Clock synchronization for ring-riding observers on rotating disk

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the synchronization of clocks for Langevin observers on a rotating disk, specifically addressing the impossibility of global synchronization despite local synchronization capabilities. It is established that while co-rotating clocks can be synchronized locally using the standard Einstein synchronization method, they cannot achieve global synchronization due to the non-static nature of the Langevin congruence. The conversation references the Frobenius theorem, emphasizing that a timelike congruence must have zero vorticity to maintain hypersurface orthogonality, which is not the case for the rotating observers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein synchronization method
  • Familiarity with Langevin observers and their properties
  • Knowledge of the Frobenius theorem in differential geometry
  • Basic concepts of spacetime geometry and timelike congruences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Frobenius theorem on timelike congruences
  • Explore the properties of Minkowski spacetime and its coordinate charts
  • Investigate the concept of vorticity in general relativity
  • Learn about the synchronization of clocks in non-inertial frames
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in general relativity, researchers studying rotating systems, and anyone interested in the complexities of clock synchronization in non-inertial reference frames.

  • #61
At the beginning of this thread we talked about 'stationary' congruence like the Langevin congruence in Minkowski spacetime. Langevin congruence is defined as stationary just because its worldlines are integral orbits of a timelike Killing vector field (KVF).

If the above is correct then, by definition, given a spacetime the existence of at least one stationary congruence suffices to define it as a stationary spacetime, right ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
cianfa72 said:
by definition, given a spacetime the existence of at least one stationary congruence suffices to define it as a stationary spacetime, right ?
Yes.
 
  • #63
So in Minkowski spacetime there are some types of timelike KVFs (actually an infinite families of them): inertial KVFs, Rindler KVFs and Langevin KVFs (the corresponding integral orbits define indeed stationary congruences). Both the first two are also static since they are hypersurface orthogonal whilst the third is not.
 
  • #64
cianfa72 said:
So in Minkowski spacetime there are some types of timelike KVFs (actually an infinite families of them): inertial KVFs, Rindler KVFs and Langevin KVFs (the corresponding integral orbits define indeed stationary congruences). Both the first two are also static since they are hypersurface orthogonal whilst the third is not.
Yes. Note, however, that while the inertial KVFs are timelike everywhere, the others are not; they are only timelike in restricted open regions of the spacetime (in the Rindler case, the appropriate "wedges" where the hyperbolas that are the integral curves of the KVF are timelike; in the Langevin case, an open "tube" where the radius is small enough to make the helical integral curves of the KVF timelike).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
10K