of minkowski space whose associated map @xmath28 , defined by @xmath107 for some chosen basepoint @xmath108 , preserves the minkowski metric must be a poincar transformation .
as already indicated , this result can be considerably strengthened .
but before going into this , we mention a special and important class of linear isometries of @xmath109 , namely reflections at non - degenerate hyperplanes .
the reflection at @xmath59 is defined by @xmath110 their significance is due to the following    let the dimension of @xmath19 be @xmath18 .
any isometry of @xmath109 is the composition of at most @xmath18 reflections .
comprehensive proofs may be found in @xcite or @xcite .
the easier proof for at most @xmath111 reflections is as follows : let @xmath112 be a linear isometry and @xmath45 so that @xmath113 ( which certainly exists ) .
let @xmath114 , then @xmath115 so that @xmath116 and @xmath117 can not simultaneously have zero squares .
so let @xmath118 ( understood as alternatives ) , then @xmath119 and @xmath120 .
hence @xmath60 is eigenvector with eigenvalue @xmath121 of the linear isometry given by @xmath122 consider now the linear isometry @xmath123 on @xmath59 with induced bilinear form @xmath124 , which is non - degenerated due to @xmath113 .
we conclude by induction : at each dimension we need at most two reflections to reduce the problem by one dimension .
after @xmath125 steps we have reduced the problem to one dimension , where we need at most one more reflection .
hence we need at most @xmath126 reflections which upon composition with @xmath112 produce the identity . here
we use that any linear isometry in @xmath59 can be canonically extended to @xmath127 by just letting it act trivially on @xmath128 .    note that this proof does not make use of the signature of @xmath30 . in fact , the theorem is true for any signatures ; it only depends on @xmath30 being symmetric and non degenerate .
as already mentioned , theorem[thm : nowildisometries ] can be improved upon , in the sense that the hypothesis for the map being an isometry is replaced by the hypothesis that it merely preserve some relation that derives form the metric structure , but is not equivalent to it .
in fact , there are various such relations which we first have to introduce .
the family of cones @xmath129 defines a partial - order relation ( cf .
sect.[sec : groupactions ] ) , denoted by @xmath130 , on spacetime as follows : @xmath131 iff @xmath132 , i.e. iff @xmath71 is causal and future pointing .
similarly , the family @xmath133 defines a strict partial order , denoted by @xmath134 , as follows : @xmath135 iff @xmath136 , i.e. if @xmath71 is timelike and future pointing .
there is a third relation , called @xmath137 , defined as follows : @xmath138 iff @xmath139 , i.e. @xmath62 is on the future lightcone at @xmath140 .
it is not a partial order due to the lack of transitivity , which , in turn , is due to the lack of the lightcone being a cone ( in the proper mathematical sense explained above ) .
replacing the future ( @xmath80 ) with the past ( @xmath81 ) cones gives the relations @xmath141 , @xmath142 , and @xmath143 .
it is obvious that the action of @xmath144 ( spatial reflections are permitted ) on @xmath63 maps each of the six families of cones ( [ eq : affc ] ) into itself and therefore leave each of the six relations invariant .
for example : let @xmath135 and @xmath145 , then @xmath146 and @xmath71 future pointing , but also @xmath147 and @xmath148 future pointing , hence @xmath149 .
another set of ` obvious ' transformations of @xmath63 leaving these relations invariant is given by all dilations : @xmath150 where @xmath151 is the constant dilation - factor and @xmath152 the centre .
this follows from @xmath153 , @xmath154 , and the positivity of @xmath155 . since translations are already contained in @xmath144 , the group generated by @xmath144 and all @xmath156 is the same as the group generated by @xmath144 and all @xmath156 for fixed @xmath0 .
a seemingly difficult question is this : what are the most general transformations of @xmath63 that preserve those relations ? here we understand ` transformation ' synonymously with ` bijective map ' , so that each transformation @xmath9 has in inverse @xmath10 . `
preserving the relation ' is taken to mean that @xmath9 _ and _ @xmath10 preserve the relation .
then the somewhat surprising answer to the question just posed is that , in three or more spacetime dimensions , there are no other such transformations besides those already listed :    let @xmath157 stand for any of the relations @xmath158 and let @xmath159 be a bijection of @xmath63 with @xmath160 , such that @xmath161 implies @xmath162 and @xmath163 . then @xmath159 is the composition of an lorentz transformation in @xmath144 with a dilation .
these results were proven by a.d.alexandrov and independently by e.c .
a good review of alexandrov s results is @xcite ; zeeman s paper is @xcite .
the restriction to @xmath160 is indeed necessary , as for @xmath164 the following possibility exists : identify @xmath165 with @xmath166 and the bilinear form @xmath167 , where @xmath168 .
set @xmath169 and @xmath170 and define @xmath171 by @xmath172 , where @xmath173 is any smooth function with @xmath174 .
this defines an orientation preserving diffeomorphism of @xmath166 which transforms the set of lines @xmath175 const . and @xmath176 const .
respectively into each other .
hence it preserves the families of cones ( [ eq : def : affcausalc ] ) . since these transformations need not be affine linear they are not generated by dilations and lorentz transformations .
these results may appear surprising since without a continuity requirement one might expect all sorts of wild behaviour to allow for more possibilities .
however , a little closer inspection reveals a fairly obvious reason for why continuity is implied here . consider the case in which a transformation @xmath159 preserves the families @xmath133 and @xmath177 .
the open diamond - shaped sets ( usually just called ` open diamonds ' ) , @xmath178 are obviously open in the standard topology of @xmath63 ( which is that of @xmath179 ) . note that at least one of the intersections in ( [ eq : opendiamonds ] ) is always empty .
conversely , is is also easy to see that each open set of @xmath63 contains an open diamond .
hence the topology that is defined by taking the @xmath180 as sub - base ( the basis being given by their finite intersections ) is equivalent to the standard topology of @xmath63 .
but , by hypothesis , @xmath159 and @xmath181 preserves the cones @xmath182 and therefore open sets , so that @xmath159 must , in fact , be a homeomorphism .
there is no such _ obvious _ continuity input if one makes the strictly weaker requirement that instead of the cones ( [ eq : affc ] ) one only preserves the doublecones ( [ eq : affdc ] ) .
does that allow for more transformations , except for the obvious time reflection ?
the answer is again in the negative .
the following result was shown by alexandrov ( see his review @xcite ) and later , in a different fashion , by borchers and hegerfeld  @xcite :    [ thm : borchershegerfeld ] let @xmath183 denote any of the relations : @xmath184 iff @xmath185 , @xmath184 iff @xmath186 , or @xmath184 iff @xmath187 .
let @xmath159 be a bijection of @xmath63 with @xmath160 , such that @xmath184 implies @xmath188 and @xmath189 .
then @xmath159 is the composition of an lorentz transformation in @xmath15 with a dilation .
all this shows that , up to dilations , lorentz transformations can be characterised by the causal structure of minkowski space .
let us focus on a particular sub - case of theorem[thm : borchershegerfeld ] , which says that any bijection @xmath159 of @xmath63 with @xmath160 , which satisfies @xmath190 must be the composition of a dilation and a transformation in @xmath15 .
this is sometimes referred to as _
alexandrov s theorem_. it gives a precise answer to the following physical question : to what extent does the principle of the constancy of a finite speed of light _ alone
_ determine the relativity group ?
the answer is , that it determines it to be a subgroup of the 11-parameter group of poincar transformations and constant rescalings , which is as close to the poincar group as possibly imaginable .
alexandrov s theorem is , to my knowledge , the closest analog in minkowskian geometry to the famous theorem of beckman and quarles @xcite , which refers to euclidean geometry and reads as follows under slightly weaker hypotheses : they allowed the map @xmath9 to be ` many - valued ' , that is , to be a map @xmath191 , where @xmath192 is the set of non - empty subsets of @xmath179 , such that @xmath193 for any @xmath194 and any @xmath195 .
however , given the statement of theorem[thm : beckmanquarles ] , it is immediate that such ` many - valued maps ' must necessarily be single - valued . to see this ,
assume that @xmath196 has the two image points @xmath197 and define @xmath198 for @xmath199 such that @xmath200 for all @xmath201 and @xmath202 .
then , according to theorem[thm : beckmanquarles ] , @xmath203 must both be euclidean motions .
since they are continuous and coincide for all @xmath201 , they must also coincide at @xmath204 . ] :    [ thm : beckmanquarles ] let @xmath179 for @xmath16 be endowed with the standard euclidean inner product @xmath205 .
the associated norm is given by @xmath206 .
let @xmath207 be any fixed positive real number and @xmath208 any map such that @xmath209 ; then @xmath9 is a euclidean motion , i.e. @xmath210 .    note that there are three obvious points which let the result of beckman and quarles in euclidean space appear somewhat stronger than the theorem of alexandrov in minkowski space :    * the conclusion of theorem[thm : beckmanquarles ] holds for _ any _ @xmath211 , whereas alexandrov s theorem singles out lightlike distances . * in theorem[thm : beckmanquarles ] , @xmath164 is not excluded . * in theorem[thm : beckmanquarles ] , @xmath9 is not required to be a bijection , so that we did not assume the existence of an inverse map @xmath10 . correspondingly , there is no assumption that @xmath10 also preserves the distance @xmath207 .      in this subsection
we wish to discuss the extent to which the law of inertia already determines the automorphism group of spacetime .
the law of inertia privileges a subset of paths in spacetime form among all paths ; it defines a so - called _ path structure _  @xcite@xcite .
these privileged paths correspond to the motions of privileged objects called _
free particles_. the existence of such privileged objects is by no means obvious and must be taken as a contingent and particularly kind property of nature .
it has been known for long @xcite@xcite@xcite how to operationally construct timescales and spatial reference frames relative to which free particles will move uniformly and on straight lines respectively  all of them ! ( a summary of these papers is given in @xcite . ) these special timescales and spatial reference frames were termed _ inertial _ by ludwig lange  @xcite .
their existence must again be taken as a very particular and very kind feature of nature .
note that ` uniform in time ' and ` spatially straight ' together translate to ` straight in spacetime ' .
we also emphasise that ` straightness ' of ensembles of paths can be characterised intrinsically , e.g. , by the desargues property  @xcite .
all this is true if free particles are given .
we do not discuss at this point whether and how one should characterise them independently ( cf .  @xcite ) .
the spacetime structure so defined is usually referred to as _ projective_. it it not quite that of an affine space , since the latter provides in addition each straight line with a distinguished two - parameter family of parametrisations , corresponding to a notion of _ uniformity _ with which the line is traced through .
such a privileged parametrisation of spacetime paths is not provided by the law of inertia , which only provides privileged parametrisations of spatial paths , which we already took into account in the projective structure of spacetime . instead
, an affine structure of spacetime may once more be motivated by another contingent property of nature , shown by the existence of elementary clocks ( atomic frequencies ) which do define the same uniformity structure on inertial world lines  all of them !
once more this is a highly non - trivial and very kind feature of nature . in this way
we would indeed arrive at the statement that spacetime is an affine space .
however , as we shall discuss in this subsection , the affine group already emerges as automorphism group of inertial structures without the introduction of elementary clocks .
first we recall the main theorem of affine geometry . for
that we make the following    [ def : collineation ] three points in an affine space are called * collinear * iff they are contained in a single line .
a map between affine spaces is called a * collineation * iff it maps each triple of collinear points to collinear points .    note
that in this definition no other condition is required of the map , like , e.g. , injectivity .
the main theorem now reads as follows :    [ thm : collareaffine ] a bijective collineation of a real affine space of dimension @xmath16 is necessarily an affine map .    a proof may be found in @xcite . that the theorem is non - trivial can , e.g. , be seen from the fact that it is not true for complex affine spaces .
the crucial property of the real number field is that it does not allow for a non - trivial automorphisms ( as field ) .
a particular consequence of theorem[thm : collareaffine ] is that bijective collineation are necessarily continuous ( in the natural topology of affine space ) .
this is of interest for the applications we have in mind for the following reason : consider the set @xmath212 of all lines in some affine space @xmath2 .
