Difference Between Locally Flat & Locally Inertial?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of "locally flat" and "locally inertial" in the context of general relativity and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Participants explore the definitions, implications, and relationships between these terms, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that "locally flat" refers to the spacetime itself, while "locally inertial" pertains to a reference frame or object.
  • It is proposed that "locally flat" means tidal forces diminish faster than first order and is applicable to all spacetimes, regardless of curvature.
  • Others argue that "locally inertial" involves using local coordinates where the metric resembles flat spacetime, but this is not universally true for all coordinate systems.
  • A participant references a textbook to support the claim that in a small region, the manifold appears flat, leading to the notion that derivatives of basis vectors in a locally inertial coordinate system are zero.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the definitions of "locally flat" and "locally inertial" as presented in the referenced textbook.
  • There is a suggestion that "locally inertial" could be defined in terms of coordinate acceleration equating to proper acceleration, allowing for non-Cartesian coordinates while excluding rotating frames.
  • A later reply questions whether the requirement for a test mass to be momentarily at rest in local coordinates is necessary for defining "locally inertial."
  • Participants discuss the implications of defining accelerated reference frames and the conditions under which coordinate and proper accelerations can be equal.
  • Some participants explore the mathematical relationships between four-velocities, coordinate acceleration, and proper acceleration in non-inertial frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether "locally flat" and "locally inertial" are equivalent. Multiple competing views regarding their definitions and implications remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific definitions and conditions that may vary by author or textbook, indicating potential limitations in the discussion's clarity and scope.

  • #31
Dale said:
Ah, I see. You are using “frame” to mean something different from “coordinate chart”. Possibly you mean something like a tetrad? So you could describe an inertial tetrad in terms of a polar coordinate basis.

I was using “frame” to mean “coordinate chart”
Do you mean that a tetrad/verbatin can be said inertial when its unit timelike vector field is indeed inertial (i.e. its timelike integral curve results in a geodesic of underlying spacetime) ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
cianfa72 said:
Do you mean that a tetrad/verbatin can be said inertial when its unit timelike vector field is indeed inertial (i.e. its timelike integral curve results in a geodesic of underlying spacetime) ?
Yes, with the additional restriction that the spacelike vector fields do not rotate along the timelike integral curves
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and cianfa72
  • #33
To define a general rotation free (non-inertial) frame of reference along an arbitrary time-like curve you use Fermi-Walker transport of the three space-like vectors of a tetrad with the time-like vector being, of course, the tangent vector on this time-like curve.

If the time-like curve is a geodesic this defines a local inertial frame along the time-like curve, and the Fermi-Walker transport of the space-like vectors of the tetrad is identical with parallel transport.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Dale
  • #34
Dale said:
No. Because “flat” is a term that describes a spacetime and “inertial” is a term that describes a reference frame, worldline, or coordinate chart. You wouldn’t say “this is an inertial manifold” and you wouldn’t say “this is a flat reference frame”, so the terms are not interchangeable.
I agree and would add some further distinctions:

- inertial motion is a characteristic of world line (and of a body to the extent it can be approximated by a world line). In SR and GR, this corresponds to the world line being a timelike geodesic.

- an inertial frame or coordinate system is one whose (t,0,0,0) world line is inertial and the rest is built by a standard procedure from the origin world line.

- locally flat in GR is simply the property that in small regions and short times, SR is a good approximation to GR. Or, mathematically, that all curvature effects (e.g. triangle angular defect/surplus) go to zero as size goes to zero. Curvature at a point is realized by normalizing by the area. Without normalization, the effect goes to zero as the square of the size. This has nothing to do with the coordinates or motion, and is simply part ot the definition of a Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
12K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
983
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K