Existence of quasi-euclidean spacelike hypersurfaces?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PAllen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence
PAllen
Science Advisor
Messages
9,338
Reaction score
2,545
I wonder if anyone knows or can figure out an answer to this question I've been thinking about:

In a smooth pseudo-riemannian manifold like those in GR, and given some arbitrarily long spacelike geodesic, is it always ( or almost always, e.g. except for passing through a singularity) possible to find some open spacelike 3-region containing the geodesic (possibly an exceedingly skinny region around the geodesic, as long as it is an open region) that is quasi-euclidean in geometry?

There may be a nicer defintion, but what I mean by a quasi-euclidean spacelike 3-region is that one can find some coordinate system on a spacetime (4) region containing the 3-region where:

1) one coordinate is zero throughout the 3-region
2) the 3x3 submetric corresponding to the other coordinates is positive definite throughout the 3-region.

Though phrased in coordinates, I believe this definition is coordinate independent; a given spacelike 3-region either has or does not have this property. Note, also, that even in Minkowski spacetime, it is trivial to construct spacelike 3-surfaces that are not quasi-euclidean (start with one that is and add sufficient bumps, but still keep it spacelike; you then can't achieve positive definite metric throughout - some areas will have negative metric components, brought in from the overall psuedo-riemmanion metric of the spacetime; if you squeeze them out in one area, you'll pick them up in another, no matter how you pick coordinates - as long as they are legitimate coordinates).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re passing through a singularity, the usual description is that a singularity isn't a point in the spacetime, so you really can't have a geodesic that passes through a singularity. In fact, one way of defining a singularity is that it's a place that you can't extend geodesics through.

If the geodesic is a closed curve, then you could have issues with orientability.

I think the coordinate-based definition doesn't really work because we're on a manifold, where it may not be able to define a coordinate patch that covers the whole space.

Maybe a better way to define the conjecture is by asking whether, for given simply connected geodesic γ in 3+1 dimensions, there exists an open neighborhood O of γ and a spacelike orientable 3-surface S that is a subset of O containing γ, such that S is locally euclidean based on the metric of the original spacetime.

I think the answer is yes. The fact that it's a geodesic prevents you from running into kinks. If γ had a kink in it at point P, then I don't think there could be an S that was locally euclidean at P.

[Made a few edits to the above after posting.]
 
Last edited:
Note, I believe the answer in SR is that you can find a one parameter family of global, exactly euclidean, spacelike 3-planes containing any spacelike geodesic. These correspond to the inertial frames in which ends of the geodesic are simultaneous.

I also think, in GR, one can find quasi-euclidean 3-regions in a sufficiently small ball including a section of the geodesic; and that, in GR, you generally cannot find any globally quasi-eucliden 3-planes at all. My question amounts to whether restricted to an arbitrarily small open tube around an arbitrary geodesic, one can find quasi-euclidean 3-regions.
 
Last edited:
bcrowell said:
If the geodesic is a closed curve, then this would be impossible in a spacetime that wasn't orientable.

I meant to say a geodesic between two different events. Thus, for a closed geodesic you would have to cut out some tiny piece of it.
 
bcrowell said:
I think the coordinate-based definition doesn't really work because we're on a manifold, where it may not be able to define a coordinate patch that covers the whole space.

That's a related question I had in mind. Looking some definitions of maximal atlases, but not have studied this material in detail, I was thinking you should always be able to find a coordinate patch containing some geodesic. Thinking about even extreme 2-surfaces, it seemed you could always find ribbon around a geodesic on which you could impose a single coordinate patch.
 
bcrowell said:
Maybe a better way to define the conjecture is by asking whether, for given simply connected geodesic γ in 3+1 dimensions, there exists an open neighborhood O of γ and a spacelike orientable 3-surface S that is a subset of O containing γ, such that S is locally euclidean based on the metric of the original spacetime.

Independent of whether the coordinate definition could be made to work, I like this much better.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
51
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
5K
Back
Top