@xmath212 has a natural topology induced from @xmath2 .
theorem[thm : collareaffine ] now implies that bijective collineations of @xmath2 act as homeomorphism of @xmath212 .
consider an open subset @xmath213 and the subset of all collineations that fix @xmath214 ( as set , not necessarily its points ) .
then these collineations also fix the boundary @xmath215 of @xmath214 in @xmath212 . for example , if @xmath214 is the set of all timelike lines in minkowski space , i.e. , with a slope less than some chosen value relative to some fixed direction , then it follows that the bijective collineations which together with their inverse map timelike lines to timelike lines also maps the lightcone to the lightcone .
it immediately follows that it must be the composition of a poincar transformation as a constant dilation .
note that this argument also works in two spacetime dimensions , where the alexandrov - zeeman result does not hold .
the application we have in mind is to inertial motions , which are given by lines in affine space . in that respect theorem[thm : collareaffine ] is not quite appropriate .
its hypotheses are weaker than needed , insofar as it would suffice to require straight lines to be mapped to straight lines .
but , more importantly , the hypotheses are also stronger than what seems physically justifiable , insofar as not every line is realisable by an inertial motion .
in particular , one would like to know whether theorem[thm : collareaffine ] can still be derived by restricting to _ slow collineations _
, which one may define by the property that the corresponding lines should have a slope less than some non - zero angle ( in whatever measure , as long as the set of slow lines is open in the set of all lines ) from a given ( time-)direction .
this is indeed the case , as one may show from going through the proof of theorem[thm : collareaffine ] . slightly easier to prove is the following :    [ thm : timelikecollareaffine ]
let @xmath159 be a bijection of real @xmath18-dimensional affine space that maps slow lines to slow lines , then @xmath159 is an affine map .
a proof may be found in @xcite . if ` slowness ' is defined via the lightcone of a minkowski metric @xmath30 , one immediately obtains the result that the affine maps must be composed from poincar transformations and dilations .
the reason is    [ thm : samekernelpropto ] let @xmath19 be a finite dimensional real vector space of dimension @xmath16 and @xmath30 be a non - degenerate symmetric bilinear form on @xmath19 of signature @xmath21 .
let @xmath216 be any other symmetric bilinear form on @xmath19 .
the ` light cones ' for both forms are defined by @xmath217 and @xmath218 .
suppose @xmath219 , then @xmath220 for some @xmath221 .
let @xmath222 be a basis of @xmath19 such that @xmath223 .
then @xmath224 for @xmath225 implies ( we write @xmath226 ) : @xmath227 and @xmath228 .
further , @xmath229 for @xmath230 then implies @xmath231 for @xmath232 .
hence @xmath220 with @xmath233 .
this can be applied as follows : if @xmath234 is affine and maps lightlike lines to lightlike lines , then the associated linear map @xmath28 maps lightlike vectors to lightlike vectors . hence @xmath235 vanishes if @xmath236 vanishes and therefore @xmath237 by lemma[thm : samekernelpropto ] . since @xmath238 is timelike if @xmath60 is timelike , @xmath239 is positive . hence we may define @xmath240 and have @xmath241 for all @xmath242 , saying that @xmath243 is a lorentz transformation .
@xmath9 is the composition of a lorentz transformation and a dilation by @xmath244 .
as is well known , the two main ingredients in special relativity are the principle of relativity ( henceforth abbreviated by pr ) and the principle of the constancy of light .
we have seen above that , due to alexandrov s theorem , the latter almost suffices to arrive at the poincar group . in this section
we wish to address the complementary question : under what conditions and to what extent can the rp _
alone _ justify the poincar group ?
this question was first addressed by ignatowsky  @xcite , who showed that under a certain set of technical assumptions ( not consistently spelled out by him ) the rp alone suffices to arrive at a spacetime symmetry group which is either the inhomogeneous galilei or the inhomogeneous lorentz group , the latter for some yet undetermined limiting velocity @xmath245 .
more precisely , what is actually shown in this fashion is , as we will see , that the relativity group must contain either the proper orthochronous galilei or lorentz group , if the group is required to comprise at least spacetime translations , spatial rotations , and boosts ( velocity transformations ) .
what we hence gain is the group - theoretic insight of how these transformations must combine into a common group , given that they form a group at all .
we do not learn anything about other transformations , like spacetime reflections or dilations , whose existence we neither required nor ruled out at this level .    the work of ignatowsky was put into a logically more coherent form by franck & rothe  @xcite@xcite , who showed that some of the technical assumptions could be dropped .
further formal simplifications were achieved by berzi & gorini @xcite .
below we shall basically follow their line of reasoning , except that we do not impose the continuity of the transformations as a requirement , but conclude it from their preservation of the inertial structure plus bijectivity .
see also @xcite for an alternative discussion on the level of lie algebras .    for further determination of the automorphism group of spacetime
we invoke the following principles :    * homogeneity of spacetime .
* isotropy of space . *
galilean principle of relativity .
we take st1 to mean that the sought - for group should include all translations and hence be a subgroup of the general affine group . with respect to some chosen basis , it must be of the form @xmath246 , where @xmath247 is a subgroup of @xmath248 .
st2 is interpreted as saying that @xmath249 should include the set of all spatial rotations .
if , with respect to some frame , we write the general element @xmath250 in a @xmath251 split form ( thinking of the first coordinate as time , the other three as space ) , we want @xmath247 to include all @xmath252 finally , st3 says that velocity transformations , henceforth called ` boosts ' , are also contained in @xmath247 .
however , at this stage we do not know how boosts are to be represented mathematically .
let us make the following assumptions :    * boosts @xmath253 are labelled by a vector @xmath254 , where @xmath255 is the open ball in @xmath256 of radius @xmath245 .
the physical interpretation of @xmath257 shall be that of the boost velocity , as measured in the system from which the transformation is carried out .
we allow @xmath245 to be finite or infinite ( @xmath258 ) .
@xmath259 corresponds to the identity transformation , i.e. @xmath260 .
we also assume that @xmath257 , considered as coordinate function on the group , is continuous . * as part of st2 we require equivariance of boosts under rotations : @xmath261    the latter assumption allows us to restrict attention to boost in a fixed direction , say that of the positive @xmath262-axis .
once their analytical form is determined as function of @xmath60 , where @xmath263 , we deduce the general expression for boosts using ( [ eq : equivboostsrot ] ) and ( [ eq : so3imbedding ] ) .
we make no assumptions involving space reflections . )
explicitly , though they all use it ( implicitly ) , usually in statements to the effect that it is sufficient to consider boosts in one fixed direction . once this restriction is effected , a one - dimensional spatial reflection transformation is considered to relate a boost transformation to that with opposite velocity .
this then gives the impression that reflection equivariance is also invoked , though this is not necessary in spacetime dimensions greater than two , for ( [ eq : equivboostsrot ] ) allows to invert one axis through a 180-degree rotation about a perpendicular one .
] we now restrict attention to @xmath263 .
we wish to determine the most general form of @xmath253 compatible with all requirements put so far .
we proceed in several steps :    1 .   using an arbitrary rotation @xmath264 around the @xmath262-axis , so that @xmath265 , equation ( [ eq : equivboostsrot ] ) allows to prove that @xmath266 where here we wrote the @xmath267 matrix in a @xmath268 decomposed form .
( i.e. @xmath269 is a @xmath270 matrix and @xmath271 is the @xmath270 unit - matrix ) . applying ( [ eq : equivboostsrot ] ) once more , this time using a @xmath272-rotation about the @xmath273-axis
, we learn that @xmath239 is an even function , i.e. @xmath274 below we will see that @xmath275 .
2 .   let us now focus on @xmath276 , which defines the action of the boost in the @xmath277 plane .
we write @xmath278 we refer to the system with coordinates @xmath279 as @xmath280 and that with coordinates @xmath281 as @xmath282 . from ( [ eq : formboost3 ] ) and the inverse ( which is elementary to compute ) one infers that the velocity @xmath60 of @xmath282 with respect to @xmath280 and the velocity @xmath283 of @xmath280 with respect to @xmath282 are given by + [ eq : formboost4 ] @xmath284 + since the transformation @xmath285 is the inverse of @xmath286 , the function @xmath287 obeys @xmath288 hence @xmath289 is a bijection of the open interval @xmath290 onto itself and obeys @xmath291 3 .
next we determine @xmath289 . once more using
( [ eq : equivboostsrot ] ) , where @xmath264 is a @xmath272-rotation about the @xmath273-axis , shows that the functions @xmath292 and @xmath293 in ( [ eq : formboost1 ] ) are even and the functions @xmath294 and @xmath245 are odd .
the definition ( [ eq : formboost4b ] ) of @xmath289 then implies that @xmath289 is odd .
since we assumed @xmath257 to be a continuous coordinatisation of a topological group , the map @xmath289 must also be continuous ( since the inversion map , @xmath295 , is continuous in a topological group ) .
a standard theorem now states that a continuous bijection of an interval of @xmath296 onto itself must be strictly monotonic .
together with ( [ eq : formboost6 ] ) this implies that @xmath289 is either the identity or minus the identity map . to save notation , so that ( [ eq : formboost6 ] ) now reads @xmath297 . first assume that @xmath289 is strictly monotonically increasing
, then @xmath298 implies @xmath299 , a contradiction , and @xmath300 implies @xmath301 , likewise a contradiction .
hence @xmath302 in this case .
next assume @xmath289 is strictly monotonically decreasing . then @xmath303 is a strictly monotonically increasing map of the interval @xmath290 to itself that obeys ( [ eq : formboost6 ] ) .
hence , as just seen , @xmath304 , i.e. @xmath305 . ]
if it is the identity map , evaluation of ( [ eq : formboost5 ] ) shows that either the determinant of @xmath269 must equals @xmath306 , or that @xmath269 is the identity for all @xmath257 .
we exclude the second possibility straightaway and the first one on the grounds that we required @xmath269 be the identity for @xmath307 .
also , in that case , ( [ eq : formboost5 ] ) implies @xmath308 for all @xmath309 .
we conclude that @xmath305 , which implies that the relative velocity of @xmath280 with respect to @xmath282 is minus the relative velocity of @xmath282 with respect to @xmath280 .
plausible as it might seem , there is no a priori reason why this should be so . and
@xmath283 are measured with different sets of rods and clocks . ] . on the face of it ,
the rp only implies ( [ eq : formboost6 ] ) , not the stronger relation @xmath310 .
this was first pointed out in  @xcite .
4 .   we briefly revisit ( [ eq : formboosts2 ] ) .
since we have seen that @xmath311 is the inverse of @xmath312 , we must have @xmath313 , so that ( [ eq : formboosts2 ] ) implies @xmath314 .
but only @xmath315 is compatible with our requirement that @xmath316 be the identity .
now we return to the determination of @xmath269 . using ( [ eq : formboost4 ] ) and @xmath305
, we write @xmath317 and @xmath318\,.\ ] ] equation @xmath319 is now equivalent to + [ eq : formboost8 ] @xmath320 + since , as already seen , @xmath292 is an even and @xmath294 is an odd function , ( [ eq : formboost8 ] ) is equivalent to @xmath321 , i.e. the unimodularity of @xmath253 .
equation ( [ eq : formboost7 ] ) then allows to express @xmath294 in terms of @xmath292 : @xmath322\,.\ ] ] 6 .
our problem is now reduced to the determination of the single function @xmath292 .
this we achieve by employing the requirement that the composition of two boosts in the same direction results again in a boost in that direction , i.e. @xmath323 according to ( [ eq : formboost6b ] ) each matrix @xmath269 has equal diagonal entries . applied to the product matrix on the left hand side of ( [ eq : formboost10 ] ) this implies that @xmath324 is independent of @xmath60 , i.e. equal to some constant @xmath325 whose physical dimension is that of an inverse velocity squared .
hence we have @xmath326 where we have chosen the positive square root since we require @xmath327 .
the other implications of ( [ eq : formboost10 ] ) are + [ eq : formboost12 ] @xmath328 + from which we deduce @xmath329 conversely , ( [ eq : formboost11 ] ) and ( [ eq : formboost13 ] ) imply ( [ eq : formboost12 ] ) .
we conclude that ( [ eq : formboost10 ] ) is equivalent to ( [ eq : formboost11 ] ) and ( [ eq : formboost13 ] ) .
