Derivation of Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR

In summary, the conversation discusses a proof from "A First Course in General Relativity" by Bernard Schutz regarding the invariance of spacetime intervals in all inertial frames. It is shown that the length of a rod, measured between two events in two different frames, is independent of the direction of the relative velocity between the frames as long as the rod is perpendicular to the velocity. This result is then generalized to show that all spacetime intervals are invariant in all inertial frames, regardless of the direction of the relative velocity.
  • #1
msbell1
25
0

Homework Statement


From pages 10--11 in "A First Course in General Relativity" (Second Edition) by Bernard Schutz:

Given

$$\Delta\overline{s}^2 = \phi\left(\textbf{v}\right)\Delta s^2,$$

where ##\Delta \overline{s}^2## is the interval measured between two events in frame ##O'##, which is moving in the positive ##x##-direction with constant velocity ##\textbf{v}## relative to frame ##O##, and ##\Delta s^2## is the interval between the same two events as measured in ##O##, show that $$\phi\left(\textbf{v}\right) = \phi\left(\left| \textbf{v}\right|\right).$$ (That is, show that the direction of the relative velocity between the two frames is irrelevant. Note: this is part of a two-part proof in which Schutz shows that ##\phi\left(\textbf{v}\right) = 1##.)

Homework Equations


Schutz does this by considering frame ##O'## to be moving in the ##+x##-direction relative to frame ##O##, with relative velocity ##\textbf{v}##, as described above. He then imagines a rod lying along the ##y##-axis, and shows that the two events corresponding to the ends of the rod at ##x=z=t=0, y=a,b## (which are simultaneous in frame ##O##) are also simultaneous in frame ##O'##. I can follow his argument for that part.

He then states that

(length of rod in ##O'##)##^2 = \phi\left(\textbf{v}\right)## (length of rod in ##O##)##^2##, which I can also understand.

The Attempt at a Solution


Then he says "On the other hand, the length of the rod cannot depend on the direction of the velocity, because the rod is perpendicular to it and there are no preferred directions of motion (the principle of relativity). Hence the first part of the proof concludes that $$\phi\left(\textbf{v}\right) = \phi\left(\left|\textbf{v}\right|\right)$$." I am really confused by that statement. Yes, the velocity is perpendicular to the rod. But what's the deal with the "and there is no preferred directions of motion" part? That statement on its own makes sense, but I don't know what ties the two parts of his statement together in a way that proves what he says it proves.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The point is that
$$\phi\left(\textbf{v}\right)
= \left(\frac{\textrm{length of rod in }O'}{\textrm{length of rod in }O}\right)^2$$
and the ratio cannot vary with the direction of ##\mathbf v##.If it did, there would be one or more directions in which the ratio was maximised and one or more in which it was minimised. That would establish a 'preference of direction' of the former over the latter, or vice versa.

If you accept that, then we know that the ratio depends on ##\mathbf v## which is fully specified by the spherical coordinates ##v,\psi,\theta## (normally in spherical coordinates one uses ##\phi## where I've written ##\psi##, but Schutz has already used that for something else - his function) and it can't depend on the last two since they specify direction. So it can depend only on ##v##, which is another name for ##|\mathbf v|##.

Schutz then says
$$
\phi\left(\textbf{v}\right) = \phi\left(\left|\textbf{v}\right|\right)
$$
which is an abuse of notation, and quite wrong. When reading Schutz it's important to bear in mind that he's a physicist, not a mathematician, so his use of maths is often sloppy.

What he wishes to convey is that the length ratio depends only on ##v##, not on ##\psi## or ##\theta##. Strictly, what he is doing is writing
$$
\phi\left(\textbf{v}\right) = \zeta\left(\left|\textbf{v}\right|\right) = \zeta(v)
$$
for some unknown function ##\zeta##.
 
  • #3
Thanks for the reply. I'm still a bit unsettled by this. I think my main hang-up is that this relationship between the lengths was obtained by assuming the rod was oriented perpendicular to the velocity of frame ##O'## relative to frame ##O##. I can see how the argument holds for any other direction in a plane that is perpendicular to the rod, but what about when the relative velocity is not perpendicular to the rod? I guess the generalization to that case is what is confusing me. I don't see how it follows from the argument in the textbook.
 
  • #4
Schutz requires that the orientation of the rod is chosen to be perpendicular to the direction of ##\mathbf v##. If that were not the case, the ratio would depend on direction. At the extreme, if the rod is aligned with the direction of motion, the ratio will be the usual factor ##\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}##.

The order of development is: we are given two inertial frames with a relative velocity of ##\mathbf v## and we define ##\phi(\mathbf v)=-M_{00}## in Schutz's notation. We want to work out what the function ##\phi## is. To do that, we consider a rod oriented perpendicular to ##\mathbf v##, that is stationary in one of the frames, and do some calculations about the ratio of its lengths in the two frames.
 
  • #5
Ok, another follow up question. So I now know that the length of a rod as measured by inertial observers doesn't depend on the direction of ##\textbf{v}## as long as ##\textbf{v}## is perpendicular to the rod. If the purpose of the proof is to show in general that the spacetime interval between two events is invariant as measured in all inertial frames, how does that result follow from the special case of measuring the length of a rod when ##\textbf{v}## is perpendicular to the rod? (I'm ok with the second part of the proof where Shutz shows that ##\phi\left(v\right)=1##, but the jump in the first part of the proof from considering a special case in which ##\textbf{v}## is perpendicular to a rod, to the more general case of any spacetime interval is still confusing to me.) Thanks.
 

FAQ: Derivation of Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR

1. How do you derive Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR?

Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR is derived by using the definition of the Christoffel symbols, the metric tensor, and the geodesic equation. By substituting these definitions into the geodesic equation and simplifying, we arrive at Equation (1.6).

2. What is the significance of Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR?

Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR is significant because it represents the connection between the curvature of spacetime and the presence of matter and energy. It shows how the presence of mass and energy can cause spacetime to curve, leading to the effects of gravity.

3. Can Equation (1.6) be applied to all situations?

Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR is a general equation that can be applied to any situation involving curved spacetime and the presence of matter and energy. However, it may need to be adapted or modified for specific scenarios.

4. Is Equation (1.6) a fundamental equation in the theory of general relativity?

Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR is a fundamental equation in the theory of general relativity as it represents the connection between spacetime curvature and the presence of matter and energy. It is an essential component in understanding the effects of gravity on the universe.

5. How can I use Equation (1.6) in my research or experiments?

Equation (1.6) in Schutz: A First Course in GR can be used in research and experiments related to general relativity, such as studying the effects of gravity on astronomical objects or predicting the behavior of particles in curved spacetime. It can also be used as a starting point for developing more complex equations and models in the field of general relativity.

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
988
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top