Finding Orthonormal Bases for Metrics with Non-Zero Off-Diagonal Components

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenge of finding orthonormal bases for metrics with non-zero off-diagonal components, particularly in the context of general relativity and specific metrics like the Kerr metric. Participants explore the theoretical implications and methods for transforming such metrics into a form where the components are constant.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the possibility of finding an orthonormal frame for a metric with non-zero off-diagonal components.
  • Another suggests that a coordinate transformation may be possible to eliminate the diagonal element in specific cases, providing an example metric.
  • A subsequent participant questions the feasibility of this transformation for the Kerr metric, particularly in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates.
  • Another participant argues against the possibility of losing the diagonal element in a physical frame, citing its representation of angular momentum.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of the proposed coordinate transformation, noting that the equations may not guarantee a valid change of coordinates.
  • Some participants discuss the local considerations of the problem, suggesting that a solution may exist within a limited domain.
  • A participant references a proof related to Riemannian manifolds that may provide insights into finding orthonormal bases, while acknowledging the need for modifications in the Lorentzian case.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that a global orthonormal basis can be found, using spheres as a counterexample, but clarifies that local orthonormal bases can be established at any point.
  • Further discussion includes the need to consider the orthogonal subgroup of the general linear group in the context of the Lorentz case.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the possibility of transforming metrics with non-zero off-diagonal components. While some suggest potential methods, others contest the feasibility of these approaches, particularly in relation to physical interpretations and specific metrics like the Kerr metric. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the general applicability of proposed methods, the dependence on specific metric forms, and the distinction between local and global properties of orthonormal bases.

emma83
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I would like to know how, given a metric with non-zero off-diagonal components g_{mn}, m \neq n, one can find if another (orthonormal or null) frame exists in which g_{\mu \nu}=constant for all components of the metric. And if it exists how to compute this basis. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's often possible to find a coordinate transformation to remove the diagonal element. Given,

ds^2=A^2dt^2+B^2dtdr-K^2dr^2

one can look for a transformation to T, R

dT=fdt+hdr
dR=kdt+pdr

so the dtdr terms cancel. I'm not sure if this answers your question.
 
Thanks, this is indeed what I am looking for. Do you know maybe if it is possible with the Kerr metric (given, e.g. the metric in the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates) ?
 
I don't think it's possible to have a physical frame ( ie corresponding to an observer) which loses the diagonal element because it represents actual angular momentum. The Wiki article on the Kerr spacetime also has metric for the co-rotating observer which has the diagonal element.
 
Mentz114 said:
dT=fdt+hdr
dR=kdt+pdr

These equations are not gaurenteed to give you a coordinate change as the 1-form dT may not be exact in order to actually find the quantity T = T(t,r) , thenecessary co-ordinate change. I will come up with an example if necessary, it is similar to thecase of holonomic and non-holonomic constraints in classical mechanics
 
I guess though you are considering local considersations only so you will be able to find some domain where this is possible
 
Hi nughret,
yes, I have some doubts about this process and it's not clear whether a general method exists.

M
 
In the case of a Riemannian manifold I am aware of a beautiful proof which gives a positive answer to the case of finding on orthonormal base. My memory of the details are a bit hazy and we use the principle frame bundle (or some prolongation of this) and then consider whether we can find a subgroup of the natural group which acts on this bundle. For the Riemannian case we get, using polar decompostion, the necessity of a global symmetric non-degenerate tensor, i.e. the Reimannian metric.
Now obviously for a Lorentz manifold such a proof will need to be altered. I shall try to fully recall the proof in the R case and then apply it to the L case and let you know what I find.
 
nughret said:
In the case of a Riemannian manifold I am aware of a beautiful proof which gives a positive answer to the case of finding on orthonormal base.
That doesn't sound right. Spheres, for example, don't have any (global) basis, let alone an orthonormal one, because every vector field must have a zero.
 
  • #10
Hurkyl said:
That doesn't sound right. Spheres, for example, don't have any (global) basis, let alone an orthonormal one, because every vector field must have a zero.

Of course. I was referring to the problem of being able to find smooth local orthonormal bases through any point. The proof is used in the more general setting of vector bundles and as i said i will try to recall it, we have to consider the orthogonal subgroup of the general linear group and you can then see where the polar decomposition comes in. For the Lorentz case we will need to consider the Lorentz orthogonal subgroup of the General linear group etc..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K