Is this line element known to anyone ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific line element derived from the metric of a 3D sphere, exploring its implications in the context of general relativity, energy-momentum tensors, and curvature. Participants examine the properties of the metric, its physical interpretations, and potential connections to known solutions in gravitational theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a line element and claims it satisfies the Einstein field equations with a specific energy-momentum tensor component.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of the initial calculations and questions the implications of constraining motion to a sphere.
  • A different participant suggests that the metric could represent an interior solution of a fluid with constant pressure.
  • Concerns are raised about the physical interpretation of the energy-momentum tensor component T^{00} and its relation to motion on a sphere.
  • One participant proposes that the metric could be related to centripetal force required for motion on a sphere, especially when considering different values of constants A and B.
  • Another participant argues that a specific metric has no curvature and reduces to two spatial dimensions when motion is constrained to the surface.
  • Discussion includes the possibility of the metric being physical under certain conditions and its relation to known metrics like the Schwarzschild solution.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the implications of T^{11} being dependent only on B, suggesting it could represent radial momentum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the physical interpretations of the metric and its implications. There is no consensus on whether the derived metric is physically valid or how it relates to established solutions in general relativity.

Contextual Notes

Participants note various assumptions and conditions, such as the implications of constraining motion to a sphere and the dependence of certain tensor components on constants A and B. The discussion remains open to interpretation and lacks definitive conclusions.

Mentz114
Messages
5,429
Reaction score
292
This is based on the metric of the surface of a 3D sphere. A and B are constants with dimension (length)^2. Coordinates are

[tex]x^0 = t, x^1 = \theta, x^2 = \phi[/tex]

[tex]ds^2 = -c^2AB^{-1}dt^2 + Bd\theta^2 + Bsin^2(\theta)d\phi^2[/tex]

It satisfies the Einstein field equations with only one component of the energy-momentum tensor non-zero -

[tex]T^{00} = \frac{c^2A}{B^2}[/tex]

The curvature scalar is

[tex]R^\mu_{ \mu} = \frac{2}{B}[/tex]

This looks like a two-dimensional static cosmos with constant curvature ( radius sqrt(B)) and total energy A, and no energy currents.

Is this a viable interpretation ?

[ Assuming I haven't made any gross errors in the calculation...]
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
I checked your two results with "Great.m", it is correct.
(see http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/4781/ )

It is funny (and obvious) that if you add a third spatial coordinate r = sqrt(B),
the energy momentum and the curvature drop to zero.

Why is it that constraining motion to a sphere leads to Too =/= 0 ?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, lalbatross. I tried adding a radius spatial coord with g_rr = 1 and
get the same values as the 3D except for T11 which is now 1/B. Looks like a constant pressure term. I now think this is an interior solution of a fluid of constant pressure.

Why is it that constraining motion to a sphere leads to Too =/= 0 ?
Maybe because the constraint induces constant curvature which requires a source ?
 
Last edited:
If g_rr=1 and r²=B, you get no curvature and Too=0.
For the interpretation, maybe you could get it by writing the equation of motion of a particle.
This Too must be what keeps a particle on the surface of a sphere.
What is the physical interpretation of Too and how does it relate to keeping a particle constrained to a sphere?
 
Using

[tex]ds^2 = -c^2AB^{-1}dt^2 + dr^2 + Bd\theta^2 + Bsin^2(\theta)d\phi^2[/tex]

I get the same curvature, the same T_00 and T_11 = 1/B.

I have written out the equations of motion for the 3D and 4D case but I can't solve them. Obviously the null geodesics will be like great circles in the 3D case.

What is the physical interpretation of Too and how does it relate to keeping a particle constrained to a sphere?
The rest mass/energy that causes the cuvature ?
 
Last edited:
Sorry for being a bit lazy with latex.
I was also a bit too fast in my answer.
What I meant is:

[tex]ds^2 = -c^2dt^2 + dr^2 + r^2d\theta^2 + r^2sin^2(\theta)d\phi^2[/tex]

which meant B=r² and A=B, which i only a special case.

Anyway, in this special case, it is clear that the 3D nergy momentum should be related to the centripedal force needed to keep a particle moving on a sphere. When A is different from B, an additional interpretation would be needed.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that metric has no curvature. If you're keeping the motion on the surface then dr = 0 and you get back to two spatial dimensions, where I started from.

I don't think that the 4D metric in my post#5 is physical.
 
It could be physical.
You just need the T to be so.
You could check if such a metric could not occur in a central potential.
Is it not possible, for some A and B, to get the Swchartchild metric restricted on the dr=0 surface?
 
Hi lalbatros.

I've worked out T for the 4D metric and I get

[tex]T^{00}=\frac{1}{Ac^2}, T^{11}= -\frac{1}{B}[/tex] all other components zero. Curvature scalar is still 2/B.

T_11, which we can interpret as radial momentum, depends only on B which seems very weird.

So it could be the interior r < sqrt(B) of a sphere of matter. Interestingly, light rays can be trapped to surfaces of constant r, that is great circles. I'm not sure if light could escape.

If this is so, then the exterior solution must be Schwarzschild and the joining will probably give the relation between A and B.

I'm sure I've seen this in a textbook. I'm going to look for it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K