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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a potential typo in Schutz's book regarding the four-acceleration in General Relativity. Participants clarify that the text is accurate, stating that in the momentarily comoving inertial frame, the time component of the four-acceleration is indeed zero. It is emphasized that the only non-zero component of the four-velocity is the zeroth one, leading to the correct interpretation of the four-acceleration's orthogonality to the four-velocity. However, there is a consensus that the writing lacks clarity, suggesting it would be better if Schutz had specified that the four-velocity has only a non-zero zeroth component. Overall, while the physics is sound, the need for clearer writing and better editing is noted.
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 'Am I understanding the concept of proper frame of reference?'

MOVING CLOCKS In this section, we show that clocks moving at high speeds run slowly. We construct a clock, called a light clock, using a stick of proper lenght ##L_0##, and two mirrors. The two mirrors face each other, and a pulse of light bounces back and forth betweem them. Each time the light pulse strikes one of the mirrors, say the lower mirror, the clock is said to tick. Between successive ticks the light pulse travels a distance ##2L_0## in the proper reference of frame of the clock...
View full post »

Similar threads

Graduate Understanding Frame Fields in GR: A Beginner's Guide
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Arguments leading to the speed of light as a dimensionless constant
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
Undergrad Question about Two Clocks in this Relativity scenario
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Undergrad Stress-energy tensor and energy/momentum conservation clarification
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Undergrad An alternative derivation of the equation of motion in General Relativity
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Undergrad Radius Excess of Curvature in Relativity: Explained
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Hypersurface Definition Confusion in General Relativity
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Does the metric in general relativity depend only on position because of the equivalence principle?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Christofell Symbols: Derivation in Schutz & Wald
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School General Relativity as a Challenge for Physics Education
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K