Question about Weinberg's GR book

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific aspect of Weinberg's General Relativity book, particularly the treatment of the Ricci tensor's fourth-order terms in the context of the post-Newtonian approximation. Participants are examining the rationale behind excluding certain terms and the implications for gravitational dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why Weinberg discards the fourth-order terms of the purely spatial components of the Ricci tensor while including the R_{00} term.
  • Another participant suggests that Weinberg's approach reflects a physical hierarchy where time components drive dynamics and spatial components provide corrections, maintaining a balance between accuracy and computational tractability.
  • Some participants explain that the exclusion of the fourth-order R_{ij} terms is due to their dependence on affine connection terms not included in the relevant lists, which are necessary for the calculations presented in the book.
  • A participant calculates the fourth-order Ricci tensor component and argues that it includes both "unknown" and "known" affine connection terms, questioning why the known terms are not considered in the analysis.
  • There is a discussion about the use of the harmonic gauge and the necessity of certain affine connection terms in deriving specific equations, raising questions about consistency in Weinberg's treatment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the rationale behind the exclusion of certain terms in the Ricci tensor, with some supporting Weinberg's approach and others questioning its consistency and implications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity and treatment of these terms.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the analysis depends on specific affine connection terms and their inclusion or exclusion affects the equations of motion. There are unresolved questions regarding the measurability of certain components and the implications for the overall framework of post-Newtonian theory.

LordShadow_05
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Why does Weinberg discard a term of the ricci tensor he should be taking into account in the post-newtonian approximation of fourth order?
To anyone who has studied Weinberg's book. Does anyone know why Weinberg discards the fourth order term of the purely spatial components of the ricci tensor? It's the chapter 9 (post-newtonian approximation) of his GR book. It doesn't make sense to me because he includes the R_{00} term of fourth order but not R_{ij}.
 

Attachments

  • Weinberg.webp
    Weinberg.webp
    22.9 KB · Views: 41
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that Weinberg's treatment reflects the physical hierarchy in gravitational systems: time components (energy) drive the dynamics while spatial components (stress) provide corrections. Including fourth-order R₀₀ but not R_ij maintains the appropriate balance between accuracy and computational tractability in the post-Newtonian framework.This is a standard and well-justified approach in post-Newtonian theory, used successfully in gravitational wave astronomy and precision tests of General Relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LordShadow_05
Alien101 said:
It seems that Weinberg's treatment reflects the physical hierarchy in gravitational systems: time components (energy) drive the dynamics while spatial components (stress) provide corrections. Including fourth-order R₀₀ but not R_ij maintains the appropriate balance between accuracy and computational tractability in the post-Newtonian framework.This is a standard and well-justified approach in post-Newtonian theory, used successfully in gravitational wave astronomy and precision tests of General Relativity.
Ok, now I understand. Thank you very much!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alien101
The reason that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in the list (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) is because this list is meant to include only the Ricci terms that can be calculated from the list of affine connection terms given in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) on page 215. Note how all the connection terms that appear on the right sides of (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) are in the list (9.1.16) through (9.1.22). At the top of page 216, Weinberg refers to the connection terms in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) as the “known” affine connection terms.

You can show that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## depends on affine connection terms not included in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22), such as ##^4_{\Gamma^0_{0i}}## and ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So, ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).

If you proceed through Weinberg’s analysis on pages 216-220, you will see that he needs only the Ricci terms listed in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbergman, LordShadow_05 and Alien101
TSny said:
The reason that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in the list (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) is because this list is meant to include only the Ricci terms that can be calculated from the list of affine connection terms given in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) on page 215. Note how all the connection terms that appear on the right sides of (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) are in the list (9.1.16) through (9.1.22). At the top of page 216, Weinberg refers to the connection terms in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) as the “known” affine connection terms.

You can show that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## depends on affine connection terms not included in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22), such as ##^4_{\Gamma^0_{0i}}## and ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So, ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).

