A Static Gravitational Field: Why Must ##g_{m0} = 0##?

Kostik
Messages
250
Reaction score
28
TL;DR Summary
Explaining Dirac's assertion ("GTR", Ch. 16) that in a static gravitational field we must have ##g_{m0} = 0, m=1,2,3)##.
In Dirac's "General Theory of Relativity", he begins Chap 16, with "Let us consider a static gravitational field and refer it to a static coordinate system. The ##g_{\mu\nu}## are then constant in time, ##g_{\mu\nu,0}=0##. Further, we must have ##g_{m0} = 0, (m=1,2,3)##."

It's obvious that static ##\rightarrow g_{\mu\nu,0}=0##, but why must ##g_{m0} = 0## ?

What I can think of is this. First, think of ordinary 3D space. