I Deriving AdS Poincare Coordinates from Global Coordinates

formodular
Messages
34
Reaction score
18
Is there a straight-forward, motivated, derivation of AdS Poincare coordinates, e.g. as given here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space#Poincar.C3.A9_coordinates
starting from global coordinates, as given here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space#Global_coordinates
The coordinate transformations starting from global line element (in the wikipedia notation) ##ds^2 = \alpha^2(-\cosh^2 \rho d \tau^2 + d \rho^2 + \sinh^2 \rho d \Omega_{n-2}^2)## to ##ds^2 = \frac{\alpha^2}{z^2}(dz^2 + dx_{\mu} dx^{\mu})## seem to be pulled out of thin air, even in Zee's Gravity book - is there a simple straight-forward way to motivate the coordinate transformations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My guess would be that the transform was derived from 'guessing' a target metric. Generally, the gauge freedom in GR means that any of several broad families for metric forms (e.g. Gaussian, Riemann Normal, harmonic, etc.) can be specified for a patch of any manifold whatsoever. Then, a question becomes how large patch can they cover. So, without knowing the history, I would guess that, guided by these general types of metrics, someone guessed that the Poincare form was sufficiently general to capture quasilocal curvature, then derived explicit coordinate transformations to achieve this. If your guessed metric works (doesn't constrain the metric beyond what can be achieved by gauge freedom), you end up with differential equations for the transform that are, in principle solvable. Actually solving them will vary greatly in difficulty, depending on the particular case. Inspired guesswork typically plays a role.
 
Zee (sort of) shows Poincare coordinates as coming from solving
$$(T^2 - X^2) + (W^2 - Y^2) = 1$$
for
$$W^- W^+ = (W - Y)(W + Y) = 1 + (X^2 - T^2)$$
and then setting ##X = x/w##, ##T = t/w## to find
$$W^- W^+ = 1 + \tfrac{x^2}{w^2} - \tfrac{t^2}{w^2} = \tfrac{1}{w}[w + \tfrac{1}{w}(x^2 - t^2)]$$
so that we can define
$$W^- = \tfrac{1}{w},$$
$$W^+ = w + \tfrac{1}{w}(x^2 - t^2).$$
Now from ##Y = W - 1/w## we get
$$W = \tfrac{1}{2}[\tfrac{1}{w} + w + \tfrac{1}{w}(x^2 - t^2)]$$
and from ##W = Y + 1/w## we get
$$Y = \tfrac{1}{2}[- \tfrac{1}{w} + w + \tfrac{1}{w}(x^2 - t^2)].$$
He calls these Poincare coordinates.

It would be great to have a really deep feeling for why one would even think to do any of this, and especially why one would want to set ##X = x/w##, ##T = t/w##, and ##W^- = \tfrac{1}{w}##.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top