I Is this just a typo in Schutz' book on General Relativity?

Ahmed1029
Messages
109
Reaction score
40
I'm wondering is I'm missing something, or this should be " a non-zero component"?
Screenshot_2022-12-06-19-25-32-84_e2d5b3f32b79de1d45acd1fad96fbb0f.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The book is correct. In the momentarily comoving inertial frame the time component of the four-acceleration is indeed 0.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and Ahmed1029
No, it means that in the MCRF the only non-zero component of ##\tilde{U}## is the zeroth one (because the three velocity is zero by definition in that frame). Hence the four acceleration (which he's just proved is orthogonal to ##\tilde{U}##) must take the form given.

I agree it's not particularly clearly written - it would be better if he'd said "##\tilde{U}## has only a ##{\tilde{U}}^0## component".
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8, vanhees71, Dale and 1 other person
Ah yes, it's clear now. I thought he meant that it had only one component taking the value zero, which didn't make sense.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Ibix
I must say this isn't the only thing I've found confusing in Schutz. The physics is sound enough, but I do feel like he really needed a better editor.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Ahmed1029

Thread 'Question about Parallel Transport'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Describing the Big Bang'

I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
View full post »

Thread 'Trying to calculate proper time of worldlines using rotating frames'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Understanding Frame Fields in GR: A Beginner's Guide
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Taylor Expansion of Metric Transformation in RNCs
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Arguments leading to the speed of light as a dimensionless constant
2
Replies
64
Views
4K
I When time is not orthogonal to phi, that means there is a preferred direction in space? How?
Replies
14
Views
1K
I Stress-energy tensor and energy/momentum conservation clarification
Replies
21
Views
3K
I Construct a Diagram that Illustrates The Galilean Law of Addition of Velocities
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Question about Two Clocks in this Relativity scenario
Replies
10
Views
1K
I An alternative derivation of the equation of motion in General Relativity
Replies
0
Views
1K
I Radius Excess of Curvature in Relativity: Explained
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Does the metric in general relativity depend only on position because of the equivalence principle?
Replies
16
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top