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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a potential typo in Schutz's book on General Relativity regarding the four-acceleration in the momentarily comoving inertial frame (MCRF). Participants clarify that the time component of the four-acceleration is indeed zero, and the only non-zero component of the four-velocity ##\tilde{U}## is the zeroth component. The consensus is that while the physics is accurate, the explanation could benefit from clearer wording to avoid confusion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity concepts
  • Familiarity with four-vectors and four-acceleration
  • Knowledge of momentarily comoving inertial frames (MCRF)
  • Basic grasp of tensor notation in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of four-vectors in General Relativity
  • Learn about the properties of momentarily comoving inertial frames (MCRF)
  • Review the mathematical formulation of four-acceleration
  • Examine common editorial issues in physics textbooks
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying General Relativity, educators looking to clarify complex concepts, and anyone interested in improving the clarity of scientific writing.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Ahmed1029

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K