so far a boost in @xmath262 direction has been shown to act non - trivially only in the @xmath277 plane , where its action is given by the matrix that results from inserting ( [ eq : formboost9 ] ) and ( [ eq : formboost11 ] ) into ( [ eq : formboost6b ] ) : @xmath330 * if @xmath331 we rescale @xmath332 and set @xmath333 .
then ( [ eq : formboost14 ] ) is seen to be a euclidean rotation with angle @xmath239 in the @xmath334 plane .
the velocity spectrum is the whole real line plus infinity , i.e. a circle , corresponding to @xmath335 $ ] , where @xmath336 and @xmath337 are identified .
accordingly , the composition law ( [ eq : formboost13 ] ) is just ordinary addition for the angle @xmath239 .
this causes several paradoxa when @xmath60 is interpreted as velocity .
for example , composing two finite velocities @xmath338 which satisfy @xmath339 results in @xmath340 , and composing two finite and positive velocities , each of which is greater than @xmath341 , results in a finite but negative velocity . in this way
the successive composition of finite positive velocities could also result in zero velocity .
the group @xmath342 obtained in this fashion is , in fact , @xmath343 .
this group may be uniquely characterised as the largest connected group of bijections of @xmath344 that preserves the euclidean distance measure . in particular
, it treats time symmetrically with all space directions , so that no invariant notion of time - orientability can be given in this case . * for @xmath345
the transformations are just the ordinary boosts of the galilei group .
the velocity spectrum is the whole real line ( i.e. @xmath60 is unbounded but finite ) and @xmath247 is the galilei group . the law for composing velocities is just ordinary vector addition . * finally ,
for @xmath346 , one infers from ( [ eq : formboost13 ] ) that @xmath347 is an upper bound for all velocities , in the sense that composing two velocities taken from the interval @xmath290 always results in a velocity from within that interval .
writing @xmath348 , @xmath349 , and @xmath350 , the matrix ( [ eq : formboost14 ] ) is seen to be a _
lorentz boost _ or _ hyperbolic motion _ in the @xmath334 plane : @xmath351 the quantity @xmath352 is called _ _
rapidity__. if rewritten in terms of the corresponding rapidities the composition law ( [ eq : formboost13 ] ) reduces to ordinary addition : @xmath353 .
this shows that only the galilei and the lorentz group survive as candidates for any symmetry group implementing the rp .
once the lorentz group for velocity parameter @xmath245 is chosen , one may fully characterise it by its property to leave a certain symmetric bilinear form invariant . in this sense
we geometric structure of minkowski space can be deduced .
this closes the circle to where we started from in section[sec : frommetrictoaffine ] .      in the previous sections we always understood an automorphisms of a structured set ( spacetime ) as a bijection .
mathematically this seems an obvious requirement , but from a physical point of view this is less clear .
the physical law of inertia provides us with distinguished motions _ locally _ in space and time .
hence one may attempt to relax the condition for structure preserving maps , so as to only preserve inertial motions _
hence we ask the following question : what are the most general maps that _ locally _ map segments of straight lines to segments of straight lines ?
this local approach has been pursued by  @xcite .    to answer this question completely ,
let us ( locally ) identify spacetime with @xmath179 where @xmath16 and assume the map to be @xmath354 , that is , three times continuously differentiable .
so let @xmath355 be an open subset and determine all @xmath354 maps @xmath356 that map straight segments in @xmath357 into straight segments in @xmath179 .
in coordinates we write @xmath358 and @xmath359 , so that @xmath360 .
a straight segment in @xmath357 is a curve @xmath361 ( the open interval @xmath362 is usually taken to contain zero ) whose acceleration is pointwise proportional to its velocity .
this is equivalent to saying that it can be parametrised so as to have zero acceleration , i.e. , @xmath363 for some @xmath364 .    for the image path @xmath365 to be again straight its acceleration , @xmath366 ,
must be proportional to its velocity , @xmath367 , where the factor of proportionality , @xmath368 , depends on the point of the path and separately on @xmath292 .
hence , in coordinates , we have @xmath369 for each @xmath294 this must be valid for all @xmath370 in a neighbourhood of zero in @xmath371 . taking the second derivatives with respect to @xmath292 , evaluation at @xmath372 , @xmath373 leads to    [ eq : projmap2 ] @xmath374 where @xmath375    here we suppressed the remaining argument @xmath294 .
equation ( [ eq : projmap2 ] ) is valid at each point in @xmath357 .
integrability of ( [ eq : projmap2-a ] ) requires that its further differentiation is totally symmetric with respect to all lower indices ( here we use that the map @xmath9 is @xmath354 ) .
this leads to @xmath376 inserting ( [ eq : projmap2-b ] ) one can show ( upon taking traces over @xmath377 and @xmath378 ) that the resulting equation is equivalent to @xmath379 in particular @xmath380 so that there is a local function @xmath381 ( if @xmath357 is simply connected , as we shall assume ) for which @xmath382 . equation ( [ eq : projmap4 ] ) is then equivalent to @xmath383 so that @xmath384 for some @xmath385 and @xmath386 . using @xmath387 and ( [ eq : projmap4 ] ) ,
equation ( [ eq : projmap2-a ] ) is equivalent to @xmath388=0 $ ] , which finally leads to the result that the most general solution for @xmath9 is given by @xmath389 here @xmath390 is a @xmath391 matrix , @xmath292 and @xmath140 vectors in @xmath179 , and @xmath386 .
@xmath62 and @xmath140 must be such that @xmath357 does not intersect the hyperplane @xmath392 where @xmath9 becomes singular , but otherwise they are arbitrary .
, i.e. iff @xmath394 , the transformations ( [ eq : projmap5 ] ) are not affine . in this case
they are called proper projective .
are there physical reasons to rule out such proper projective transformations ?
a structural argument is that they do not leave any subset of @xmath179 invariant and that they hence can not be considered as automorphism group of any subdomain .
a physical argument is that two separate points that move with the same velocity cease to do so if their worldlines are transformed by by a proper projective transformation . in particular , a rigid motion of an extended body ( undergoing inertial motion )
ceases to be rigid if so transformed ( cf.@xcite , p.16 ) .
an illustrative example is the following : consider the one - parameter ( @xmath395 ) family of parallel lines @xmath396 ( where @xmath397 is the parameter along each line ) , and the proper projective map @xmath398 which becomes singular on the hyperplane @xmath399 .
the one - parameter family of image lines @xmath400 have velocities @xmath401 whose directions are independent of @xmath397 , showing that they are indeed straight .
however , the velocity directions now depend on @xmath395 , showing that they are not parallel anymore .
let us , regardless of this , for the moment take seriously the transformations ( [ eq : projmap5 ] ) .
one may reduce them to the following form of generalised boosts , discarding translations and rotations and using equivariance with respect to the latter ( we restrict to four spacetime dimensions from now on ) :    [ eq : focklorentztrans1 ] @xmath402    where @xmath403 represents the boost velocity , @xmath404 its modulus , and all functions of @xmath60 are even .
the subscripts @xmath405 and @xmath406 refer to the components parallel and perpendicular to @xmath257 .
now one imposes the following conditions which allow to determine the eight functions @xmath407 , of which only seven are considered independent since common factors of the numerator and denominator cancel ( we essentially follow  @xcite ) :    1 .   the origin @xmath408 has velocity @xmath257 in the unprimed coordinates , leading to @xmath409 and thereby eliminating @xmath410 as independent function .
the origin @xmath411 has velocity @xmath412 in the primed coordinates , leading to @xmath413 and thereby eliminating @xmath293 as independent function .
reciprocity : the transformation parametrised by @xmath412 is the inverse of that parametrised by @xmath257 , leading to relations @xmath414 , @xmath415 , and @xmath416 , thereby eliminating @xmath417 as independent functions . of the remaining three functions @xmath418 an overall factor in the numerator and denominator can be split off so that two free functions remain .
transitivity : the composition of two transformations of the type ( [ eq : focklorentztrans1 ] ) with parameters @xmath257 and @xmath419 must be again of this form with some parameter @xmath420 , which turns out to be the same function of the velocities @xmath257 and @xmath419 as in special relativity ( einstein s addition law ) , for reasons to become clear soon .
this allows to determine the last two functions in terms of two constants @xmath245 and @xmath421 whose physical dimensions are that of a velocity and of a length respectively . writing , as usual
, @xmath422 the final form is given by    [ eq : focklorentztrans2 ] @xmath423    in the limit as @xmath424 this approaches an ordinary lorentz boost : @xmath425 moreover , for finite @xmath421 the map ( [ eq : focklorentztrans2 ] ) is conjugate to ( [ eq : lorentzfock3 ] ) with respect to a time dependent deformation . to see this ,
observe that the common denominator in ( [ eq : focklorentztrans2 ] ) is just @xmath426 , whereas the numerators correspond to ( [ eq : lorentzfock3 ] ) .
hence , introducing the deformation map @xmath427 and denoting the map @xmath428 in ( [ eq : focklorentztrans2 ] ) by @xmath9 , we have @xmath429 note that @xmath112 is singular at the hyperplane @xmath430 and has no point of the hyperplane @xmath431 in its image .
the latter hyperplane is the singularity set of @xmath432 . outside the hyperplanes
@xmath433 the map @xmath112 relates the following time slabs in a diffeomorphic fashion :    [ eq : difftimeslabs ] @xmath434    since boosts leave the upper - half spacetime , @xmath435 , invariant ( as set ) , ( [ eq : difftimeslabs - a ] ) shows that @xmath9 just squashes the linear action of boosts in @xmath436 into a non - linear action within @xmath437 , where @xmath421 now corresponds to an invariant scale .
interestingly , this is the same deformation of boosts that have been recently considered in what is sometimes called _ doubly special relativity _ ( because there are now two , rather than just one , invariant scales , @xmath421 and @xmath245 ) , albeit there the deformation of boosts take place in momentum space where @xmath421 then corresponds to an invariant energy scale ; see @xcite and also @xcite .
in this section we wish to discuss in more detail some of the non - trivial structures in minkowski .
i have chosen them so as to emphasise the difference to the corresponding structures in galilean spacetime , and also because they do not seem to be much discussed in other standard sources .
let us start right away by characterising those vectors for which we have an inverted cauchy - schwarz inequality :    [ lemma : stricticsi ] let @xmath19 be of dimension @xmath438 and @xmath45 be some non - zero vector . the strict inverted cauchy - schwarz inequality
, @xmath439 holds for all @xmath106 linearly independent of @xmath60 iff @xmath60 is timelike .    obviously @xmath60 can not be spacelike , for then we would violate ( [ eq : strictinvcsi ] ) with any spacelike @xmath77 . if @xmath60 is lightlike then @xmath77 violates ( [ eq : strictinvcsi ] ) iff it is in the set @xmath440 , which is non - empty iff @xmath438 .
hence @xmath60 can not be lightlike if @xmath438 . if @xmath60 is timelike we decompose @xmath441 with @xmath442 so that @xmath443 , with equality iff @xmath60 and @xmath77 are linearly dependent .
hence @xmath444 with equality iff @xmath60 and @xmath77 are linearly dependent .
the next lemma deals with the intersection of a causal line with a light cone , a situation depicted in fig.[fig : robb ] .
[ lemma : intlinecone ] let @xmath445 be the light - doublecone with vertex @xmath62 and @xmath446 be a non - spacelike line , i.e. @xmath447 , through @xmath448 . if @xmath60 is timelike @xmath449 consists of two points .
if @xmath60 is lightlike this intersection consists of one point if @xmath450 and is empty if @xmath451 . note that the latter two statements are independent of the choice of @xmath452as they must be , i.e. are invariant under @xmath453 , where @xmath454 .
we have @xmath455 iff @xmath456 for @xmath60 timelike we have @xmath457 and ( [ eq : lemmaintlinecone1 ] ) has two solutions @xmath458 indeed , since @xmath448 , the vectors @xmath60 and @xmath459 can not be linearly dependent so that lemma[lemma : stricticsi ] implies the positivity of the expression under the square root . if @xmath60 is lightlike ( [ eq : lemmaintlinecone1 ] )
becomes a linear equation which is has one solution if @xmath460 and no solution if @xmath461 [ note that @xmath462 since @xmath463 by hypothesis ] .
