Fermi-Walker transport - problem with a minus sign

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sign Transport
mikeu
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
I am looking at the Fermi-Walker transport of a tetrad transported by an observer in circular motion in Minkowski space. The 0-component of the tetrad should be the 4-velocity of the observer, which should therefore satisfy the FWT DE, but I'm finding that it is equal to the negative of what it should be... Can anybody find the error in my derivation?

Assume that in the inertial (Minkowski) lab frame the observer is seen to be orbiting with constant angular velocity \omega at constant radius r. Then the worldline of the observer is given by \mathcal{P}_0 = \left(\gamma\tau, r\cos(\gamma\omega\tau), r\sin(\gamma\omega\tau), 0) where \tau is the proper time of the observer and \gamma\equiv(1-r^2\omega^2)^{-1/2}. I'm working in c=1 units with metric signature (+---). This let's us find the 4-vectors

u^\mu = \partial_\tau\mathcal{P}_0 = \gamma\left(1, -\omega r\sin(\gamma\omega\tau), \omega r\cos(\gamma\omega\tau), 0\right)

a^\mu = \partial_\tau u^\mu = -\gamma^2\omega^2r\left(0, \cos(\gamma\omega\tau), \sin(\gamma\omega\tau), 0\right)

Now, we should have that u^\mu satisfies the FWT DE such that \partial_\tau u^\mu = \left(u^\mu a^\nu - u^\nu a^\mu\right)u_\nu. For simplicity, consider 1-component. Then looking at the two sides separately gives us

\partial_\tau u^1 = -\gamma^2\omega^2 r\cos(\gamma\omega\tau)

and

\left(u^1 a^\nu - u^\nu a^1\right)u_\nu = \left(a^0u^1-a^1u^0\right)u^0 - \left(a^1u^1-a^1u^1\right)u^1 - \left(a^2u^1-a^1u^2\right)u^2 - \left(a^3u^1-a^1u^3\right)u^3

= \gamma^4\omega^2r\cos(\gamma\omega\tau) - \gamma^4\omega^4r^3\cos(\gamma\omega\tau) = \gamma^2\omega^2r\cos(\gamma\omega\tau) = -\partial_\tau u^1.

It's that final minus sign that shouldn't be there... I've checked all 16 components of the tetrad and they are all yield the LHS equal to the negative of the RHS of the DE (on occaision because both sides are zero). Anybody have any ideas?

Thanks,
Mike
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mikeu said:
Now, we should have that u^\mu satisfies the FWT DE such that \partial_\tau u^\mu = \left(u^\mu a^\nu - u^\nu a^\mu\right)u_\nu

There seems to be a sign error here. On the right there is \partial_\tau u^\mu = a^\mu, while on the left, \left(u^\mu a^\nu - u^\nu a^\mu\right)u_\nu = u^\mu a^\nu u_\nu - a^\mu u^\nu u_\nu = u^\mu (0) - a^\mu (1) = - a^\mu.

Regards,
George
 
Last edited:
George Jones said:
There seems to be a sign error here. On the right there is \partial_\tau u^\mu = a^\mu, while on the left, \left(u^\mu a^\nu - u^\nu a^\mu\right)u_\nu = u^\mu a^\nu u_\nu - a^\mu u^\nu u_\nu = u^\mu (0) - a^\mu (1) = - a^\mu.

Regards,
George

True enough... So I guess that solves my immediate problem, thanks! Seems to introduce a potential future one though... This implies that the DE for Fermi-Walker transport which I've seen many places online, and in MTW, is dependent on the metric of the lab frame, is that right? So if I wanted to do this problem in a Schwarzschild metric for example, or even in Minkowski space with polar coordinates, I'd have to derive a different DE for the tetrad components to satisfy in order to Fermi-Walker transport them?

Thanks again,
Mike
 
George Jones said:
There seems to be a sign error here. On the right there is \partial_\tau u^\mu = a^\mu, while on the left, \left(u^\mu a^\nu - u^\nu a^\mu\right)u_\nu = u^\mu a^\nu u_\nu - a^\mu u^\nu u_\nu = u^\mu (0) - a^\mu (1) = - a^\mu.

Regards,
George

The sign convention strikes again!

MTW assumes that u^a u_a=-1, which is true with a -+++ sign convention. However, the OP used a +--- sign convention.

I don't know of a clean way of expressing fermi-walker transport in arbitrary sign conventions.
 
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...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
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...
Back
Top