Equation of accelerated motion in GR

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on integrating the geodesic equation for accelerated motion in General Relativity (GR), specifically in flat Minkowski space. The user initially struggles with integrating the equation of motion, which resembles Newton's second law but leads to inconsistencies regarding faster-than-light travel. Key insights reveal that while constant proper acceleration is impossible, maintaining a constant magnitude of acceleration is feasible. The conversation emphasizes the relationship between 4-acceleration and 4-velocity, highlighting that they must remain perpendicular. Ultimately, the user finds a solution for uniformly accelerated motion and expresses confidence in extending this understanding to arbitrary acceleration directions.
Decibit
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Hello forum members,
I decided to post in the homework section because my question seems very basic to me. Still I'm getting stuck with it and would appreciate any help.

Homework Statement


I am teaching myself foundations of GR with the goal of simulating numerically some motion in flat and curved space-time. So I start with the geodesic equation
\frac{d^2x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0
According to the forum thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/accelerated-motion.118435/ one can use for constant acceleration the equation like this:
\frac{d^2x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = a^\mu
where a^\mu is a constant vector with the timelike being zero.
Let us first consider flat Minkowski space so \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}=0 and the equation of motion takes the form:
\frac{d^2x^\mu}{d\tau^2} = a^\mu
At this point it almost looks like the Newton's equation. But the problem remains: how can I integrate it?

Homework Equations


\eta=diag(-1,1,1,1)
d\tau=-\eta_{\alpha\beta}dx^\alpha dx^\beta
Greek indices run from 0 to 3, latin indices are from 1 to 3.

The Attempt at a Solution


If I use ##\tau## as an independent variable the result doesn't make any sense
\begin{array}{l}<br /> x^i=C^i_0+C^i_1 \tau+a^i\frac{\tau^2}{2}\\<br /> x^0=C^0_0+C^0_1 \tau\end{array}
Where ## C^\mu_0## and ##C^\mu_1## are some constants. I suppose that we can fix these constants at ## C^\mu_0 = 0## , ##C^i_1=0## and ##C^0_1=1## if we start at MCRF. So the equations are further simplified to
\begin{array}{l}<br /> x^i=a^i\frac{\tau^2}{2}\\<br /> x^0=\tau\end{array}
Quick consistency check with ##a^i=(1,0,0)##.
\begin{array}{l}<br /> x^1=\frac{\tau^2}{2}\\<br /> x^0=\tau\end{array}
At ##\tau = 4## the particle has traveled 8 units of lengths and 4 units of time. As FTL travel is not possible I'm sure that I'm making a mistake. So, what is the proper way to integrate \frac{d^2x^\mu}{d\tau^2} = a^\mu (with a possibility to extend it to non-flat space-time)?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If a^\mu is a constant, then you can integrate immediately:

x^\mu = \frac{1}{2} a^\mu \tau^2

However, it is not actually possible for an object to maintain a constant proper acceleration. You can have a constant magnitude for the acceleration.

For a slower-than-light object, the 4-velocity satisfies: U^\mu U_\mu = c^2 (or -c^2, depending on the convention). If you take a derivative with respect to proper time, you find that: U_\mu \frac{dU^\mu}{d\tau} = 0. So the 4-acceleration A^\mu = \frac{dU^\mu}{d\tau} is always "perpendicular" to the 4-velocity. That relation can't be maintained if A^\mu is constant and U^\mu is not.

What you can do is to let the squared magnitude, A_\mu A^\mu, be constant. That means (taking a derivative with respect to proper time) that A_\mu \frac{dA^\mu}{d\tau} = 0.
 
  • Like
Likes Decibit
Great answer! Thanks!
stevendaryl said:
However, it is not actually possible for an object to maintain a constant proper acceleration. You can have a constant magnitude for the acceleration.
This was probably the whole point I was missing! So, my initial equation was wrong. No wonder that the answer didn't make sense.

Another statement you've said, namely
stevendaryl said:
So the 4-acceleration A^\mu = \frac{dU^\mu}{d\tau} is always "perpendicular" to the 4-velocity.
...
What you can do is to let the squared magnitude, A_\mu A^\mu, be constant.
reminded me of something I've seen in a textbook:
Bernard Schutz: A first Course in General Relativity said:
§ 2.6: \vec{a}=\frac{d\vec{U}}{d\tau}\vec{U} \cdot \vec{a} = 0
§ 2.9 Exer. 19 A body is said to be uniformly accelerated if its acceleration four-vector \vec{a} has constant spatial direction and magnitude, say \vec{a} \cdot \vec{a} = \alpha^2 \geqslant 0

Working out through the exercise we start with
\begin{array}{l}<br /> U^\mu U_\mu = 1 \\<br /> A^\mu U_\mu = 0 \\<br /> A^\mu A_\mu = \alpha^2<br /> \end{array}
As we consider only one direction we can assume A^2=A^3=U^2=U^3=0 This allows us to express
\begin{array}{l}<br /> A^0=\frac{dU^0}{d\tau}=\alpha U^1\\<br /> A^1=\frac{dU^1}{d\tau}=\alpha U^0<br /> \end{array}
Which is a system of linear DE with constant coefficients. The solution is straightforward
\begin{array}{l}<br /> U^0=C_1 e^{\alpha \tau} + C_2 e^{-\alpha \tau}\\<br /> U^1=C_1 e^{\alpha \tau} - C_2 e^{-\alpha \tau}<br /> \end{array}
Using the MCRF initial conditions U^0(\tau=0)=1,U^1(\tau=0)=0 we get
\begin{array}{l}<br /> U^0=cosh(\alpha \tau)\\<br /> U^1=sinh(\alpha \tau)<br /> \end{array}
and after integrating these we get the solution:
\begin{array}{l}<br /> x^0=\frac{1}{\alpha}sinh(\alpha \tau)\\<br /> x^1=\frac{1}{\alpha}cosh(\alpha \tau)<br /> \end{array}

Using cosh(arcsinh(x))=\sqrt{1+x^2} it is easy to show that
x^1 = \frac{1}{\alpha} \sqrt{1+\alpha^2 {x^0}^2}
This is consistent with the derivation here http://www.physicspages.com/2011/05/25/acceleration-in-special-relativity/ So I'm quite happy now.
I think that I can figure out arbitrary acceleration direction using matrix transformations.
Thanks again for your excellent counseling!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes stevendaryl
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