( -12,155)@xmath464 ( -22,114)@xmath140 ( -35,56)@xmath465 ( -72,98)@xmath62 ( -60,0)@xmath466 ( -42,15)@xmath60 ( -75,146)@xmath467 ( -75,62)@xmath468 ( -13,195)@xmath469    [ prop : einsteinsynch ] let @xmath469 and @xmath445 as in lemma[lemma : intlinecone ] with @xmath60 timelike . let @xmath464 and @xmath465 be the two intersection points of @xmath469 with @xmath445 and @xmath470 a point between them . then @xmath471 moreover , @xmath472 iff @xmath71 is perpendicular to @xmath60 .
the vectors @xmath473 and @xmath474 are lightlike , which gives ( note that @xmath475 is spacelike ) :    [ eq : prop : einsteinsynch23 ] @xmath476    since @xmath477 and @xmath478 are parallel we have @xmath479 with @xmath480 so that @xmath481 and @xmath482 .
now , multiplying ( [ eq : prop : einsteinsynch3 ] ) with @xmath155 and adding this to ( [ eq : prop : einsteinsynch2 ] ) immediately yields @xmath483 since @xmath484 this implies ( [ eq : prop : einsteinsynch1 ] ) .
finally , since @xmath477 and @xmath485 are antiparallel , @xmath486 iff @xmath487 . equations ( [ eq : prop : einsteinsynch23 ] ) now show that this is the case iff @xmath488 , i.e. iff @xmath489 .
hence we have shown    @xmath490    in other words , @xmath140 is the midpoint of the segment @xmath491 iff the line through @xmath62 and @xmath140 is perpendicular ( wrt .
@xmath30 ) to @xmath469 .
the somewhat surprising feature of the first statement of this proposition is that ( [ eq : prop : einsteinsynch1 ] ) holds for _ any _ point of the segment @xmath491 , not just the midpoint , as it would have to be the case for the corresponding statement in euclidean geometry .
the second statement of proposition[prop : einsteinsynch ] gives a convenient geometric characterisation of einstein - simultaneity .
recall that an event @xmath140 on a timelike line @xmath469 ( representing an inertial observer ) is defined to be einstein - simultaneous with an event @xmath62 in spacetime iff @xmath140 bisects the segment @xmath491 between the intersection points @xmath492 of @xmath469 with the double - lightcone at @xmath62 .
hence proposition[prop : einsteinsynch ] implies    [ corol : einsteinsim ] einstein simultaneity with respect to a timelike line @xmath469 is an equivalence relation on spacetime , the equivalence classes of which are the spacelike hyperplanes orthogonal ( wrt .
@xmath30 ) to @xmath469 .
the first statement simply follows from the fact that the family of parallel hyperplanes orthogonal to @xmath469 form a partition ( cf .
sect.[sec : groupactions ] ) of spacetime .    from now on we shall use the terms ` timelike line ' and ` inertial observer ' synonymously .
note that einstein simultaneity is only defined relative to an inertial observer .
given two inertial observers ,    [ eq : twoobservers ] @xmath493    we call the corresponding einstein - simultaneity relations _
@xmath469-simultaneity _ and _ @xmath494-simultaneity_. obviously they coincide iff @xmath469 and @xmath494 are parallel ( @xmath60 and @xmath283 are linearly dependent ) . in this case
@xmath495 is @xmath469-simultaneous to @xmath470 iff @xmath470 is @xmath494-simultaneous to @xmath495 .
if @xmath469 and @xmath494are not parallel ( skew or intersecting in one point ) it is generally not true that if @xmath495 is @xmath469-simultaneous to @xmath470 then @xmath470 is also @xmath494-simultaneous to @xmath495 .
in fact , we have    [ prop : skewsim ] let @xmath469 and @xmath494 two non - parallel timelike likes .
there exists a unique pair @xmath496 so that @xmath497 is @xmath469-simultaneous to @xmath140 and @xmath140 is @xmath494 simultaneous to @xmath497 .
we parameterise @xmath469 and @xmath494 as in ( [ eq : twoobservers ] ) .
the two conditions for @xmath497 being @xmath469-simultaneous to @xmath140 and @xmath140 being @xmath494-simultaneous to @xmath497 are @xmath498 . writing @xmath499 and @xmath500 this takes the form of the following matrix equation for the two unknowns @xmath155 and @xmath501 : @xmath502 this has a unique solution pair @xmath503 , since for linearly independent timelike vectors @xmath60 and @xmath283 lemma[lemma : stricticsi ] implies @xmath504 .
note that if @xmath469 and @xmath494 intersect @xmath505 .
clearly , einstein - simultaneity is conventional and physics proper should not depend on it .
for example , the fringe - shift in the michelson - morley experiment is independent of how we choose to synchronise clocks .
in fact , it does not even make use of any clock . so what is the general definition of a ` simultaneity structure ' ?
it seems obvious that it should be a relation on spacetime that is at least symmetric ( each event should be simultaneous to itself ) .
going from one - way simultaneity to the mutual synchronisation of two clocks , one might like to also require reflexivity ( if @xmath62 is simultaneous to @xmath140 then @xmath140 is simultaneous to @xmath62 ) , though this is not strictly required in order to one - way synchronise each clock in a set of clocks with one preferred ` master clock ' , which is sufficient for many applications .
moreover , if we like to speak of the mutual simultaneity of sets of more than two events we need an equivalence relation on spacetime .
the equivalence relation should be such that each inertial observer intersect each equivalence class precisely once .
let us call such a simultaneity structure ` admissible ' .
clearly there are zillions of such structures : just partition spacetime into any set of appropriate spacelike hypersurfaces ( there are more possibilities at this point , like families of forward or backward lightcones ) .
an _ absolute _ admissible simultaneity structure would be one which is invariant ( cf .
sect.[sec : groupactions ] ) under the automorphism group of spacetime
. we have    [ prop : abssim ] there exits precisely one admissible simultaneity structure which is invariant under the inhomogeneous proper orthochronous galilei group and none that is invariant under the inhomogeneous proper orthochronous lorentz group .    a proof is given in @xcite .
there is a group - theoretic reason that highlights this existential difference :    [ prop : abssimmath ] let @xmath249 be a group with transitive action on a set @xmath2 .
let @xmath506 be the stabiliser subgroup for @xmath507 ( due to transitivity all stabiliser subgroups are conjugate ) .
then @xmath2 admits a @xmath249-invariant equivalence relation @xmath508 iff @xmath509 is _ not _ maximal , that is , iff @xmath509 is properly contained in a proper subgroup @xmath510 of @xmath249 : @xmath511 .
a proof of this may be found in @xcite ( theorem1.12 ) . regarding the action of the inhomogeneous galilei and lorentz groups on spacetime , their stabilisers are the corresponding homogeneous groups .
now , the homogeneous lorentz group is maximal in the inhomogeneous one , whereas the homogeneous galilei group is not maximal in the inhomogeneous one , since it can still be supplemented by time translations without the need to also invoke space translations .
this , according to proposition[prop : abssimmath ] , is the group theoretic origin of the absence of any invariant simultaneity structure in the lorentzian case .
however , one may ask whether there are simultaneity structures _ relative _ to some _ additional _ structure @xmath512 . as additional structure ,
@xmath512 , one could , for example , take an inertial reference frame , which is characterised by a foliation of spacetime by parallel timelike lines .
the stabiliser subgroup of that structure within the proper orthochronous poincar group is given by the semidirect product of spacetime translations with all rotations in the hypersurfaces perpendicular to the lines in @xmath512 : @xmath513 here the @xmath514 only acts on the spatial translations , so that the group is also isomorphic to @xmath515 , where @xmath516 is the group of euclidean motions in 3-dimensions ( the hyperplanes perpendicular to the lines in @xmath512 ) .
we can now ask : how many admissible @xmath517  invariant equivalence relations are there .
the answer is    [ prop : realsim ] there exits precisely one admissible simultaneity structure which is invariant under @xmath517 , where @xmath512 represents am inertial reference frame ( a foliation of spacetime by parallel timelike lines ) .
it is given by einstein simultaneity , that is , the equivalence classes are the hyperplanes perpendicular to the lines in @xmath512 .    the proof is given in  @xcite .
note again the connection to quoted group - theoretic result : the stabiliser subgroup of a point in @xmath517 is @xmath518 , which is clearly not maximal in @xmath517 since it is a proper subgroup of @xmath516 which , in turn , is a proper subgroup of @xmath517 .      here
we wish to briefly discuss another important structure associated with causality relations in minkowski space , which plays a fundamental rle in modern quantum field theory ( see e.g. @xcite ) .
let @xmath519 and @xmath520 be subsets of @xmath63 .
we say that @xmath519 and @xmath520 are _ causally disjoint _ or _
spacelike separated _ iff @xmath521 is spacelike , i.e. @xmath522 , for any @xmath523 and @xmath524 . note that because a point is not spacelike separated from itself , causally disjoint sets are necessarily disjoint in the ordinary set - theoretic sense  the converse being of course not true .    for any subset @xmath525
we denote by @xmath526 the largest subset of @xmath63 which is causally disjoint to @xmath2 .
the set @xmath526 is called the _ causal complement _ of @xmath2 . the procedure of taking the causal complement
can be iterated and we set @xmath527 etc .
@xmath528 is called the _ causal completion _ of @xmath2 .
it also follows straight from the definition that @xmath529 implies @xmath530 and also @xmath531 .
if @xmath532 we call @xmath2 _ causally complete_. we note that the causal complement @xmath526 of any given @xmath2 is automatically causally complete .
indeed , from @xmath531 we obtain @xmath533 , but the first inclusion applied to @xmath526 instead of @xmath2 leads to @xmath534 , showing @xmath535 .
note also that for any subset @xmath2 its causal completion , @xmath528 , is the smallest causally complete subset containing @xmath2 , for if @xmath536 with @xmath537 , we derive from the first inclusion by taking @xmath538 that @xmath539 , so that the second inclusion yields @xmath540 .
trivial examples of causally complete subsets of @xmath63 are the empty set , single points , and the total set @xmath63 .
others are the open diamond - shaped regions ( [ eq : opendiamonds ] ) as well as their closed counterparts : @xmath541
we now focus attention to the set @xmath542 of causally complete subsets of @xmath63 , including the empty set , @xmath543 , and the total set , @xmath63 , which are mutually causally complementary .
it is partially ordered by ordinary set - theoretic inclusion @xmath544 ( cf .
sect.[sec : groupactions ] ) and carries the ` dashing operation ' @xmath545 of taking the causal complement .
moreover , on @xmath542 we can define the operations of ` meet ' and ` join ' , denoted by @xmath546 and @xmath547 respectively , as follows : let @xmath548 where @xmath199 , then @xmath549 is the largest causally complete subset in the intersection @xmath550 and @xmath551 is the smallest causally complete set containing the union @xmath552 .
the operations of @xmath546 and @xmath547 can be characterised in terms of the ordinary set - theoretic intersection @xmath553 together with the dashing - operation . to see this , consider two causally complete sets , @xmath554 where @xmath199 , and note that the set of points that are spacelike separated from @xmath519 and @xmath520 are obviously given by @xmath555 , but also by @xmath556 , so that    [ eg : capcup ] @xmath557    here ( [ eq : capcup1 ] ) and ( [ eq : capcup2 ] ) are equivalent since any @xmath548 can be written as @xmath558 , namely @xmath559 .
if @xmath554 runs through all sets in @xmath542 so does @xmath560 .
hence any equation that holds generally for all @xmath548 remains valid if the @xmath554 are replaced by @xmath561 .
equation ( [ eq : capcup2 ] ) immediately shows that @xmath550 is causally complete ( since it is the @xmath562 of something ) . taking the causal complement of ( [ eq : capcup1 ] ) we obtain the desired relation for @xmath563 .
together we have    [ eg : meetjoin ] @xmath564    from these we immediately derive    [ eg : negating ] @xmath565    all what we have said so far for the set @xmath542 could be repeated verbatim for the set @xmath566 of _ chronologically complete _ subsets .
we say that @xmath519 and @xmath520 are _ chronologically disjoint _ or _ non - timelike separated _ , iff @xmath567 and @xmath568 for any @xmath523 and @xmath524 .
