Kruskal Coordinates in Schwartzchild metric

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mad mathematician
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Kruskal coordinates in the Schwarzschild metric as presented in Birrell and Davies' book on Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime. Participants analyze the transformation of the metric, specifically the changes from ##2M/r## to ##(1-2M/r)## and from ##e^{-r/2M}## to ##e^{-r^*/2M}##. The calculations provided confirm that the transformed metric retains a coordinate singularity at ##r=2M##, and corrections to the equations are discussed to ensure accurate representation of the Schwarzschild metric.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity and the Schwarzschild metric
  • Familiarity with Kruskal coordinates and their transformations
  • Proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical expressions
  • Basic knowledge of Quantum Field Theory in curved spacetime
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Kruskal coordinates in detail
  • Explore the implications of coordinate singularities in general relativity
  • Learn about the Schwarzschild solution and its physical significance
  • Investigate the role of advanced mathematical tools like differential geometry in general relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in general relativity and quantum field theory, as well as students seeking to deepen their understanding of curved spacetime metrics and transformations.

mad mathematician
Messages
137
Reaction score
23
I am reading the book by Birrell and Davies on QFT on curved spacetime.
On page 40 they write the following metric:
1766758466483.webp

and on the following page they provide the Kruskal Coordiantes and the changed metric:
1766758539517.webp

Now, I get something a little bit different than theirs.
According to my computations, if we change ##2M/r## to ##(1-2M/r)## and ##e^{-r/2M}## to ##e^{-r^*/2m}##, then I get that by Kruskal transformation that (3.20) is equivalent to (3.18).
Am I right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I understand you correctly: wouldn't that mean that your version of the Kruskal metric still has a coordinate singularity at r=2M?

So no, that doesn't seem right.
 
mad mathematician said:
Now, I get something a little bit different than theirs.
If you'll post your calculations, we'll be able to comment (and if you do so, please use LaTeX (which enables quoting)).
 
OK, here are my calculations. Let me know where did I get it wrong.
So we have the following: ##d\bar{u}=e^{-u/4M}du## and ##d\bar{v}=e^{v/4M}dv##.
Now, we should multiply ##d\bar{u}d\bar{v}=e^{(v-u)/4M}dudv##.
Now, ##du=dt-dr^* , dv=dt+dr^*##, so multiply and get:
##d\bar{u}d\bar{v}=e^{(v-u)/4M}(dt^2-(dr^*)^2)##, notice that: ##v-u=2r^*##, and ##dr^*=dr+dr/(r/2M-1)=dr/(1-2M/r)##, plug the last two equations and get: ##d\bar{u}d\bar{v}=e^{r^*/2M}(dt^2-dr^2/(1-2M/r)^2)##.
So as we can see, I hope, we get back the Schwarzchild metric (eq. 3.18), if we multiply ##d\bar{u}d\bar{v}## by ##e^{-r^*/2M}(1-2M/r)##.

Your comments are well appreciated, thanks!

Edit: changed what @JimWhoKnew rightly so remarked my mistake.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't it be
##dr^*=dr+dr/(r/2M-1)=dr/(1-2M/r)##
?

I didn't read beyond that. I'll do, if necessary, after your reply.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory
JimWhoKnew said:
Shouldn't it be
##dr^*=dr+dr/(r/2M-1)=dr/(1-2M/r)##
?

I didn't read beyond that. I'll do, if necessary, after your reply.
good catch, I'll change it. you are right.
 
mad mathematician said:
good catch, I'll change it. you are right.
I lost track.
Can you see that after the correction, you have$$\frac{2M}r e^{-r/2M}d\bar{u}d\bar{v}=\frac{2M}r e^{-r/2M}e^{r^*/2M}(dt^2-dr^2/(1-2M/r)^2)$$which correctly yields the corresponding terms in Schwarzschild metric?
(when ##~r>2M~##)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory
JimWhoKnew said:
I lost track.
Can you see that after the correction, you have$$\frac{2M}r e^{-r/2M}d\bar{u}d\bar{v}=\frac{2M}r e^{-r/2M}e^{r^*/2M}(dt^2-dr^2/(1-2M/r)^2)$$which correctly yields the corresponding terms in Schwarzschild metric?
(when ##~r>2M~##)
There should be a difference between ##r## and ##r^*##, they aren't the same.
 
mad mathematician said:
There should be a difference between ##r## and ##r^*##, they aren't the same.
Of course they are not. That's how you can get the factors right.

Hint: use ##~e^{\ln{x}}=x~## in the equation in #7.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory and mad mathematician
  • #10
Thanks that cleared my perplexion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K