Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Basic matrix representation question

  1. Jan 28, 2010 #1
    Hi guys,

    Just brushing up on my GR for a project and i have a silly question:

    For the spherical polar representation of the schwarzschild metric, the fact that there are no infintesimal-cross terms implies that the non-diagonal entries in the matrix representation are zero, correct? I guess what im asking is i know what the matrix looks like in cartesians for minkowski space, but obviously it doesn't look the same in spherical polars. Thus, can i simply take the coefficients of dr^2, dtheta^2 etc from the schwarzschild spacetime interval and plug them in as the diagonal components of g-mu,nu and label the columns/rows as spherical coordinates rather than cartesians?

    Hope that made sense :S


    EDIT: Also, can somebody provide a reference (i had a go at looking but couldn't find anything substantial) to show the metric inside a rigid gravitating body (Shwarz metric only valid r>R of course) or do you have to solve for it directly from the Einstein field equations? Surely this has been done before? Metric inside a static, constant density body?
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 29, 2010 #2
  4. Jan 29, 2010 #3
    Brilliant! Cheers. I hate reading stuff on google books so i went and grabbed it out the library, seems a very well laid out book in relativity in general, very useful!
  5. Jan 30, 2010 #4
    Can you clarify the first question and say what exactly you want? I can guess one senario: You might be looking for the Cartesian form of Schwarzschild metric which is presented in polar coordinates as


    So if you want to transfer this setup into the Cartesian coordinates by just labeling the rows and columns of the metric tensor of the SM as t,x,y,z, I must say it is incorrect! If this is what you mean, then I would go into the details. But if not, then adding a little bit more clear insight into the matter would be helpful for us to realize what the problem is!

    For the second question, see

    1- RELATIYITY THERMODYNAMICS AND COSMOLOGY by RICHARD C. TOLMAN, pp 245-247 (discussion of interior solution of Schwarzschild metric).

    2- Interior Solutions for Reissner-Nordstrom Field by N.O. Santos, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 1980, Vol. 64, No. 6, pp. 2021-2028. Find this article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980PThPh..64.2021S" (discussion of interior solution of Reissner-Nordstrom metric in which the author obtains some interior solutions for a charged perfect fluid sphere for which |q|>m. The solutions of Reissner-Nordstrom field are discussed for the case |q|<m in almost every textbook about GR.)


    4- GENERAL RELATIVITY by Robert M. Wald, pp 125-135.

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  6. Jan 30, 2010 #5
    Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation...

    I have a theoretical problem with reference 2:
    A first course in general relativity By Bernard F. Schutz

    The interior structure of the star: (page 258 - eq. 10.39)

    Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation (O-V):
    [tex]\frac{dP}{dr} = - \frac{(\rho + P)(m + 4 \pi r^3 P)}{r(r - 2m)}[/tex]

    According to reference 1, the Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation is based upon an incorrect Einstein tensor.

    Most of the equation solutions based upon the (O-V) equation listed on pg. 262 are probably also incorrect.

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  7. Jan 30, 2010 #6
    Re: Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation...

    Thanks goodness, Schutz recognizes the correct components of Einstein tensor, as is clear from the Eqs. (10.14) to (10.17). But guess what and think how he gets the equation (10.30) from the same corrected things we have https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2549441&postcount=6"?!!

    Our [tex]{\nu}'[/tex] based on the correct [tex]G_{11}[/tex] is

    [tex]{\nu}' = \frac{1}{r} \left( - \frac{8 \pi G T_{11} r^2}{c^4} + e^{\lambda} - 1 \right)[/tex].

    While his is the same as ours calculated according to the correct [tex]G_{11}[/tex] if and only if

    [tex]T_{11}=P(r)e^{\lambda}[/tex]. (1)

    Now let's denote the wrong [tex]G_{11}[/tex] by [tex]G^W_{11}[/tex] and Schutz's [tex]T_{11}[/tex] by [tex]T^S_{11}[/tex] thus keeping our own information as before. If again we set the Einstein equation for [tex]G_{11}[/tex], using (1) we would shockingly lead to

    [tex]8\pi GT_{11}/c^4= G^W_{11}[/tex], (2)

    where [tex]T_{11}= P(r)[/tex]. The whole thing is now clear: If we suppose the original OV equation that can be obtained from (2) is correct, then the differential equation of state for hydrostatic equilibrium wouldn't have a form like

    [tex]\frac{dP(r)}{dr} = - \frac{(T_{11} + T_{00})}{2}{\nu}'[/tex]. (3)

    Rather it must be of the form

    [tex]\frac{dP(r)}{dr} = - \frac{(\rho (r) + P(r))}{2}{\nu}'[/tex].

    You can see that due to this reason, Schutz does not use (3) because he is smart enough to not make a colossal mathematical mistake. But I have to say that this kind of tricky way of salvaging OV equation doesn't seem rational but it is definitely true because [tex]T^S_{11}[/tex] is the hydrostatic pressure around the Schwartzchild field while P(r) in the equation of state for hydrostatic equilibrium is the pressure of fluid itself!

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  8. Jan 30, 2010 #7
    No, i most definitely want to use polar coordinates so i can make use of spherical symmetry.
  9. Jan 30, 2010 #8
    I think I got you now! So


  10. Jan 31, 2010 #9
  11. Jan 31, 2010 #10
    That is a simple calculation which can be done here! I've not found any books giving the details of it because it is not of any interest! But If you are eager to know how they get it, I'm ready to show it in an exclusive thread, not in here!

  12. Jan 31, 2010 #11
    The calculation to include a curved metric into a quantum mechanical equation is simple? Yes, please show me :)
  13. Jan 31, 2010 #12
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook