A Motivation for Theta = Pi/2 on Wald GR p138

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter strangerep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr
strangerep
Science Advisor
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
2,213
On p138 of Wald's General Relativity, 4th para, he says:

Wald said:
[...] First, we note that because of the parity reflection symmetry, ##\theta \to \pi - \theta##, of the Schwarzschild metric, if the initial position and tangent vector of a geodesic lie in the "equatorial plane" ##\theta = \pi/2##, then the entire geodesic must lie in this "plane." Since every geodesic can be brought to an initially (and hence everywhere) equatorial geodesic by a rotational isometry, this means that without loss of generality we may restrict attention to study of the equatorial geodesics, and we shall do so.
Firstly, I already understand (of course) that this sort of simplification is easy and immediate in Newtonian mechanics, since conservation of angular momentum always occurs in central force problems (the proof is just a few lines) and one can re-orient the coordinates so that motion occurs in the plane perpendicular to the angular momentum axis.

Secondly, in GR, if one actually computes the connection coefficients for Schwarzschild, to write down the geodesic equations explicitly, one then sees immediately that ##\theta=\pi/2## (say) is a convenient choice that one can make without loss of generality.

But I don't follow Wald's particular argument, i.e., that the symmetry ##\theta\to \pi-\theta## allows one to conclude that "if the initial position and tangent vector of a geodesic lie in the equatorial plane ##\theta=\pi/2##, then the entire geodesic must lie in this plane.''

What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't he just using the "which way would it go" rhetorical question? If your particular initial conditions don't pick out a direction of increase/decrease for ##\theta## the symmetry of the metric implies any argument for "##\theta## will increase" must apply equally to "##\pi-\theta## will increase", so such an argument must be self-contradictory?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes strangerep, PeterDonis, Dale and 1 other person
I think Hartle argued this for initially ##\phi =0## to show the motion is planar. And then took the plane to be ##\theta = \frac \pi 2##.
 
I think the most simple argument is to use "isotropic coordinates" first. There the Schwarzschild line element reads
$$\mathrm{d} s^2 =\frac{[1-m/(2 R)]^2}{[1+m/(2R)]^2} c^2 \mathrm{d} t^2 - [1+m/(2R)]^4 \mathrm{d} \vec{x}^2,$$
where ##R=|\vec{x}|^2## and ##\vec{x}=(x^1,x^2,x^3)##.

The square-form Lagrangian for the geodesic reads
$$L=\frac{1}{2} \dot{s}^2,$$
where the dot denotes the derivative wrt. an arbitrary world-line parameter, ##\lambda##, which is automatically affine, because since ##L## doesn't depend explicitly on ##\lambda##, i.e., ##H=p_{\mu} q^{\mu}-L=L=\text{const}##, where ##p_{\mu} = \partial_{\dot{q}^{\mu}} L##, and for a massive particle we can set ##\lambda=\tau##, such that ##(\mathrm{d}_{\tau} s)^2=c^2##.

It's now also manifest that the solution is rotationally symmetric, i.e., the Lagrangian is invariant under rotations ##\vec{x}'=\hat{R} \vec{x}## with ##\hat{R} \in \mathrm{SO}(3)##. This implies that the angular momentum ##\vec{x} \times \vec{p}## is conserved as in Newtonian physics, and thus the trajectory is in a plane.

Since you know that the trajectory is in a plane, you can make the angular momentum pointing in ##x^3## direction, which means that ##\vartheta=\pi/2=\text{const}## for the usual spherical coordinates,
$$\vec{x}=R \begin{pmatrix} \cos \varphi \sin \vartheta \\ \sin \varphi \sin \vartheta \\ \cos \vartheta \end{pmatrix},$$
Since you get from the isotropic coordinates to the Schwarzschild coordinates by only transforming ##R## to ##r##, this also holds in Schwarzschild coordinates.
 
  • Like
Likes strangerep and dextercioby
strangerep said:
I don't follow Wald's particular argument, i.e., that the symmetry ##\theta\to \pi-\theta## allows one to conclude that "if the initial position and tangent vector of a geodesic lie in the equatorial plane ##\theta=\pi/2##, then the entire geodesic must lie in this plane.''

What am I missing?
The parity reflection symmetry in general means that we can take any solution to the geodesic equation and substitute ##\theta \to \pi - \theta## (and make all other changes that go along with this, such as changing derivatives with respect to ##\theta##) to get another solution. In general this will yield a pair of distinct solutions.

However, the particular value ##\theta = \pi / 2## is a fixed point of the parity reflection symmetry, which means that the symmetry takes any solution to the geodesic equation whose initial conditions are entirely in the plane ##\theta = \pi / 2## into itself. That can only be the case if the solution lies entirely in that plane.

Ibix said:
If your particular initial conditions don't pick out a direction of increase/decrease for ##\theta## the symmetry of the metric implies any argument for "##\theta## will increase" must apply equally to "##\pi-\theta## will increase", so such an argument must be self-contradictory?
If you add the qualifier that this argument only works for ##\theta = \pi / 2##, then I think it amounts to the same argument I gave above.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, strangerep and Ibix
PeterDonis said:
The parity reflection symmetry in general means that we can take any solution to the geodesic equation and substitute ##\theta \to \pi - \theta## (and make all other changes that go along with this, such as changing derivatives with respect to ##\theta##) to get another solution. In general this will yield a pair of distinct solutions.

However, the particular value ##\theta = \pi / 2## is a fixed point of the parity reflection symmetry, which means that the symmetry takes any solution to the geodesic equation whose initial conditions are entirely in the plane ##\theta = \pi / 2## into itself. That can only be the case if the solution lies entirely in that plane.
Thank you! (And thanks also to @Ibix , @vanhees71 and @PeroK.)

I must be getting older than I realize. :oldfrown:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Ibix
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top