Diagonalizing a metric by a coordinate transformation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on diagonalizing the metric ds² = -dt² + dx² + 2a²(t)dxdy + dz². The lecturer indicated that the submitted solution is a specific case rather than a general solution, emphasizing the need for the function F to depend on all relevant parameters. To achieve a general solution, the function F must accommodate variations in parameters like 'a'. The participant expresses confusion in translating this requirement into their solution. Seeking examples of similar problems may aid in understanding how to derive the general solution effectively.
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 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top