@xmath526 , the _ chronological complement _ of @xmath2 , is now the largest subset of @xmath63 which is chronologically disjoint to @xmath2 .
the only difference between the causal and the chronological complement of @xmath2 is that the latter now contains lightlike separated points outside @xmath2 .
a set @xmath2 is _ chronologically complete _ iff @xmath569 , where the dashing now denotes the operation of taking the chronological complement .
again , for any set @xmath2 the set @xmath526 is automatically chronologically complete and @xmath528 is the smallest chronologically complete subset containing @xmath2 .
single points are chronologically complete subsets .
all the formal properties regarding @xmath570 , @xmath546 , and @xmath547 stated hitherto for @xmath542 are the same for @xmath566 .
one major difference between @xmath542 and @xmath566 is that the types of diamond - shaped sets they contain are different .
for example , the closed ones , ( [ eq : closeddiamonds ] ) , are members of both . the open ones , ( [ eq : opendiamonds ] ) ,
are contained in @xmath542 but _ not _ in @xmath566 .
instead , @xmath566 contains the closed diamonds whose ` equator'sphere in which the forward and backward light - cones in ( [ eq : closeddiamonds ] ) intersect .
in the two - dimensional drawings the ` equator ' is represented by just two points marking the right and left corners of the diamond - shaped set . ]
have been removed . an essential structural difference between @xmath542 and @xmath566
will be stated below , after we have introduced the notion of a lattice to which we now turn .    to put all these formal properties into the right frame we recall the definition of a lattice .
let @xmath571 be a partially ordered set and @xmath572 any two elements in @xmath573 .
synonymously with @xmath574 we also write @xmath575 and say that @xmath292 is smaller than @xmath294 , @xmath294 is bigger than @xmath292 , or @xmath294 majorises @xmath292
. we also write @xmath576 if @xmath574 and @xmath232 . if , with respect to @xmath141 , their greatest lower and least upper bound exist , they are denoted by @xmath577called the ` meet of @xmath292 and @xmath294'and @xmath578called the ` join of @xmath292 and @xmath294'respectively . a partially ordered set
for which the greatest lower and least upper bound exist for any pair @xmath572 of elements from @xmath573 is called a
_ lattice_.    we now list some of the most relevant additional structural elements lattices can have : a lattice is called _ complete _ if greatest lower and least upper bound exist for any subset @xmath579 . if @xmath580 they are called @xmath336 ( the smallest element in the lattice ) and @xmath121 ( the biggest element in the lattice ) respectively .
an _ atom _ in a lattice is an element @xmath292 which majorises only @xmath336 , i.e. @xmath581 and if @xmath582 then @xmath583 or @xmath584 .
the lattice is called _ atomic _ if each of its elements different from @xmath336 majorises an atom .
an atomic lattice is called _ atomistic _ if every element is the join of the atoms it majorises .
an element @xmath245 is said to _ cover _
@xmath292 if @xmath585 and if @xmath586 either @xmath587 or @xmath588 . an atomic lattice is said to have the _ covering property _
if , for every element @xmath294 and every atom @xmath292 for which @xmath589 , the join @xmath578 covers @xmath294 .    the subset @xmath590 is called a _ distributive triple _ if    [ eq : disttriple ] @xmath591    a lattice is called _ distributive _ or
_ boolean _ if every triple @xmath592 is distributive .
it is called _ modular _ if every triple @xmath592 with @xmath574 is distributive .
it is straightforward to check from ( [ eq : disttriple ] ) that modularity is equivalent to the following single condition : @xmath593    if in a lattice with smallest element @xmath336 and greatest element @xmath121 a map @xmath594 , @xmath595 , exist such that    [ eq : orthocomplement ] @xmath596    the lattice is called _ orthocomplemented_.
it follows that whenever the meet and join of a subset @xmath597 ( @xmath598 is some index set ) exist one has demorgan s laws ) is redundant , as each of its two statements follows from the other , due to @xmath599 . ] :    [ eq : gendemorgan ] @xmath600    for orthocomplemented lattices there is a still weaker version of distributivity than modularity , which turns out to be physically relevant in various contexts :    [ def : orthomodular ] an orthocomplemented lattice is called _ orthomodular _ if every triple @xmath592 with @xmath574 and @xmath601 is distributive .    from ( [ eq : modularity ] ) and using that @xmath602 for
@xmath603 one sees that this is equivalent to the single condition ( renaming @xmath245 to @xmath604 ) :    [ eq : orthomodularity ] @xmath605    where the second line follows from the first by taking its orthocomplement and renaming @xmath606 to @xmath607 .
it turns out that these conditions can still be simplified by making them independent of @xmath245 .
in fact , ( [ eq : orthomodularity ] ) are equivalent to    [ eq : altorthomodularity ] @xmath608    it is obvious that ( [ eq : orthomodularity ] ) implies ( [ eq : altorthomodularity ] ) ( set @xmath609 ) . but the converse is also true . to see this , take e.g. ( [ eq : altorthomodularity2 ] ) and choose any @xmath610 .
then @xmath611 , @xmath612 ( by hypothesis ) , and @xmath613 ( trivially ) , so that @xmath614 . hence @xmath615 , which proves ( [ eq : orthomodularity2 ] ) .
complete orthomodular atomic lattices are automatically atomistic .
indeed , let @xmath294 be the join of all atoms majorised by @xmath616 .
assume @xmath232 so that necessarily @xmath617 , then ( [ eq : altorthomodularity2 ] ) implies @xmath618 .
then there exists an atom @xmath245 majorised by @xmath619 .
this implies @xmath620 and @xmath601 , hence also @xmath621 .
but this is a contradiction , since @xmath294 is by definition the join of all atoms majorised by @xmath292 .
finally we mention the notion of _ compatibility _ or _ commutativity _ , which is a symmetric , reflexive , but generally not transitive relation @xmath421 on an orthomodular lattice ( cf .
sec.[sec : groupactions ] ) .
we write @xmath622 for @xmath623 and define :    [ eq : defcompatibility ] @xmath624    the equivalence of these two lines , which shows that the relation of being compatible is indeed symmetric , can be demonstrated using orthomodularity as follows : suppose ( [ eq : defcompatibility1 ] ) holds ; then @xmath625 , where we used the orthocomplement of ( [ eq : defcompatibility1 ] ) to replace @xmath626 in the first expression and the trivial identity @xmath627 in the second step .
now , applying ( [ eq : altorthomodularity2 ] ) to @xmath628 we get @xmath629=(b\wedge a)\vee ( b\wedge a')$ ] , i.e. ( [ eq : defcompatibility2 ] ) .
the converse , @xmath630 , is of course entirely analogous .    from ( [ eq : defcompatibility ] ) a few things are immediate : @xmath622 is equivalent to @xmath631 , @xmath622 is implied by @xmath574 or @xmath632 , and the elements @xmath336 and @xmath121 are compatible with all elements in the lattice .
the _ centre _ of a lattice is the set of elements which are compatible with all elements in the lattice .
in fact , the centre is a boolean sublattice .
if the centre contains no other elements than @xmath336 and @xmath121 the lattice is said to be _
the other extreme is a boolean lattice , which is identical to its own centre . indeed ,
if @xmath633 is a distributive triple , one has @xmath634 .    after these digression into elementary notions of lattice theory we come back to our examples of the sets @xmath542 @xmath566 .
our statements above amount to saying that they are complete , atomic , and orthocomplemented lattices .
the partial order relation @xmath141 is given by @xmath635 and the extreme elements @xmath336 and @xmath121 correspond to the empty set @xmath543 and the total set @xmath63 , the points of which are the atoms . neither the covering property nor modularity is shared by any of the two lattices , as can be checked by way of elementary counterexamples . and @xmath140 . then @xmath636 whereas @xmath637 is given by the closed diamond ( [ eq : closeddiamonds ] ) . note that this is true in @xmath542 _ and _ @xmath566 .
but , clearly , @xmath637 does not cover either @xmath638 or @xmath639 .
] in particular , neither of them is boolean .
however , in @xcite it was shown that @xmath566 is orthomodular ; see also @xcite which deals with more general spacetimes . note that by the argument given above this implies that @xmath566 is atomistic .
in contrast , @xmath542 is definitely _ not _ orthomodular , as is e.g. seen by the counterexample given in fig.[fig : countex ] . regarding this point
, there are some conflicting statements in the literature .
the first edition of @xcite states orthomodularity of @xmath566 in proposition4.1.3 , which is removed in the second edition without further comment .
the proof offered in the first edition uses ( [ eq : altorthomodularity1 ] ) as definition of orthomodularity , writing @xmath640 for @xmath292 and @xmath641 for b. the crucial step is the claim that any spacetime event in the set @xmath642 lies in @xmath641 and that any causal line through it must intersect either @xmath640 or @xmath643 .
the last statement is , however , not correct since the join of two sets ( here @xmath640 and @xmath643 ) is generally larger than the domain of dependence of their ordinary set - theoretic union ; compare fig.[fig : countex ] . :
( generally , the domain of dependence of a subset @xmath2 of spacetime @xmath1 is the largest subset @xmath644 such that any inextensible causal curve that intersects @xmath645 also intersects @xmath2 . ) ] it is also not difficult to prove that @xmath566 is irreducible .
, the failure of irreducibility of @xmath646 is directly related to the existence of closed timelike curves ; see  @xcite . ]
( -365,104)@xmath469 ( -344.5,72)@xmath292 ( -280,50)@xmath647 ( -322,85)@xmath648 ( -152,85)@xmath648 ( -180,50)@xmath294 ( -30,50)@xmath294 ( -105,50)@xmath647 ( -158,54)@xmath292    it is well known that the lattices of propositions for classical systems are boolean , whereas those for quantum systems are merely orthomodular . in classical physics the elements of the lattice are measurable subsets of phase space , with @xmath141 being ordinary set - theoretic inclusion @xmath635 , and @xmath546 and @xmath547 being ordinary set - theoretic intersection @xmath553 and union @xmath649 respectively . the orthocomplement is the ordinary set - theoretic complement . in quantum mechanics
the elements of the lattice are the closed subspaces of hilbert space , with @xmath141 being again ordinary inclusion , @xmath546 ordinary intersection , and @xmath547 is given by @xmath650 .
the orthocomplement of a closed subset is the orthogonal complement in hilbert space . for comprehensive discussions
see @xcite and @xcite .
one of the main questions in the foundations of quantum mechanics is whether one could understand ( derive ) the usage of hilbert spaces and complex numbers from somehow more fundamental principles .
even though it is not a priori clear what ones measure of fundamentality should be at this point , an interesting line of attack consists in deriving the mentioned structures from the properties of the lattice of propositions ( quantum logic ) .
it can be shown that a lattice that is complete , atomic , irreducible , orthomodular , and that satisfies the covering property is isomorphic to the lattice of closed subspaces of a linear space with hermitean inner product .
the complex numbers are selected if additional technical assumptions are added .
for the precise statements of these reconstruction theorems see @xcite .
it is now interesting to note that , on a formal level , there is a similar transition in going from galilei invariant to lorentz invariant causality relations .
in fact , in galilean spacetime one can also define a chronological complement : two points are chronologically related if they are connected by a worldline of finite speed and , accordingly , two subsets in spacetime are chronologically disjoint if no point in one set is chronologically related to a point of the other .
for example , the chronological complement of a point @xmath62 are all points simultaneous to , but different from , @xmath62 .
more general , it is not hard to see that the chronologically complete sets are just the subsets of some @xmath651 hypersurface .
the lattice of chronologically complete sets is then the continuous disjoint union of sublattices , each of which is isomorphic to the boolean lattice of subsets in @xmath256 . for details
see @xcite .    as we have seen above
, @xmath652 is complete , atomic , irreducible , and orthomodular ( hence atomistic ) .
the main difference to the lattice of propositions in quantum mechanics , as regards the formal aspects discussed here , is that @xmath652 does _ not _ satisfy the covering property .
otherwise the formal similarities are intriguing and it is tempting to ask whether there is a deeper meaning to this . in this respect
it would be interesting to know whether one could give a lattice - theoretic characterisation for @xmath653 ( @xmath1 some fixed spacetime ) , comparable to the characterisation of the lattices of closed subspaces in hilbert space alluded to above .
