Defining a Family of Observers: Textbook Reference Needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeNewton
  • Start date Start date
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,848
Reaction score
552
Does anyone have a textbook reference for the rigorous definition of a family of observers? Wald uses the term a lot but never actually defines it i.e. is it a congruence of unit time - like world lines defined on a proper open subset of the space - time or is it a congruence defined over the entire space - time or does it even have to be a congruence at all (i.e. can two worldlines in the family intersect)? To this entire family we give an orthonormal frame field that is supposed to characterize how the measuring apparatuses of each observer is oriented but what is the rigorous link between the mathematical and physical definition here (i.e. what constitutes the measuring apparatuses - are they just a physical way of characterizing the orientation of the orthonormal frame field?). I believe MTW actually gives proper definitions of these things but the book is huge I got lost trying to find anything pertinent so I'm hoping someone else possibly knows the relevant sections or has other texts to look at. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ooooh I must have missed it; thanks a ton robphy! Also can you explain the part about measuring apparatuses to me? Is the orientation of the measuring apparatus carried by an observer in the family at a point in his world line just a physical way of characterizing the orientation of the orthonormal triad making up the spatial part of the basis for the tangent space at that point in the world line of said observer? Thanks a lot for the de Felice link that one looks like it will be quite helpful!
 
A measuring apparatus is an orthonormal frame: a set of 3 measuring rods 1 meter long, oriented at right angles to each other, combined with a clock that ticks once every (1 m/c) seconds.
 
Ben Niehoff said:
A measuring apparatus is an orthonormal frame: a set of 3 measuring rods 1 meter long, oriented at right angles to each other, combined with a clock that ticks once every (1 m/c) seconds.
Ok that makes sense but is there a reason why Wald only refers to the 3 meter sticks when talking about the orientation of the apparatus? He attributes to every point on the worldline of the observer an orthonormal basis (e_{\alpha })^{a} and says (e_{0 })^{a} is the unit tangent vector to the world line which corresponds to your statement about the ticking clock and then says the (e_{i })^{a}'s characterize the orientation of the apparatus held by the observer, which it would seem corresponds to the orientation of the 3 meter sticks. Is he just excluding the time - like basis vector from the statement about orientation of the apparatus because the orientation of this is already fixed along the world line of the observer (future - pointing)? Thanks ben!

EDIT: The relevant page I got this from in the book was 342 if you are interested. Cheers!
 
Last edited:
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Back
Top