Diagonalizing a metric by a coordinate transformation

Lilian Sa
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
gravity
Relevant Equations
metric transformation
hey there :)

So I had a homework, and I was asked to diagonalize the metric ##{ds}^2=-{dt}^2+{dx}^2+2a^2(t)dxdy+{dz}^2## and to find the coordinate transformation for the coordinates of the new metric.
so I found the coordinate transformation but the lecturer said that what I found is a specific solution and not the general solution.
And he said that the function F (I attached my solution) is a function that should be dependent on the other parameter of the problem.
and I don't know how to translate this.
I started to solve it from the start but I got entangled >_<

thank you :)
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It sounds like your lecturer wants you to find a more general solution. To do this, you need to find a function F that is dependent on all of the parameters in the problem. For example, if you have a parameter a, then your function F should depend on a as well. In addition, your solution should work for any value of a (not just a specific one). If you are struggling to find the general solution, it might be helpful to look up some examples of how to solve similar problems. This could give you an idea of what the general solution should look like.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top