even for @xmath654 such a characterisation seems , as far as i am aware , not to be known .
as is well known , the notion of a rigid body , which proves so useful in newtonian mechanics , is incompatible with the existence of a universal finite upper bound for all signal velocities  @xcite . as a result
, the notion of a perfectly rigid body does not exist within the framework of sr .
however , the notion of a _ rigid motion _ does exist .
intuitively speaking , a body moves rigidly if , locally , the relative spatial distances of its material constituents are unchanging .    the motion of an extended body is described by a normalised timelike vector field @xmath655 , where @xmath214 is an open subset of minkowski space , consisting of the events where the material body in question ` exists ' .
we write @xmath656 for the minkowskian scalar product .
being normalised now means that @xmath657 ( we do _ not _ choose units such that @xmath658 ) .
the lie derivative with respect to @xmath76 is denoted by @xmath659 .    for each material part of the body in motion its local rest space at the event @xmath660
can be identified with the hyperplane through @xmath62 orthogonal to @xmath661 : @xmath662 @xmath663 carries a euclidean inner product , @xmath664 , given by the restriction of @xmath665 to @xmath663 .
generally we can write @xmath666 where @xmath667 is the one - form associated to @xmath76 . following  @xcite the precise definition of ` rigid motion ' can now be given as follows :    [ def : rigidmotion ] let @xmath76 be a normalised timelike vector field @xmath76 . the motion described by its flow is _ rigid _ if @xmath668    note that , in contrast to the killing equations @xmath669 , these equations are non linear due to the dependence of @xmath216 upon @xmath76 .
we write @xmath670 for the tensor field over spacetime that pointwise projects vectors perpendicular to @xmath76 .
it acts on one forms @xmath239 via @xmath671 and accordingly on all tensors .
the so extended projection map will still be denoted by @xmath672 . then we e.g. have @xmath673    it is not difficult to derive the following two equations : equation ( [ eq : rigmo2 ] ) simply follows from @xmath674 , so that @xmath675 for all @xmath676 . in fact , @xmath677 , where @xmath678 is the spacetime - acceleration .
this follows from @xmath679)= g(a , x)-g(u,\nabla_xu)=g(a , x)$ ] , where @xmath680 was used in the last step . ]
@xmath681 where @xmath9 is any differentiable real - valued function on @xmath214 .    equation ( [ eq : rigmo1 ] ) shows that the normalised vector field @xmath76 satisfies ( [ eq : def : rigmo ] ) iff any rescaling @xmath682 with a nowhere vanishing function @xmath9 does .
hence the normalization condition for @xmath76 in ( [ eq : def : rigmo ] ) is really irrelevant .
it is the geometry in spacetime of the flow lines and not their parameterisation which decide on whether motions ( all , i.e. for any parameterisation , or none ) along them are rigid .
this has be the case because , generally speaking , there is no distinguished family of sections ( hypersurfaces ) across the bundle of flow lines that would represent ` the body in space ' , i.e. mutually simultaneous locations of the body s points .
distinguished cases are those exceptional ones in which @xmath76 is hypersurface orthogonal .
then the intersection of @xmath76 s flow lines with the orthogonal hypersurfaces consist of mutually _
einstein synchronous _ locations of the points of the body .
an example is discussed below .
equation ( [ eq : rigmo2 ] ) shows that the rigidity condition is equivalent to the ` spatially ' projected killing equation .
we call the flow of the timelike normalised vector field @xmath76 a _ killing motion _
( i.e. a spacetime isometry ) if there is a killing field @xmath280 such that @xmath683 . equation ( [ eq : rigmo2 ] ) immediately implies that killing motions are rigid .
what about the converse ? are there rigid motions that are not killing ?
this turns out to be a difficult question .
its answer in minkowski space is : ` yes , many , but not as many as navely expected . '
before we explain this , let us give an illustrative example for a killing motion , namely that generated by the boost killing - field in minkowski space .
we suppress all but one spatial directions and consider boosts in @xmath262 direction in two - dimensional minkowski space ( coordinates @xmath684 and @xmath262 ; metric @xmath685 ) .
the killing field is denote the vector fields naturally defined by the coordinates @xmath686 .
pointwise the dual basis to @xmath687 is @xmath688 . ] @xmath689 which is timelike in the region @xmath690 .
we focus on the ` right wedge ' @xmath691 , which is now our region @xmath214 .
consider a rod of length @xmath469 which at @xmath692 is represented by the interval @xmath693 , where @xmath694 . the flow of the normalised field @xmath683 is    [ eq : boostkill2 ] @xmath695    where @xmath696 labels the elements of the rod at @xmath697 .
we have @xmath698 , showing that the individual elements of the rod move on hyperbolae ( ` hyperbolic motion ' ) .
@xmath699 is the proper time along each orbit , normalised so that the rod lies on the @xmath262 axis at @xmath697 .
the combination @xmath700 is just the flow parameter for @xmath280 ( [ eq : boostkill1 ] ) , sometimes referred to as ` killing time ' ( though it is dimensionless ) . from ( [ eq : boostkill2 ] ) we can solve for @xmath155 and @xmath699 as functions of @xmath684 and @xmath262 :    [ eq : lambdatau ] @xmath701    from which we infer that the hypersurfaces of constant @xmath155 are hyperplanes which all intersect at the origin .
moreover , we also have @xmath702 ( @xmath293 is just the ordinary exterior differential ) so that the hyperplanes of constant @xmath155 intersect all orbits of @xmath76 ( and @xmath280 ) orthogonally . hence the hyperplanes of constant @xmath155 qualify as the equivalence classes of mutually einstein - simultaneous events in the region @xmath703 for a family of observers moving along the killing orbits .
this does not hold for the hypersurfaces of constant @xmath699 , which are curved .
the modulus of the spacetime - acceleration ( which is the same as the modulus of the spatial acceleration measured in the local rest frame ) of the material part of the rod labelled by @xmath704 is @xmath705 as an aside we generally infer from this that , given a timelike curve of local acceleration ( modulus ) @xmath239 , infinitesimally nearby orthogonal hyperplanes intersect at a spatial distance @xmath706 .
this remark will become relevant in the discussion of part2 of the noether - herglotz theorem given below .    in order to accelerate the rod to the uniform velocity @xmath60 without deforming it ,
its material point labelled by @xmath704 has to accelerate for the eigentime ( this follows from ( [ eq : boostkill2 ] ) ) @xmath707 which depends on @xmath704 .
in contrast , the killing time is the same for all material points and just given by the final rapidity . in particular , judged from the local observers moving with the rod , a rigid acceleration requires accelerating the rod s trailing end harder but shorter than pulling its leading end .    in terms of the coordinates
@xmath708 , which are co - moving with the flow of @xmath280 , and @xmath709 , which are co - moving with the flow of @xmath76 , we just have @xmath710 and @xmath711 respectively .
the spacetime metric @xmath30 and the projected metric @xmath216 in terms of these coordinates are :    [ eq : metricscomovcoord ] @xmath712    note the simple form @xmath30 takes in terms of @xmath704 and @xmath155 , which are also called the ` rindler coordinates ' for the region @xmath713 of minkowski space .
they are the analogs in lorentzian geometry to polar coordinates ( radius @xmath704 , angle @xmath155 ) in euclidean geometry .
let us now return to the general case .
we decompose the derivative of the velocity one - form @xmath714 as follows : @xmath715 where @xmath716 and @xmath717 are the projected symmetrised and antisymmetrised derivatives respectively ) by @xmath547 and @xmath546 respectively and the symmetrised and antisymmetrised ( covariant- ) derivative by @xmath718 and @xmath719 .
for example , @xmath720 and @xmath721 . note that @xmath722 is the same as the ordinary exterior differential @xmath723 .
everything we say in the sequel applies to curved spacetimes if @xmath724 is read as covariant derivative with respect to the levi - civita connection . ]
[ eq : thetaomega ] @xmath725    the symmetric part , @xmath716 , is usually further decomposed into its traceless and pure trace part , called the _ shear _ and _ expansion _ of @xmath76 respectively .
the antisymmetric part @xmath717 is called the _ vorticity _ of @xmath76
.    now recall that the lie derivative of @xmath30 is just twice the symmetrised derivative , which in our notation reads : @xmath726 this implies in view of ( [ eq : def : rigmo ] ) , ( [ eq : rigmo2 ] ) , and ( [ eq : thetaomega1 ] )    let @xmath76 be a normalised timelike vector field @xmath76 .
the motion described by its flow is rigid iff @xmath76 is of vanishing shear and expansion , i.e. iff @xmath727 .
vector fields generating rigid motions are now classified according to whether or not they have a vanishing vorticity @xmath717 : if @xmath728 the flow is called _ irrotational _ , otherwise
_ rotational_. the following theorem is due to herglotz @xcite and noether  @xcite :    [ thm : noetherherglotz1 ] a rotational rigid motion in minkowski space must be a killing motion .
an example of such a rotational motion is given by the killing field we now use standard cylindrical coordinates @xmath729 , in terms of which @xmath730 .
] @xmath731 inside the region @xmath732 where @xmath280 is timelike .
this motion corresponds to a rigid rotation with constant angular velocity @xmath733 which , without loss of generality , we take to be positive . using the co - moving angular coordinate @xmath734 , the split ( [ eq : hormetric ] )
is now furnished by    [ eq : rotsplitmetric ] @xmath735    the metric @xmath216 is curved ( cf .
lemma[lemma : noetherherglotz1 - 1 ] ) .
but the rigidity condition ( [ eq : def : rigmo ] ) means that @xmath216 , and hence its curvature , can not change along the motion .
therefore , even though we can keep a body in uniform rigid rotational motion , we can not put it into this state from rest by purely rigid motions , since this would imply a transition from a flat to a curved geometry of the body .
this was first pointed out by ehrenfest  @xcite .
below we will give a concise analytical expression of this fact ( cf .
equation  ( [ eq : omegaliezero ] ) ) .
all this is in contrast to the translational motion , as we will also see below .
the proof of theorem[thm : noetherherglotz1 ] relies on arguments from differential geometry proper and is somewhat tricky . here
we present the essential steps , basically following @xcite and @xcite in a slightly modernised notation .
some straightforward calculational details will be skipped .
the argument itself is best broken down into several lemmas .    at the heart of the proof
lies the following general construction : let @xmath1 be the spacetime manifold with metric @xmath30 and @xmath736 the open region in which the normalised vector field @xmath76 is defined .
we take @xmath214 to be simply connected .
the orbits of @xmath76 foliate @xmath214 and hence define an equivalence relation on @xmath214 given by @xmath184 iff @xmath62 and @xmath140 lie on the same orbit .
the quotient space @xmath737 is itself a manifold .
tensor fields on @xmath738 can be represented by ( i.e. are in bijective correspondence to ) tensor fields @xmath739 on @xmath214 which obey the two conditions :    [ eq : projectibility ] @xmath740    tensor fields satisfying ( [ eq : projectibility1 ] ) are called _ horizontal _ , those satisfying both conditions ( [ eq : projectibility ] ) are called _
projectable_. the @xmath741-dimensional metric tensor @xmath216 , defined in ( [ eq : hormetric ] ) , is an example of a projectable tensor if @xmath76 generates a rigid motion , as assumed here .
it turns @xmath742 into a @xmath741-dimensional riemannian manifold . the covariant derivative @xmath743 with respect to the levi - civita connection of @xmath216
is given by the following operation on projectable tensor fields : @xmath744 i.e. by first taking the covariant derivative @xmath724 ( levi - civita connection in @xmath745 ) in spacetime and then projecting the result horizontally .
this results again in a projectable tensor , as a straightforward calculation shows .
the horizontal projection of the spacetime curvature tensor can now be related to the curvature tensor of @xmath738 ( which is a projectable tensor field ) . without proof we state    [ lemma : noetherherglotz1 - 1 ]
let @xmath76 generate a rigid motion in spacetime .
then the horizontal projection of the totally covariant ( i.e. all indices down ) curvature tensor @xmath421 of @xmath746 is related to the totally covariant curvature tensor @xmath747 of @xmath742 by the following equation appears with a minus sign on the right hand side of ( [ eq : projectedcurvaturerelation ] ) because the first index on the hatted curvature tensor is lowered with @xmath216 rather than @xmath30 .
