Constant Jacobian transformation of an inertial frame

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of a constant Jacobian transformation of a special relativity (SR) inertial frame, which results in a non-SR metric exhibiting relative acceleration of separation. Participants highlight that the acceleration vector, derived from the geodesic-metric equation, depends on the first partial derivatives of the constant metric, leading to the conclusion that these derivatives must be non-zero despite the metric being constant. This contradiction raises questions about the nature of the transformation and its effects on the acceleration vector.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity (SR) principles
  • Familiarity with Jacobian transformations in physics
  • Knowledge of geodesic-metric equations
  • Concept of metric tensors in differential geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of non-Lorentz transformations in physics
  • Study the role of metric tensors in general relativity
  • Explore the relationship between acceleration vectors and metric derivatives
  • Examine case studies involving constant metrics in curved spacetime
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying advanced concepts in relativity and differential geometry, particularly those interested in the implications of metric transformations and their effects on physical phenomena.

hwl
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Suppose we do a constant Jacobian transformation (which is not Lorentz) of a SR (inertial)
frame, by using four linear change of variables equations. This defines an apparent field with a
constant metric (which is not the SR metric) in which there is relative acceleration of separation.
From the geodesic - metric equation we see that the acceleration vector depends on the first
partial derivatives of this constant metric and so at least some of these derivatives must be
non-zero. How can this be true?
Can anyone shed light on this puzzle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hwl said:
the acceleration vector depends on the first partial derivatives of this constant metric and so at least some of these derivatives must be non-zero.
Why would the first partial derivatives of a constant metric be nonzero?
 
The acceleration vector in this field is NON-ZERO. But according to the geodesic-metric equation it should be
ZERO because the metric is constant with (presumably !) zero partial derivatives. The only way we can
reconcile these two conflicting values is if these derivatives were non-zero. How else can we explain this
contradiction ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
10K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K