Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Hi, I have a question regarding the foliation of spacetime by slices of constant "time".
I know that such a foliation is possible given a globally hyperbolic manifold, and one can define a "time function" t, the level sets of which are 3D Cauchy surfaces which foliate the spacetime. My question is, if we define a "time vector" to this foliation by the requirement that [itex]t^\mu\nabla_\mu t=1[/itex], why is this "time vector" not (in general) orthogonal to the spacelike Cauchy surfaces? The lapse function and shift vector measure the amount by which this time vector fails to be orthogonal to the Cauchy surfaces, but it seems to me that due to that requirement above, the vector should always be orthogonal shouldn't it? My logic is such: since t is a scalar function, the covariant derivative of it is nothing other than its (one form) gradient, and the (vector) gradient of a function is always orthogonal to the level sets of the function is it not? 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Wait a moment, I think I figured it out. The vector gradient is not, in general, [itex]t^\mu[/itex] right, it's [itex]g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\nu t\neq t^\mu[/itex] as defined above. So it seems that The definition of the time vector via [itex]t^\mu\nabla_\mu t=1[/itex] is requiring me to rotate away from the normal such that the vector pierces only 1 level set of the gradient.
Why is this desirable or necessary? Is it impossible to define my "time vector" as some normalized version of [itex]g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\nu t[/itex] so that at least it's still orthogonal? 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Maybe it's simply worded poorly. I find a lot of the older physicists' presentation of GR concepts very tedious and hard to follow.
Any metric [itex]g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu[/itex] can always be written [tex]g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu = g_{tt} dt^2 + 2 g_{ti} dt dx^i + g_{ij} dx^i dx^j,[/tex] so that is how the lapse and shift functions turn up. The rest is a matter of finding a time function to give you the coordinate t. 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
So, basically I can just think of them as a method to break down the metric from a 4x4 matrix into a block of 1, 1x3, 3x1, and 3x3 matrix?
I also see Wald make statements like "[itex]h_{ab}[/itex] is the induced spatial metric given by: [tex]h_{ab}=g_{ab}+n_a n_b[/tex]", and I can't make heads or tails of this equation because h should be a 3x3 matrix while g should be 4x4. What does this mean? This issue seems related. 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
[tex]n^a n^b h_{ab}=?[/tex]

Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
I don't think I follow, sorry...I just don't see I can have a 3D object on the left and a 4D object on the right.
Maybe if we just took a really simple example, a trivial example, of a Minkowski spacetime which is foliated by the global coordinate time t. In this case g=diag(1,1,1,1), n=(1,0,0,0), and h=diag(1,1,1) right? Or is h=diag(0,1,1,1) so I should interpret h as a 4D object but with one of the rows and columns all 0? 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
[tex]n^a n^b h_{ab}=?[/tex]
Now suppose [itex]v^a[/itex] is orthogonal to [itex]n^a[/itex]. [tex]v^a v^b h_{ab}=?[/tex] What are the results of these calculations? 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Quote:
Quote:
Now choose an othonormal that has [itex]n^a[/itex] as one element. What does the matrix for [itex]h[/itex] with respect to this basis look like? 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
"reading" this thread makes me wish I learned math. :(

Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Can you tell me if h is a 3x3 or a 4x4 matrix first? I think I'm pretty much just stuck on that. I don't even know what it is, is I guess what I'm saying, so if you ask me to calculate anything with it, I'm pretty lost.

Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Right now, think 4x4.

Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Ok, then does that mean that if I choose n=(1,0,0,0), then h is a block matrix with 0's for the 0th row and column, and a 3x3 submatrix? If I don't choose such nice coordinates, doesn't that mean my h will not have this nice structure?

Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
I think I get where you're going. The defining aspects of the induced metric is [itex]n^a n^b h_{ab}=0[/itex] and [itex]v^a v^b h_{ab}=v^a v^b g_{ab}[/itex] right, and then because this is so, if I choose coordinates in which the normal vectors are (1,0,0,0) then I can simply reduce h into a nice 3x3 matrix with extra padded 0's. If I don't choose to do this, h is simply some 4x4 symmetric matrix with 4 additional constraints. Is that so?

Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Some more help on this would be nice, thanks.

Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Yes, note more precisely that [itex]n^ah_{ab}=0[/itex] (and itex]v^av^bh_{ab}=v^av^bg_{ab}[/itex]). So this is really what you see as the induced metric: it gives the correct inner product for vectors tangent to the hypersurfaces (and it's not a metric on the 4D space, since there it is degenerate).
On the lapse and shift thing: note that there is no reason for [itex]\nabla_\mu t[/itex] to be parallel to the normal (or orthogonal to the tangent space to the hypersurfaces). So just call the component tangent to the hypersurface the shift vector, and the component of the normal the shift vector [tex]\nabla_\mu t = N n_\mu + N_\mu.[/tex] 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
I can't figure out what George is getting at, sorry. The induced metric on should only be 3x3.
Generically what you're doing is you have some global time function [itex]t[/itex] with gradient [itex]dt[/itex]. You want to find the induced metric on the level sets of [itex]dt[/itex]. The level sets of [itex]dt[/itex] are generated by a triplet of linearlyindependent vector fields X, Y, Z such that [tex]dt(X) = dt(Y) = dt(Z) = 0.[/tex] In order that each level set be a surface, this set of vector fields needs to be integrable; that is, the set should be closed under the Lie bracket. This should hold automatically, given that [itex]t[/itex] is a global time function, and X, Y, Z are everywhere perpendicular to [itex]dt[/itex]. Then the induced metric [itex]h[/itex] can be given by (where X and Y are some vectors within the level surface) [tex]\begin{align}h(X,Y) &= g(X,Y) = g_{tt} dt(X) dt(Y) + g_{ti} \Big( dt(X) dx^i(Y) + dt(Y) dx^i(X) \Big) + g_{ij} dx^i(X) dx^j(Y) \\ &= 0 + 0 + g_{ij} X^i Y^j. \end{align}[/tex] So perhaps this is what George means by "think of [itex]h[/itex] as 4x4". Note that I'm assuming the vectors X and Y are already tangent to the level surfaces of [itex]dt[/itex]. One can imagine instead a 4x4 metric on general vectors that includes some extra terms to project those vectors onto the level surfaces of [itex]dt[/itex]. I think that is what George wrote down. But I wouldn't call that the "induced metric", since it acts on a vector space of the wrong dimension. I also see that I haven't used the covariant derivative [itex]\nabla_\mu t[/itex] anywhere; I'm not sure exactly why this is needed. Probably the method I am outlining above is a different route to the same result, rather than the method Wald (?) is using. 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Quote:
Since [itex]h_{\mu\nu}n^\mu[/itex] is 0, this [itex]h[/itex] really behaves as a 3x3 metric on the hypersurfaces. 
Re: Lapse function and spacetime splicing
Quote:

All times are GMT 5. The time now is 07:56 AM. 
Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000  2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014 Physics Forums