Solutions to the space-time metric

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mazulu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Space-time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and potential solutions related to the space-time metric, specifically the expression ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dt^2. Participants explore the meaning of "solution" in this context, discussing aspects of metrics, geodesics, and possible forms of solutions in relation to different physical theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the presence of two dt terms in the metric, suggesting they would cancel and asking for clarification on what is meant by a "solution" to a metric.
  • Another participant proposes that the correct form of the metric might be ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2, and questions the meaning of "solution," suggesting it could refer to geodesics.
  • A participant expresses interest in finding solutions that resemble wave functions or light-like solutions, mentioning a desire to explore more complex metrics beyond flat space-time.
  • One participant provides a non-differential form of the equation, S = √{(t-t0)² - (x-x0)² - (y-y0)² - (z-z0)²}, indicating that this form is specific to the Minkowski metric and may not apply to more general metrics.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the Minkowski metric being suitable for their needs, suggesting that the AdS/CFT correspondence might be more relevant for their inquiry into gravitational effects on light frequency.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the metric or the meaning of "solution." Multiple competing views are presented regarding the nature of the metric and the appropriate context for finding solutions.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of terms like "solution" and the applicability of different metrics. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and approaches to the topic without definitive conclusions.

Mazulu
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Can someone direct me to the solution to the space-time metric,
[itex]ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dt^2[/itex]? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have 2 dt terms and they would cancel. What do you mean by solution to this metric? A metric is a metric...what do you want to solve for? It's like asking "what's the solution to 4?"

...
 
I think you mean [itex]ds^2= dt^2- dx^2- dy^2- dz^2[/itex]. But, as Matterwave asked, what do you mean by a "solution" to a metric? The geodesics? That is the metric for Euclidean space-time so the curvature tensor is 0 and all geodesics are straight lines.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I think you mean [itex]ds^2= dt^2- dx^2- dy^2- dz^2[/itex]. But, as Matterwave asked, what do you mean by a "solution" to a metric? The geodesics? That is the metric for Euclidean space-time so the curvature tensor is 0 and all geodesics are straight lines.
It's a differential equation. Shouldn't there be an equation of the form [itex]s(t,x,y,z)[/itex] that when differentiated, will satisfy the equation. I actually wanted to solve some more difficult metrics, but I started with something easy (flat space-time). I was hoping that a solution of the form [itex]e^{i(kx+ky+kz-\omega t)}[/itex]} might pop out of it; or something that looks like light or a Poynting vector.

By the way, thank you for the heads up that a metric is used to find the curvature tensor of a geodesic. I just thought that Maxwell's equations should pop out of it as well.
 
It's a differential line element. It tells you how "far" apart two events are. I guess if you wanted a "solution" in the form of S=S(t,x,y,z), it would be:

[tex]S=\sqrt{(t-t_0)^2-(x-x_0)^2-(y-y_0)^2-(z-z_0)^2}[/tex]

That's just the non-differential form of the equation. In general, doing something like this is not possible for general metric, but because of the niceness of the Minkowski metric, you can do this.
 
Matterwave said:
It's a differential line element. It tells you how "far" apart two events are. I guess if you wanted a "solution" in the form of S=S(t,x,y,z), it would be:

[tex]S=\sqrt{(t-t_0)^2-(x-x_0)^2-(y-y_0)^2-(z-z_0)^2}[/tex]

That's just the non-differential form of the equation. In general, doing something like this is not possible for general metric, but because of the niceness of the Minkowski metric, you can do this.

I don't think the Minkowski metric is what I'm looking for. The AdS/CFT correspondence model contains both gravity and quantum mechanics. I think I need to look there. It would be amazing if I actually found what I'm looking for. There should be a solution that looks like a Fourier series with arguments [itex](\vec{k}\vec{r}-\omega_i t)[/itex], where [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] is along the radii of a black hole and ωi is the photon frequency along the radii . Such a solution would describe the redshift/blueshift caused by traversing a gravitational potential.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 92 ·
4
Replies
92
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K