Proving Orthogonality of θ_{ik}V^k to U_i

  • Thread starter Thread starter devd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orthogonality
devd
Messages
47
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Show that the tensor
θ_{ik} = g_{ik} - U_{i}U_{k}
projects any vector, V^{k}, into a 3-surface orthogonal to the unit time-like
vector U_{i} (By a projection, the vector θ_{ik}V_{k}, is implied).

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



The projection should be,
θ_{ik} V^k = g_{ik} V^k - U_i U_k V^k<br /> \Rightarrow θ_{ik} V^k U_i = g_{ik} V^k U_i - U_i U_k V^k U_i. This should equal zero, for the projection to be orthogonal. But, I'm not being able to proceed.
By timelike, the problem means U_i U^i \ge 0, right? But, i don't see how that helps me.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
devd said:
Show that the tensor
θ_{ik} = g_{ik} - U_{i}U_{k}
projects any vector, V^{k}, into a 3-surface orthogonal to the unit time-like
vector U_{i} (By a projection, the vector θ_{ik}V_{k}, is implied).
The phrase "unit time-like vector ##U_i##" is important. What do you think "unit" means here?

[...] By timelike, the problem means U_i U^i \ge 0, right? But, i don't see how that helps me.
Yes, but (again), what does "unit" mean here?

The projection should be,
θ_{ik} V^k = g_{ik} V^k - U_i U_k V^k<br /> \Rightarrow θ_{ik} V^k U_i = g_{ik} V^k U_i - U_i U_k V^k U_i.
Whenever you're contracting indices in such contexts, it should be between an upstairs and a downstairs pair of indices. So your last part should be
$$\theta_{ik} V^k U^i ~=~ g_{ik} V^k U^i - U_i U_k V^k U^i $$Now, can you simplify these subexpressions:
$$g_{ik} U^i ~~~\text{and}~~~ U_i U^i ~~~?$$Then consider further my remarks about the meaning of "unit"...
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Ohho, sorry! I missed the 'unit' bit. U_i U_k can be written as g_{ik} U_i U^i. Now, U_i is a unit timelike vector. By definition, then, U_i U^i = 1. Then, the terms cancel and the result follows, right! Thanks for pointing that out! :)
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top