I An alternative derivation of the equation of motion in General Relativity

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bishal Banjara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation
Bishal Banjara
Messages
93
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
I need a standard reference/s for an alternative form of the equation of motion in general relativity that I saw elsewhere.
I am extremely engaged in studying the different ways of derivation of the equation of motion in General Relativity. On the way, I found a very general form of the equation of motion that no standard books have done (to my knowledge).

Although the process is implemented in deriving the equation of motion for charged particles in standard books, it is done by none for the case of mass. Although it is not an authentic reference we can see the interaction term ##L_I## involved (added) to generalize the Lagrangian than that for the free particle somewhere in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Lagrangian_mechanics under the heading "Lagrangian formulation in general relativity."

This finally leads an extra term to the equation of motion ##f_{\alpha}## representing the additional source of force beside the gravitational force of the mass in reference by varying the lagrangians with the position of the particle. This is done without quoting any reference. I want to know its authenticity. Will anybody provide me with any authentic standard reference to this type of derivation? Or, is this the wrong way to do the job?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top