I MTW exercise 21.26: junction conditions for a thin shell of dust

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving specific equations related to a thin shell of dust in a vacuum, particularly the second equation concerning the 4-accelerations of the shell's inner and outer sides. Participants highlight that while equations (a), (c), and (d) are manageable, equation (b) presents challenges, as it relates to the symmetry of forces on the shell. The use of Gaussian Normal Coordinates (GNC) is emphasized for deriving these equations, with a particular focus on the implications of the vacuum surrounding the shell. The conversation suggests that demonstrating certain conditions at the shell's faces is crucial for completing the derivation of equation (b). Overall, the thread underscores the complexities involved in applying theoretical concepts to practical equations in general relativity.
JimWhoKnew
Messages
234
Reaction score
124
TL;DR
see below
I need help with exercise 21.26 in MTW. The question goes like this:

For a thin shell of dust surrounded by vacuum ( ##[T^{in}]=0## , ##\mathbf{t}=0## ), derive the following equations$$\frac{d\sigma}{d\tau}=-\sigma^b{}_{|b}\;\; ,\tag{21.175a}$$$$\mathbf{a}^+ +\mathbf{a}^- =0 \;\; ,\tag{21.175b}$$$$\mathbf{a}^+ -\mathbf{a}^- =4\pi\sigma\mathbf{n} \;\; ,\tag{21.175c}$$$$\mathbf{\gamma}=8\pi\sigma\left(\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}+\frac12 \mathbf{g}\right) \;\; .\tag{21.175d}$$Here ##\mathbf{a}^+## and ##\mathbf{a}^-## are the 4-accelerations as measured by accelerometers that are fastened onto the outer and inner sides of the shell, and ##\mathbf{g}## is the 3-metric of the shell.

It's not hard to derive equations a, c & d. The second ( ##\mathbf{a}^+ +\mathbf{a}^- =0## ) is where I get stuck. Intuitively, I understand it as proportional to the "total non-gravitational force" exerted on the shell element between the accelerometers, and therefore it should vanish. But I fail to spot how it can be derived from the equations in section 21.13 and exercise 21.25.

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JimWhoKnew said:
The second ( ##\mathbf{a}^+ +\mathbf{a}^- =0## ) is where I get stuck.
What do you get if you add the second and third equations?
 
PeterDonis said:
What do you get if you add the second and third equations?
##\mathbf{a}^\pm=\pm 2\pi\sigma\mathbf{n}## , which looks like the well known result in electrostatics. If the accelerometers were not fastened to the shell, they would have followed a geodesic and measure 0. So the shell exerts a force on them which is symmetric on both its faces. But can we show it from the equations?
 
JimWhoKnew said:
##\mathbf{a}^\pm=\pm 2\pi\sigma\mathbf{n}## , which looks like the well known result in electrostatics. If the accelerometers were not fastened to the shell, they would have followed a geodesic and measure 0. So the shell exerts a force on them which is symmetric on both its faces.
Yes, that's the physical interpretation of the result.

JimWhoKnew said:
Can we show it from the equations?
How did you derive equation (c)?
 
PeterDonis said:
How did you derive equation (c)?
The book uses Gaussian Normal Coordinates (GNC) in this section, so I do too.
First I derived equation (d) out of equation (21.168b). The equation numbering follows that of the book.
Then I used the condition that the shell is surrounded by vacuum (see OP) in equation (21.173) to get ##a_j=0## (Greek letters are used for 4D, roman for 3D). In GNC this means ##a^j=0## also, so ##~\hat{\mathbf{a}}=\hat{\mathbf{n}}## . From the identity$$\left(u^\nu u_\mu n^\mu\right)_{;\nu}=0$$I get$$\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{K}\left(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u}\right)\;\; .\tag{1}$$Using this in equation (d) yields (c).
In GNC we have$$K_{ij}=-\frac12 g_{ij,n} \;\; ,\tag{2}$$so following (1), to get equation (b) I have to argue that ##\left| u^i u^j g_{ij,n}\right|## are the same on both faces of the shell in vacuum. That's where I get stuck.

Alternatively, following post #3, If I could show ##~-\frac12 u^i u^j g_{ij,n}=\pm2\pi\sigma~## at the faces, then the derivation of (b) will be completed. But I don't know how to show that either.
 
The solution can be found in "Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation" (Lightman, Press, Price & Teukolsky). Needs a little debugging.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...
Train Fall Paradox A train is running on a long bridge over a river. A series of bombs planted on the bridge by terrorists explode simultaneously, and the bridge collapses into dust in an instant. The train falls while keeping its cars in a horizontal line and hits the river. All the cars receive equal damage. However, in the inertial frame of reference in which the train had been at rest, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the bombs at the front explode earlier. The first car falls...