Finding inverse metric tensor when there are off-diagonal terms

Nabigh R
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
How do you find the inverse of metric tensor when there are off-diagonals?
More specifivally, given the (Kerr) metric,
$$ d \tau^2 = g_{tt} dt^2 + 2g_{t \phi} dt d\phi +g_{rr} dr^2 + g_{\theta \theta} d \theta^2 + g_{\phi \phi} d \phi^2 + $$
we have the metric tensor;
$$ g_{\mu \nu} = \begin{pmatrix}
g_{tt} & 0 & 0 & g_{t \phi} \\
0 & g_{rr} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & g_{\theta \theta} & 0 \\
g_{\phi t} & 0 & 0 & g_{\phi \phi} \\
\end{pmatrix} $$
In "A First Course in General Relativity", Schutz say that since the only off-diagonal element involves ##t## and ##\phi##, the contravariant components ##g^{rr}## and ##g^{\theta \theta}## are given by ##g^{rr} = \frac{1}{g_{rr}}## and ##g^{\theta \theta} = \frac{1}{g_{\theta \theta}}##. And then invert the matrix
\begin{pmatrix}
g_{tt} & g_{t \phi} \\
g_{\phi t} & g_{\phi \phi} \\
\end{pmatrix}
to find ##g^{tt}##, ##g^{\phi t}## and ## g^{\phi \phi} ##. I don't get why we can do that. Is it some kind on generalised version for the inverse of a diagonal matrix.
If ## A = \begin{pmatrix}
a_{11} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_{22} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_{33} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & a_{44} \\
\end{pmatrix} ##
then ## A^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{a_{11}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1}{a_{22}} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{a_{33}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{a_{44}} \\
\end{pmatrix} ##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks Mentz :-D I know I can get ##g^{\mu \nu}## by inverting the matrix representation of ##g_{\mu \nu}##. But what I want to know is reasoning Schutz used to simplify the problem of finding the inverse of a ##4 \times 4## matrix to that of finding the inverse of a ##2 \times 2## matrix :-)
If there is a general theorem or something that allows it, then it sure can save me a lot of work.
 
It's perhaps easier to see by writing the coordinates in a different order:
$$ g_{\mu \nu} = \begin{pmatrix}
g_{tt} & g_{t \phi} & 0 & 0 \\
g_{\phi t} & g_{\phi \phi} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & g_{\theta \theta} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & g_{rr} \\
\end{pmatrix} $$
and the observation that if you can decompose a matrix into smaller sub-matrices
$$ \textbf{A} = \left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\textbf{P} & \textbf{0} \\
\hline
\textbf{0} & \textbf{Q}
\end{array} \right) $$
then it inverts as
$$ \textbf{A}^{-1} = \left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\textbf{P}^{-1} & \textbf{0} \\
\hline
\textbf{0} & \textbf{Q}^{-1}
\end{array} \right) $$
(then finally put the coordinates back into the original order).
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
Thanks a lot Greg. That's just what I was looking for. Just saw blockwise inversion theorem of matrices on Wikipedia. Since it didn't occur me to change the order of coordinates, I didn't make the connection. Thanks again :approve:
 
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...
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...
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...
Back
Top