Schwarzschild metric in Kruskal coord's

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of the Schwarzschild metric into Kruskal coordinates, focusing on the algebraic manipulation required to achieve the desired metric form. Participants are exploring the definitions and relationships inherent in Kruskal coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the Schwarzschild metric in Kruskal coordinates by applying total derivatives to the defining equations of Kruskal coordinates, but finds the resulting expressions complex and challenging to simplify. Other participants suggest looking up foundational papers for guidance and question the clarity of the variable 't' in this context.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the algebraic challenges involved in the transformation process. Some guidance has been offered regarding resources to consult, and there is an acknowledgment of the complexity of the problem without a clear consensus on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses uncertainty about the difficulty level of the problem, suggesting a potential lack of clarity in the definitions or assumptions being used. There is also a question regarding the expression of the time variable 't' as the radius varies, indicating a need for further exploration of this aspect.

reverbtank
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This question is very simple, but it is driving me mad.

Show that the Schwarzschild metric in Kruskal coordinates takes the form

ds2 = (32M3/r)e-r/2M(-dv2+du2) +r2(d(theta)2 + sin2(theta)*d(phi)2)

Homework Equations



The equations are just those defining the Kruskal coordinates
(1) u2 - v2 = (r/2M -1)er/2M

and
(2) v/u = tanh(t/4M)

The Attempt at a Solution



I've tried this numerous times without luck. Usually I start by solving the second eqt'n for t and then take its total time derivative. This gets me dt2 to plug into the regular Schwarzschild metric. Next, I take total derivative of LHS and RHS of first eqt'n and then solve for dr. This leaves me with a hopelessly complex expression for the metric that I have not been successful in reducing to the form given by the problem.

I can't find derivations of this anywhere on the internet (Wikipedia just states it). This makes me think that either the problem is exceedingly difficult, or exceedingly trivial. If it is trivial, I'm missing something. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the issue here is that I just need to face up to the messy algebra. Thanks.
 
I suggest that you look up the paper by Martin Kruskal in which he developed what you are looking for. The easiest way I know to look it up is to use Google Scholar.

It is very easy to do. First put "Martin Kruskal" in the entry place for "Authors" (use quote marks around the name). Even if there are other authors, you don't need to put them in.

Then put in what is necessary to narrow down the papers you get; Martin published a large number of papers. I think it would be enough to put in "Schwarzschild metric" and "Kruskal coordinates". With that you shouldn't get more than a few papers. Then get hold of that paper, and you should be able to read about it from the person who did it first.
 
Thanks for the post! It was a nice surprise, since I thought I had resolved this thread. I completed the assignment, but I will certainly look for the paper.
 
A little off topic but while the quantity of r is self explanatory in Kruskal coordinates, what quantity would be use for t? i.e. as the radius counts down from infinity to zero, how exactly is the quantity t expressed?

regards
Steve
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K