What are valid coordinate transforms (diffeomorphisms)?

PAllen
Science Advisor
Messages
9,330
Reaction score
2,538
The thread bcrowell had on time reversal in GR got me thinking about this. Some limitations are obvious: mapping two events onto one, discontinuity,...

I will use x*, t*, etc. to refere to tansformed coordinates (primes always confuse me with derivatives).

Similarly, the transform x* = t, t* =x, is really just relabeling the time axis with the letter x instead of t; it isn't really doing anything physical. You would have to identify x* as the coordinate with all the properties of time after this transform. Physics doesn't care what letter I use.

But what about something like the following, based on a starting coordinate system that is maximally inertial minkowski in some local region (I assume c=1):

x*=t-x/2
t*=t+x/2

I now have two 'equally timelike' coordinates. Two of the basis vectors would be inside light cones instead of one. I can't see anything that prohibits this, yet I don't quite understand how to understand physics in such a coordinate system (for example, it doesn't identify any spacelike hypersurface).

Any insights welcomed.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, the standard definition is that it must be a one-to-one map between points in the manifold and points in R(n), and that it must be smooth and its inverse must be smooth. So I think that your coordinate system above satisfies all of that. There is not a requirement that the coordinate basis vectors be orthonormal, so I think that the absence of that requirement implies that you are not restricted to coordinate systems with 3 spacelike and 1 timelike coordinate basis vectors.

To get a physical feeling it sometimes helps to write the metric. In this case you get two spacelike terms (y² and z²) two timelike terms (t*² and x*²) and one off-diagonal term which can be either timelike or spacelike (t* x*).
 
Last edited:
I agree with DaleSpam that there is nothing wrong with the coordinates defined in #1. A similar example in Minkowski space is u=x+t, v=x-t, which I think is fairly common, and gives you two null basis vectors. The basic idea is that coordinates in GR don't have built-in meanings.
 
bcrowell said:
A similar example in Minkowski space is u=x+t, v=x-t, which I think is fairly common, and gives you two null basis vectors. The basic idea is that coordinates in GR don't have built-in meanings.
Yes. And you can see that they are null vectors by looking at the metric again. In this case the metric is -uv-y²-z². So u and v are indeed null vectors which do not contribute to the spacetime interval by themselves at all, and again an off-diagonal term uv appears which can be either timelike or spacelike.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
Back
Top