General Relativity and Minkowski space question

stolbein
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Is the curved spacetime of General Relativity possible to be described by Minkowskian space which is flat, or do one need some other geometry?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you look at a small enough region of spacetime, it will look approximately flat, and in the limit where the size of the region goes to zero, it will look exactly like Minkowski space, assuming of course that there are no singularities in the region.
 
And provided you don't measure second derivatives (which can be argued are non-local in common sense, if not the maths sense).
 
Also there is an interesting sentence in Kip Thorne's book about black holes, time warps etc in which he says general relativity is equivalent to a theory in flat spacetime, but where clocks run fast, and rulers shrink. However the closest mathematical statement I have been able to find is Eqn 62 in section 4.3 of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ which requires that harmonic coordinates can be used.

I'd be interested to know if this is really what Thorne was referring to, or whether he meant something else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to PF!

Hi stolbein! Welcome to PF! :smile:
stolbein said:
Is the curved spacetime of General Relativity possible to be described by Minkowskian space which is flat, or do one need some other geometry?

It's like trying to map the Earth onto flat paper without losing the geometry … however you do it, the map is going to be distorted. :wink:
 
As has been pointed out, it is possible to make the metric g_{\mu \nu} be equal to the Minkowski metric \eta_{\mu \nu} at any given (nonsingular) point, and to make all of its first derivatives vanish there, by using Riemann normal coordinates. However, the tensor R \indices{^{\mu}_{\nu}_{\sigma}_{\rho}} (the Riemann curvature tensor) is an isometric invariant of the manifold, which is to say that if you keep the metric g_{\mu \nu}, then the curvature stays, too.

However, if we are only dealing with weak gravitational fields, then we may regard general relativity as the theory of a symmetric tensor h_{\mu \nu} propagating against a flat, Minkowskian background; this is called linearized gravity, and is used to study gravitational waves. Specifically, we can write g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}, where the perturbation h_{\mu \nu} is assumed to contribute significantly to measurable quantities only to first order (this is the "weak-field" assumption). We then have g^{\mu \nu} = \eta^{\mu \nu} - h^{\mu \nu} (again, to first order), and we can raise and lower indices using \eta (in fact, h^{\mu \nu} is defined here as \eta^{\mu \sigma} \eta^{\nu \rho} h_{\sigma \rho}). We can then go on to derive the Riemann, Ricci, and Einstein tensors, and the Ricci scalar, to get the field equations. Alternatively, and in keeping with the viewpoint of a field theory on a flat background, we can define the Lagrangian
\displaystyle \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4} [2h \indices{^{\mu}^{\nu}_{,\mu}} h_{,\nu} - 2h \indices{^{\rho}^{\sigma}_{,\mu}} h \indices{^{\mu}_{\sigma}} + \eta^{\mu \nu} h \indices{^{\rho}^{\sigma}_{,\mu}} h_{\rho \sigma, \nu} - \eta^{\mu \nu} h_{,\mu} h_{,\nu} ] \textrm{,}
which, when varied with respect to h_{\mu \nu}, gives the linearized Einstein equations.
 
Last edited:
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...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top