If you proceed through Weinberg’s analysis on pages 216-220, you will see that he needs only the Ricci terms listed in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).
Oh I see. So the thing is that even if ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is of fourth order it doesn't contribute because we see that it is constructed with components of Christoffel's symbol that don't appear in the geodesic equation, so those components aren't measurable, right? I have calculated this component of the Ricci tensor including the "unknown" affine connection terms and I obtained the following:
$$^4_{R_{i j}}=\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^0_{i0}}-\partial_0 ^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}+\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ik}}-\partial_k ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ij}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^0_{i0}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{j0}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ik}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{jm}} - ^2_{\Gamma^k_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{k0}} - ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{mk}}$$
I find that this component of the Ricci tensor isn't only constructed with "unknown" affine connection terms but also with "known" ones. Then, why don't we take into account those terms which contain "known" affine connection terms?
Also, at the end of that same page (216) he uses the harmonic gauge ##\Gamma^{\lambda}=0##. For the component ##\lambda=0## he obtains the equation 9.1.35. For obtaining that equation he made use of the "unknown" affine connection term ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So why can he use the "unknown" terms here but not in the Ricci tensor?
Thank you very much for your comment.

Edit: my formula doesn't show up and I don't know why. I have attached an image.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9651.webp
    IMG_9651.webp
    10.9 KB · Views: 27
Tλλ
LordShadow_05 said:
Oh I see. So the thing is that even if ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is of fourth order it doesn't contribute because we see that it is constructed with components of Christoffel's symbol that don't appear in the geodesic equation, so those components aren't measurable, right? I have calculated this component of the Ricci tensor including the "unknown" affine connection terms and I obtained the following:
$$^4_{R_{i j}}=\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^0_{i0}}-\partial_0 ^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}+\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ik}}-\partial_k ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ij}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^0_{i0}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{j0}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ik}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{jm}} - ^2_{\Gamma^k_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{k0}} - ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{mk}}$$
I find that this component of the Ricci tensor isn't only constructed with "unknown" affine connection terms but also with "known" ones. Then, why don't we take into account those terms which contain "known" affine connection terms?

The objective is to determine the free-fall equations of motion to order ##\frac {\overline{v}^4}{\overline r}.## This requires knowing the specific ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s on the right-hand sides of (9.1.16) – (9.1.22). Specifically, we need to find these: ##\overset{\small 2}{g}_{00}##, ##\overset{\small 4}{g}_{00}##, ##\overset{\small 3}{g}_{i0}##, and ##\overset{\small2}{g}_{ij}##.

These ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s are determined from the Einstein field equations ## \overset{\small 2}{R}_{00} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 0}{S}_{00} ##, ##\overset{\small 4}{R}_{00} = -8\pi G\overset{\small 2}{S}_{00}##, ##\overset{\small 3}{R}_{i0} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 1}{S}_{i0}##, and ##\overset{\small 2}{R}_{ij} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 0}{S}_{ij}##, where ##S_{\mu \nu} = T_{\mu \nu} - \frac 1 2 g_{\mu \nu} {T^{\lambda}}_{\lambda}##.

Setting up ##\overset{\small 4}{R}_{ij} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 2}{S}_{ij}## would not help. It would result in an equation involving unknown ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s that we do not need for the equations of motion. So, ##\overset{\small 4}{R}_{ij} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 2}{S}_{ij}## is not going to be helpful in determining the ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s that we need.

LordShadow_05 said:
Also, at the end of that same page (216) he uses the harmonic gauge ##\Gamma^{\lambda}=0##. For the component ##\lambda=0## he obtains the equation 9.1.35. For obtaining that equation he made use of the "unknown" affine connection term ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So why can he use the "unknown" terms here but not in the Ricci tensor?

##\overset{\small 3}{\Gamma^0}_{ij}## does not appear in the list (9.1.16)-(9.1.22). But this term is nevertheless needed in deriving equation (9.1.35), which can be used to help simplify (9.1.30)-(9.1.33). I don’t see any problem here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K