Azrael84
- 34
- 0
Another question I have from Schutz (CH3, 31 (c)), where he defines the Projection tensor as
[tex]P_{\vec{q}}=g+\frac{\vec{q} \otimes \vec{q}}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q}}[/tex]
This can be written in component form (or rather the associated (1 1) tensor can after operating a few times on it with the metric) as:[tex]P^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}=\eta^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}[/tex]
This obviously takes a vector V and produces another vector , i.e. [tex]V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp}=P^{\alpha}{}_{\beta} V^{\beta}=(\eta^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}})V^{\beta}=V^{\alpha}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}V^{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}[/tex]
The task is then to show that [tex]V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp}[/tex] is indeed orthoganal to [tex]\vec{q}[/tex], provided q is non-null.
So I start of by taking the dot product of [tex]V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp}[/tex] and [tex]\vec{q}[/tex]:
[tex]\vec{q} \cdot \vec{V}_{\perp}=\eta_{\alpha \beta} q^{\alpha}V^{\beta}{}_{\perp}= \eta_{\alpha \beta}q^{\alpha}(V^{\beta}+\frac{q^{\beta}q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}})=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+\frac{\eta_{\alpha \beta}q^{\alpha}q^{\beta}q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+\frac{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q} (q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma})}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q} }=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=2q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}[/tex]
Which is not generally equal to zero. In Schutz's previous example he used the four velocity as [tex]\vec{q}[/tex] which obviously has magnitude of -1. Also he used the projection operator as
[tex]P_{\vec{q}}=g+\vec{U} \otimes \vec{U}[/tex]
Then everything works out fine, and you can easily show this does produce vectors orthoginal to [tex]\vec{U}[/tex] since following a similar derivation to above you end up with [tex]=U_{\beta}V^{\beta}+(\vec{U} \cdot \vec{U}) U_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=U_{\beta}V^{\beta}- U_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=0[/tex]
So I don't believe this thing above really is the projection operator for arbitrary [tex]\vec{q}[/tex], although if we instead defined
[tex]P_{\vec{q}}=g-\frac{\vec{q} \otimes \vec{q}}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q}}[/tex]
Then this would work I think?
[tex]P_{\vec{q}}=g+\frac{\vec{q} \otimes \vec{q}}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q}}[/tex]
This can be written in component form (or rather the associated (1 1) tensor can after operating a few times on it with the metric) as:[tex]P^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}=\eta^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}[/tex]
This obviously takes a vector V and produces another vector , i.e. [tex]V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp}=P^{\alpha}{}_{\beta} V^{\beta}=(\eta^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}})V^{\beta}=V^{\alpha}+\frac{q^{\alpha}q_{\beta}V^{\beta}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}[/tex]
The task is then to show that [tex]V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp}[/tex] is indeed orthoganal to [tex]\vec{q}[/tex], provided q is non-null.
So I start of by taking the dot product of [tex]V^{\alpha}{}_{\perp}[/tex] and [tex]\vec{q}[/tex]:
[tex]\vec{q} \cdot \vec{V}_{\perp}=\eta_{\alpha \beta} q^{\alpha}V^{\beta}{}_{\perp}= \eta_{\alpha \beta}q^{\alpha}(V^{\beta}+\frac{q^{\beta}q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}})=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+\frac{\eta_{\alpha \beta}q^{\alpha}q^{\beta}q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}}{q^{\gamma}q_{\gamma}}=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+\frac{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q} (q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma})}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q} }=q_{\beta}V^{\beta}+q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=2q_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}[/tex]
Which is not generally equal to zero. In Schutz's previous example he used the four velocity as [tex]\vec{q}[/tex] which obviously has magnitude of -1. Also he used the projection operator as
[tex]P_{\vec{q}}=g+\vec{U} \otimes \vec{U}[/tex]
Then everything works out fine, and you can easily show this does produce vectors orthoginal to [tex]\vec{U}[/tex] since following a similar derivation to above you end up with [tex]=U_{\beta}V^{\beta}+(\vec{U} \cdot \vec{U}) U_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=U_{\beta}V^{\beta}- U_{\sigma}V^{\sigma}=0[/tex]
So I don't believe this thing above really is the projection operator for arbitrary [tex]\vec{q}[/tex], although if we instead defined
[tex]P_{\vec{q}}=g-\frac{\vec{q} \otimes \vec{q}}{\vec{q} \cdot \vec{q}}[/tex]
Then this would work I think?
Last edited by a moderator: