A Heuristic Approach EFE: Why 10 DOF?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter binbagsss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approach Dof
binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
TL;DR Summary
Some sources state we seek 10 dof ( and so ofc this is a symmetric two index tensor.


My question is why we seek 10 dof in the first place ?


Many thanks
Some sources state we seek 10 dof ( and so ofc this is a symmetric two index tensor.My question is why we seek 10 dof in the first place ?Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
binbagsss said:
Some sources

What sources? Please give specific references.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
The number of equations is because in General Relativity there are four dimensions of spacetime.
 
The metric is symmetric, so there are only 10 independent equations out of 16. That accounts for 6 degrees of freedom. The remaining 4 degrees of freedom are to allow for arbitrary coordinate transformations.
 
Daverz said:
The metric is symmetric, so there are only 10 independent equations out of 16. That accounts for 6 degrees of freedom. The remaining 4 degrees of freedom are to allow for arbitrary coordinate transformations.

No, this is not correct. First, 10 independent equations does not account for 6 degrees of freedom. Second, 4 degrees of freedom is not enough to allow for arbitrary coordinate transformations.
 
In the absence of any references, this thread is closed.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...

Similar threads

Back
Top