this induces a minus sign due to ( [ eq : hormetric ] ) , i.e. as a result of our ` mostly - minus'-convention for the signature of the spacetime metric . ] : @xmath748 where @xmath749 is the total antisymmetriser , which here projects tensors of rank four onto their totally antisymmetric part .
formula ( [ eq : projectedcurvaturerelation ] ) is true in any spacetime dimension @xmath18 .
note that the projector @xmath750 guarantees consistency with the first bianchi identities for @xmath421 and @xmath747 , which state that the total antisymmetrisation in their last three slots vanish identically .
this is consistent with ( [ eq : projectedcurvaturerelation ] ) since for tensors of rank four with the symmetries of @xmath751 the total antisymmetrisation on tree slots is identical to @xmath749 , the symmetrisation on all four slots .
the claim now simply follows from @xmath752 .
we now restrict to spacetime dimensions of four or less , i.e. @xmath753 . in this case
@xmath754 since @xmath672 makes the tensor effectively live over @xmath125 dimensions , and any totally antisymmetric four - tensor in three or less dimensions must vanish . applied to ( [ eq : projectedcurvaturerelation ] ) this means that @xmath755 , for horizontality of @xmath717 implies @xmath756 .
hence the right hand side of ( [ eq : projectedcurvaturerelation ] ) just contains the pure tensor product @xmath757 .
now , in our case @xmath758 since @xmath745 is flat minkowski space .
this has two interesting consequences : first , @xmath742 is curved iff the motion is rotational , as exemplified above .
second , since @xmath747 is projectable , its lie derivative with respect to @xmath76 vanishes . hence ( [ eq : projectedcurvaturerelation ] ) implies @xmath759 , which is equivalent to . ]
@xmath760 this says that the vorticity can not change along a rigid motion in flat space .
it is the precise expression for the remark above that you can not rigidly _ set _ a disk into rotation .
note that it also provides the justification for the global classification of rigid motions into rotational and irrotational ones .    a sharp and useful criterion for whether a rigid motion is killing or not is given by the following    [ lemma : noetherherglotz1 - 2 ] let @xmath76 be a normalised timelike vector field on a region @xmath761 .
the motion generated by @xmath76 is killing iff it is rigid and @xmath762 is exact on @xmath214 .
that the motion generated by @xmath76 be killing is equivalent to the existence of a positive function @xmath763 such that @xmath764 , i.e. @xmath765 . in view of ( [ eq : thetaomega1 ] )
this is equivalent to @xmath766 which , in turn , is equivalent to @xmath727 and @xmath767 .
this is true since @xmath716 is horizontal , @xmath768 , whereas the first term in ( [ eq : matteo1 ] ) vanishes upon applying @xmath672 .
the result now follows from reading this equivalence both ways : 1 )  the killing condition for @xmath769 implies rigidity for @xmath76 and exactness of @xmath762 .
2 )  rigidity of @xmath76 and @xmath770 imply that @xmath769 is killing , where @xmath771 .
we now return to the condition ( [ eq : omegaliezero ] ) and express @xmath772 in terms of @xmath723 . for this
we recall that @xmath677 ( cf .
footnote[foot : lievel ] ) and that lie derivatives on forms commute with exterior derivatives , where @xmath773 is the map of inserting @xmath76 in the first slot . ] .
hence we have @xmath774 here we used the fact that the additional terms that result from the lie derivative of the projection tensor @xmath672 vanish , as a short calculation shows , and also that on forms the projection tensor @xmath672 can be written as @xmath775 , where @xmath773 denotes the map of insertion of @xmath76 in the first slot .
now we prove    [ lemma : noetherherglotz1 - 3 ] let @xmath76 generate a rigid motion in flat space such that @xmath776 , then @xmath777    equation ( [ eq : omegaliezero ] ) says that @xmath717 is projectable ( it is horizontal by definition ) .
hence @xmath778 is projectable , which implies @xmath779 using ( [ eq : decveloneform ] ) with @xmath727 one has @xmath780 antisymmetrisation in the first two tensor slots makes the first term on the right vanish due to the flatness on @xmath724 .
the antisymmetrised right hand side is hence equal to @xmath781 .
taking the lie derivative of both sides makes the left hand side vanish due to ( [ eq : hatnablaomega1 ] ) , so that @xmath782 where we also used ( [ eq : omegaliezero ] ) .
so we see that @xmath783 if @xmath776 . )
is generally not true if @xmath728 ; see equation ( [ eq : proof : noeterherglotz2i ] ) . ]
the last three lemmas now constitute a proof for theorem[thm : noetherherglotz1 ] . indeed , using ( [ eq : lieacczero ] ) in ( [ eq : lieomega1 ] ) together with ( [ eq : omegaliezero ] ) shows @xmath784 , which , according to lemma[lemma : noetherherglotz1 - 2 ] , implies that the motion is killing .
next we turn to the second part of the theorem of noether and herglotz , which reads as follows :    [ thm : noetherherglotzp2 ] all irrotational rigid motions in minkowski space are given by the following construction : take a twice continuously differentiable curve @xmath785 in minkowski space , where w.l.o.g @xmath699 is the eigentime , so that @xmath786 .
let @xmath787 be the hyperplane through @xmath788 intersecting the curve @xmath789 perpendicularly .
let @xmath214 be a the tubular neighbourhood of @xmath789 in which no two hyperplanes @xmath790 intersect for any pair @xmath791 of points on the curve . in @xmath214
define @xmath76 as the unique ( once differentiable ) normalised timelike vector field perpendicular to all @xmath792 .
the flow of @xmath76 is the sought - for rigid motion .
we first show that the flow so defined is indeed rigid , even though this is more or less obvious from its very definition , since we just defined it by ` rigidly ' moving a hyperplane through spacetime . in any case , analytically we have , @xmath793 in @xmath214 any @xmath262 lies on exactly one such hyperplane , @xmath794 , which means that there is a function @xmath795 so that @xmath796 and hence @xmath797 .
this implies @xmath798 . using the expression for @xmath9 from ( [ eq : proof : noeterherglotz2a ] )
this is equivalent to @xmath799\,,\ ] ] where ` @xmath800 ' denotes the ` identity vector - field ' , @xmath801 , in minkowski space .
note that in @xmath214 we certainly have @xmath802 and hence @xmath803 .
in @xmath214 we now define the normalised timelike vector field , @xmath804 . ]
@xmath805 using ( [ eq : proof : noeterherglotz2b ] ) , its derivative is given by @xmath806/(n^2c^2)\,,\ ] ] where @xmath807 this immediately shows that @xmath808 ( since @xmath809 ) and therefore that @xmath810 .
hence @xmath76 , as defined in ( [ eq : proof : noeterherglotz2c ] ) , generates an irrotational rigid motion .    for the converse
we need to prove that any irrotational rigid motion is obtained by such a construction .
so suppose @xmath76 is a normalised timelike vector field such that @xmath810 .
vanishing @xmath717 means @xmath811 .
this is equivalent to @xmath812 , which according to the frobenius theorem in differential geometry is equivalent to the integrability of the distribution it denotes an assignment of a linear subspace @xmath813 in the tangent space @xmath814 to each point @xmath62 of @xmath1 .
the distribution @xmath815 is defined by @xmath816 .
a distribution is called ( locally ) integrable if ( in the neighbourhood of each point ) there is a submanifold @xmath817 of @xmath1 whose tangent space at any @xmath818 is just @xmath813 . ] @xmath815 , i.e. the hypersurface orthogonality of @xmath76 .
we wish to show that the hypersurfaces orthogonal to @xmath76 are hyperplanes . to this end consider a spacelike curve @xmath819 , where @xmath397 is the proper length , running within one hypersurface perpendicular to @xmath76 .
the component of its second @xmath397-derivative parallel to the hypersurface is given by ( to save notation we now simply write @xmath76 and @xmath820 instead of @xmath821 and @xmath822 ) @xmath823 where we made a partial differentiation in the second step and then used @xmath727 .
geodesics in the hypersurface are curves whose second derivative with respect to proper length have vanishing components parallel to the hypersurface .
now , ( [ eq : proof : noeterherglotz2f ] ) implies that geodesics in the hypersurface are geodesics in minkowski space ( the hypersurface is ` totally geodesic ' ) , i.e. given by straight lines .
hence the hypersurfaces are hyperplanes .
theorem[thm : noetherherglotzp2 ] precisely corresponds to the newtonian counterpart : the irrotational motion of a rigid body is determined by the worldline of any of its points , and any timelike worldline determines such a motion .
we can rigidly put an extended body into any state of translational motion , as long as the size of the body is limited by @xmath706 , where @xmath239 is the modulus of its acceleration .
this also shows that ( [ eq : lieacczero ] ) is generally not valid for irrotational rigid motions .
in fact , the acceleration one - form field for ( [ eq : proof : noeterherglotz2c ] ) is @xmath824 from which one easily computes @xmath825 from this one sees , for example , that for _ constant acceleration _ , defined by @xmath826 ( constant acceleration in time as measured in the instantaneous rest frame ) , we have @xmath784 and hence a killing motion . clearly , this is just the motion ( [ eq : boostkill2 ] ) for the boost killing field ( [ eq : boostkill1 ] ) .
the lie derivative of @xmath762 is now easily obtained : @xmath827 showing explicitly that it is not zero except for motions of constant acceleration , which were just seen to be killing motions .
in contrast to the irrotational case just discussed , we have seen that we can not put a body rigidly into rotational motion . in the old days
this was sometimes expressed by saying that the rigid body in sr has only three instead of six degrees of freedom .
this was clearly thought to be paradoxical as long as one assumed that the notion of a perfectly rigid body should also make sense in the framework of sr .
however , this hope was soon realized to be physically untenable  @xcite .
in this appendix we spell out in detail some of the mathematical notions that were used in the main text .      given a set @xmath2 , recall that an _ equivalence relation _ is a subset @xmath508 such that for all @xmath828 the following conditions hold : 1 )  @xmath829 ( called ` reflexivity ' ) , 2 )  if @xmath830 then @xmath831 ( called ` symmetry ' ) , and 3 )  if @xmath830 and @xmath832 then @xmath833 ( called ` transitivity ' ) .
once @xmath421 is given , one often conveniently writes @xmath184 instead of @xmath830 .
given @xmath507 , its _ equivalence class _
, @xmath834\subseteq s$ ] , is given by all points @xmath421-related to @xmath62 , i.e. @xmath834:=\{q\in s\mid ( p , q)\in r\}$ ] .
one easily shows that equivalence classes are either identical or disjoint .
hence they form a _ partition _ of @xmath2 , that is , a covering by mutually disjoint subsets .
conversely , given a partition of a set @xmath2 , it defines an equivalence relation by declaring two points as related iff they are members of the same cover set .
hence there is a bijective correspondence between partitions of and equivalence relations on a set @xmath2 .
the set of equivalence classes is denoted by @xmath835 or @xmath836 .
there is a natural surjection @xmath837 , @xmath838 $ ] .
if in the definition of equivalence relation we exchange symmetry for antisymmetry , i.e. @xmath830 and @xmath831 implies @xmath839 , the relation is called a _ partial order _ , usually written as @xmath131 for @xmath830 .
if , instead , reflexivity is dropped and symmetry is replaced by asymmetry , i.e. @xmath830 implies @xmath840 , one obtains a relation called a _ strict partial order _ , usually denoted by @xmath841 for @xmath830 .
an _ left action _ of a group @xmath249 on a set @xmath2 is a map @xmath842 , such that @xmath843 ( @xmath844 group identity ) and @xmath845 .
if instead of the latter equation we have @xmath846 one speaks of a _
right action_. for left actions one sometimes conveniently writes @xmath847 , for right actions @xmath848 .
an action is called _ transitive _ if for every pair @xmath849 there is a @xmath850 such that @xmath851 , and _ simply transitive _ if , in addition , @xmath852 determine @xmath30 uniquely , that is , @xmath853 for some @xmath397 implies @xmath854 .
the action is called _ effective _ if @xmath855 for all @xmath397 implies @xmath856 ( ` every @xmath857 moves something ' ) and _ free _ if @xmath855 for some @xmath397 implies @xmath856 ( ` no @xmath857 has a fixed point ' ) .
