Help Solve a Mystery: Lawden's "An Introduction to Tensor Calculus

PBRMEASAP
Messages
191
Reaction score
2
Hi,

Anyone out there have Lawden's book, "An Introduction to Tensor Calculus, Relativity and Cosmology"? Expression 39.13 (on p 109) and the sentence that precedes it have me stumped. My understanding of what he's saying is that a symmetric quadratic form can always be diagonalized so that the coefficients are 1. I was not aware of this. It seems to me that's the same thing as saying all symmetric matrices are similar to the identity--that is, its eigenvalues are all 1. If someone could clear this up for me it would be awesome. By the way, I know this is more of a linear algebra question, but I mentioned it in here because I figured people in this forum might be familiar with the book.

thank you :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay I figured out some of that typesetting stuff so I can actually write what Lawden says.

We have the quadratic form

<br /> d s^2 = g_{ij} d x^i d x^j<br />

where g_{ij} is the (symmetric) metric tensor at point A, x^i = a^i. Define the y-coordinates by the relation

<br /> x^i = b^i{}_{j} y^j<br />,

which is to say

<br /> d x^i = b^i{}_{j} d y^j<br />.

Lawden says, "...it is a well known result from algebra that the quadratic form g_{ij} d x^i d x^j can be reduced to the diagonal form

(d y^1)^2 \ + \ (d y^2)^2 \ + \ ... \ + \ (d y ^N)^2

at the point A by proper choice of the b^i{}_j (some of these coefficients may have to be given imaginary values)." This is important because he is showing that at points where the metric tensor is stationary, a coordinate frame can be chosen that is locally Cartesian. At any rate, I'm not familiar with this well known result from algebra. If anyone is, please explain it to me.

thanks!
 
I really need to start coming up with catchier titles for my posts. I hearby rename this thread "Is spacetime locally flat, and how does this affect consciousness from a positivist point of view, in light of recent work by Popper?". Just kidding, someone answered my question in the algebra forum.
 
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