Fermi-Walker transport - problem with a minus sign

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sign Transport
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Fermi-Walker transport of a tetrad in Minkowski space, specifically addressing a problem encountered by an observer in circular motion. Participants explore the implications of a sign discrepancy in the equations governing Fermi-Walker transport, raising questions about the dependence of these equations on the chosen metric signature.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Mike describes the setup of Fermi-Walker transport for a tetrad associated with an observer in circular motion, providing the mathematical formulation and expressing concern over a negative sign in the derivation.
  • George points out a potential sign error in the interpretation of the Fermi-Walker transport equation, suggesting that the left-hand side should equal the negative of the right-hand side under certain conditions.
  • Mike acknowledges George's input and raises a further question about the implications of the sign error for the general applicability of the Fermi-Walker transport equations in different metrics, such as Schwarzschild or polar coordinates in Minkowski space.
  • George reiterates the sign issue, noting that the discrepancy arises from the sign convention used, specifically referencing MTW's assumption of a different metric signature.
  • George expresses uncertainty about how to express Fermi-Walker transport consistently across different sign conventions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the sign error for the general formulation of Fermi-Walker transport, and multiple viewpoints regarding the dependence on metric signature remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of the Fermi-Walker transport equations when applied under different metric signatures, indicating that the derivation may need to be revisited in those contexts.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
598
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K