D'Inverno derivation of Schwarzschild solution

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of the Schwarzschild solution as presented in D'Inverno's "Introducing Einstein's Relativity," specifically on page 187. The metric components are defined as g_{00}= e^{h(t)}(1-2m/r), g_{11}=-(1-2m/r)^{-1}, g_{22}=-r^2, and g_{33}=-r^2\sin^2\theta. A time coordinate transformation is applied to simplify g_{00} to 1-2m/r by setting e^{h(t')}=1, leading to h(t')=0 through the integral relation t'=\int^t_c e^{\frac{1}{2}h(u)}du. The discussion raises questions about the choice of this specific integral form and its implications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity concepts
  • Familiarity with metric tensors and their components
  • Knowledge of coordinate transformations in physics
  • Basic calculus, particularly integration techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Schwarzschild solution in detail
  • Explore the implications of coordinate transformations in general relativity
  • Learn about the significance of arbitrary constants in integral equations
  • Investigate other solutions to Einstein's field equations
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, students of general relativity, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of gravitational theories.

PhyPsy
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
If you happen to have D'Inverno's Introducing Einstein's Relativity, this is on page 187. He has reduced the metric to non-zero components:
[itex]g_{00}= e^{h(t)}(1-2m/r)[/itex]
[itex]g_{11}=-(1-2m/r)^{-1}[/itex]
[itex]g_{22}=-r^2[/itex]
[itex]g_{33}=-r^2\sin^2\theta[/itex]
The final step is a time coordinate transformation that reduces [itex]g_{00}[/itex] to [itex]1-2m/r[/itex]. This is achieved by making [itex]e^{h(t')}=1[/itex], so [itex]h(t')=0[/itex]. He does this with the relation
[itex]t'=\int^t_c e^{\frac{1}{2}h(u)}du[/itex], c is an arbitrary constant
I suppose that, since c is arbitrary, I can assign whatever value to c to make [itex]h(t')=0[/itex], but why use this particular integral as the relation between t and t'? Is there something special about this integral?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is pretty easy. You want (1 - 2m/r) dt'2 = eh(t)(1 - 2m/r) dt2, so take dt' = eh(t)/2 dt
 
Ah, OK...but why would the relation not be [itex]t'=\int e^{h(t)/2}dt[/itex]? Instead, they have it as a definite integral from c to t.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K