it is obvious that simple transitivity implies freeness and that , conversely , freeness and transitivity implies simple transitivity .
moreover , for abelian groups , effectivity and transitivity suffice to imply simple transitivity .
indeed , suppose @xmath858 holds for some @xmath859 , then we also have @xmath860 for all @xmath861 and hence @xmath862 by commutativity .
this implies that @xmath858 holds , in fact , for all @xmath397 .
for any @xmath859 we can consider the _ stabilizer subgroup _ @xmath863 if @xmath112 is transitive , any two stabilizer subgroups are conjugate : @xmath864 . by definition , if @xmath112 is free all stabilizer subgroups are trivial ( consist of the identity element only ) . in general
, the intersection @xmath865 is the normal subgroup of elements acting trivially on @xmath2 .
if @xmath112 is an action of @xmath249 on @xmath2 , then there is an effective action @xmath866 of @xmath867 on @xmath2 , defined by @xmath868,s):=\phi(g , s)$ ] , where @xmath869 $ ] denotes the @xmath870-coset of @xmath870 in @xmath249 .
the _ orbit _ of @xmath397 in @xmath2 under the action @xmath112 of @xmath249 is the subset @xmath871 it is easy to see that group orbits are either disjoint or identical .
hence they define a partition of @xmath2 , that is , an equivalence relation .
a relation @xmath421 on @xmath2 is said to be invariant under the self map @xmath3 if @xmath872 .
it is said to be invariant under the action @xmath112 of @xmath249 on @xmath2 if @xmath873 for all @xmath850 .
if @xmath421 is such a @xmath249-invariant equivalence relation , there is an action @xmath874 of @xmath249 on the set @xmath835 of equivalence classes , defined by @xmath875):=[\phi(g , p)]$ ] .
a general theorem states that invariant equivalence relations exist for transitive group actions , iff the stabilizer subgroups ( which in the transitive case are all conjugate ) are maximal ( e.g. theorem1.12 in @xcite ) .
[ def : affinespace ] an @xmath18-dimensional * affine space * over the field @xmath876 ( usually @xmath296 or @xmath877 ) is a triple @xmath878 , where @xmath2 is a non - empty set , @xmath19 an @xmath18-dimensional vector space over @xmath876 , and @xmath879 an effective and transitive action @xmath880 of @xmath19 ( considered as abelian group with respect to addition of vectors ) on @xmath2 .
we remark that an effective and transitive action of an abelian group is necessarily simply transitive .
hence , without loss of generality , we could have required a simply transitive action in definition[def : affinespace ] straightaway .
we also note that even though the action @xmath879 only refers to the abelian group structure of @xmath19 , it is nevertheless important for the definition of an affine space that @xmath19 is , in fact , a vector space ( see below ) .
any ordered pair of points @xmath881 uniquely defines a vector @xmath60 , namely that for which @xmath882 .
it can be thought of as the difference vector pointing from @xmath140 to @xmath62 .
we write @xmath883 , where @xmath884 is a map which satisfies the conditions        [ thm : altdefaffspace ] let @xmath2 be a non - empty set , @xmath19 an @xmath18-dimensional vector space over @xmath876 and @xmath884 a map satisfying conditions  ( [ eq : affdiffmap ] ) . then @xmath2 is an @xmath18-dimensional affine space over @xmath876 with action @xmath886 .
one usually writes @xmath887 , which defines what is meant by ` @xmath80 ' between an element of an affine space and an element of @xmath19 .
note that addition of two points in affine space is not defined .
the property of being an action now states @xmath888 and @xmath889 , so that in the latter case we may just write @xmath890 .
similarly we write @xmath891 , defining what is meant by ` @xmath81 ' between two elements of affine space .
the minus sign also makes sense between an element of affine space and an element of vector space if one defines @xmath892 .
we may now write equations like @xmath893 the formal proof of which is again left to the reader .
it implies that    considered as abelian group , any linear subspace @xmath56 defines a subgroup .
the orbit of that subgroup in @xmath2 through @xmath507 is an affine subspace , denoted by @xmath68 , i.e. @xmath894 which is an affine space over @xmath67 in its own right of dimension @xmath895 .
one - dimensional affine subspaces are called _ ( straight ) lines _ , two - dimensional ones _ planes _ , and those of co - dimension one are called _
affine morphisms , or simply affine maps , are structure preserving maps between affine spaces .
to define them in view of definition[def : affinespace ] we recall once more the significance of @xmath19 being a vector space and not just an abelian group .
this enters the following definition in an essential way , since there are considerably more automorphisms of @xmath19 as abelian group , i.e. maps @xmath28 that satisfy @xmath896 for all @xmath32 , than automorphisms of @xmath19 as linear space which , in addition , need to satisfy @xmath897 for all @xmath45 and all @xmath898 ) . in fact , the difference is precisely that the latter are all continuous automorphisms of @xmath19 ( considered as topological abelian group ) , whereas there are plenty ( uncountably many ) discontinuous ones , see @xcite . , then it is easy to see that @xmath896 for all @xmath32 implies @xmath897 for all @xmath45 and all @xmath899 ( rational numbers ) . for continuous @xmath9
this implies the same for all @xmath900 .
all discontinuous @xmath9 are obtained as follows : let @xmath901 be a ( necessarily uncountable ) basis of @xmath296 as vector space over @xmath902 ( ` hamel basis ' ) , prescribe any values @xmath903 , and extend @xmath9 linearly to all of @xmath296 .
any value - prescription for which @xmath904 is not constant gives rise to a non @xmath296-linear and discontinuous @xmath9 .
such @xmath9 are ` wildly ' discontinuous in the following sense : for _ any _ interval @xmath905 , @xmath906 is dense  @xcite . ]      in the convenient way of writing introduced above , this is equivalent to @xmath911 for all @xmath912 and all @xmath45 .
( note that the @xmath80 sign on the left refers to the action @xmath879 of @xmath19 on @xmath2 , whereas that on the right refers to the action @xmath913 of @xmath914 on @xmath526 . )
this shows that an affine map @xmath159 is determined once the linear map @xmath9 between the underlying vector spaces is given and the image @xmath497 of an arbitrary point @xmath140 is specified .
equation ( [ eq : affinemap2 ] ) can be rephrased as follows :      setting @xmath915 equation ( [ eq : affinemap2 ] ) is equivalent to @xmath916 for all @xmath917 . in view of the alternative definition of affine spaces suggested by proposition[thm : altdefaffspace ] , this shows that we could have defined affine maps alternatively to ( [ eq : affinemap1 ] ) by ( @xmath918 is the difference map in @xmath526 ) @xmath919 affine bijections of an affine space @xmath878 onto itself form a group , the _ affine group _ , denoted by @xmath920 .
group multiplication is just given by composition of maps , that is @xmath921 .
it is immediate that the composed maps again satisfy  ( [ eq : affinemap1 ] ) .    for any @xmath45 ,
the map @xmath922 is an affine bijection for which @xmath923 . note that in this case ( [ eq : affinemap1 ] ) simply turns into the requirement @xmath924 for all @xmath106 , which is clearly satisfied due to @xmath19 being a commutative group .
hence there is a natural embedding @xmath925 , the image @xmath926of which is called the subgroup of _ translations_. the map @xmath927 defines a group homomorphism @xmath928 , since @xmath929 .
we have just seen that the translations are in the kernel of this map .
in fact , the kernel is equal to the subgroup @xmath926 of translations , as one easily infers from ( [ eq : affinemap3 ] ) with @xmath923 , which is equivalent to @xmath930 for all @xmath917 .
hence there exists a @xmath45 such that for all @xmath507 we have @xmath931 .
the quotient group @xmath932 is then clearly isomorphic to @xmath933 .
there are also embeddings @xmath934 , but no canonical one : each one depends on the choice of a reference point @xmath935 , and is given by @xmath936 , where @xmath937 for all @xmath507 .
this shows that @xmath920 is isomorphic to the semi - direct product @xmath938 , though the isomorphism depends on the choice of @xmath935 .
the action of @xmath939 on @xmath507 is then defined by @xmath940 which is easily checked to define indeed an ( @xmath108 dependent ) action of @xmath938 on @xmath2 .
[ def : linearframe ] a * linear frame * of the @xmath18-dimensional vector space @xmath19 over @xmath876 is a basis @xmath941 of @xmath19 , regarded as a linear isomorphism @xmath942 , given by @xmath943 .
the set of linear frames of @xmath19 is denoted by @xmath944 .
there is a natural right action of @xmath946 on @xmath944 , given by @xmath947 .
it is immediate that this action is simply transitive .
it is sometimes called the _ passive interpretation _ of the transformation group @xmath946 , presumably because it moves the frames  associated to the observer  and not the points of @xmath19 .    on the other hand , any frame @xmath9 induces an isomorphism of algebras @xmath948 , given by @xmath949 . if @xmath950 , then @xmath951 , where @xmath941 .
restricted to @xmath952 , this induces a group isomorphism @xmath953 and hence an @xmath9-dependent action of @xmath946 on @xmath19 by linear transformations , defined by @xmath954 , where @xmath955 .
this is sometimes called the _ active interpretation _ of the transformation group @xmath946 , presumably because it really moves the points of @xmath19 .
[ def : affineframe ] an * affine frame * of the @xmath18-dimensional affine space @xmath878 over @xmath876 is a tuple @xmath956 , where @xmath108 is a base point in @xmath2 and @xmath942 is a linear frame of @xmath19 .
@xmath159 is regarded as a map @xmath957 , given by @xmath958 .
we denote the set of affine frames by @xmath959 .
if we regard @xmath945 as an affine space @xmath961 , it comes with a distinguished base point @xmath108 , the zero vector .
the group @xmath962 is therefore naturally isomorphic to @xmath963 .
the latter naturally acts on @xmath945 in the standard way , @xmath964 , where group multiplication is given by @xmath965 the group @xmath963 has a natural right action on @xmath959 , where @xmath966 .
explicitly , for @xmath967 and @xmath968 , this action reads : @xmath969 it is easy to verify directly that this is an action which , moreover , is again simply transitive .
it is referred to as the _ passive interpretation _ of the affine group @xmath963 .
conversely , depending on the choice of an affine frame @xmath970 , there is a group isomorphism @xmath971 , given by @xmath972 , and hence an @xmath159 dependent action of @xmath963 by affine maps on @xmath878 .
if @xmath968 and @xmath973 , the action reads @xmath974 this is called the _ active interpretation _ of the affine group @xmath963 .
an affine frame @xmath975 with @xmath941 defines @xmath976 points @xmath977 , where @xmath978 and @xmath979 for @xmath980 .
conversely , any @xmath976 points @xmath977 in affine space , for which @xmath981 are linearly independent , define an affine frame . note that this linear independence does not depend on the choice of @xmath982 as our base point , as one easily sees from the identity @xmath983 which holds for any set @xmath984 of @xmath985 points in affine space . to prove it one just needs ( [ eq : affdistributivity ] ) .
hence we say that these points are _ affinely independent _ iff , e.g. , the set of @xmath0 vectors @xmath986 is linearly independent . therefore , an affine frame of @xmath18-dimensional affine space is equivalent to @xmath976 affinely independent points .
such a set of points is also called an _
affine basis_.        this motivates writing the sums on the right hand sides of ( [ eq : affbasisexp ] ) in a perfectly symmetric way without preference of any point @xmath995 : @xmath996 where the right hand side is defined by any of the expressions ( [ eq : affbasisexp ] ) .
this defines certain _ linear combinations _ of affine points , namely those whose coefficients add up to one .
accordingly , the _ affine span _ of points @xmath997 in affine space is defined by @xmath998                        harvey brown and oliver pooley .
minkowski space - time : a glorious non - entity . in dennis dieks , editor , _ the ontology of spacetime _ ,
volume  1 of _ philosophy and foundations of physics _ , pages 6792 , 2006 .
andrzej trautman .
foundations and current problems of general relativity . in andrzej trautman ,
felix pirani , and hermann bondi , editors , _ lectures on general relativity _ , volume  1 of _ brandeis summer institute in theoretical physics _ , pages 1248 .
prentice - hall , inc .
, englewood cliffs , new jersey , 1964 .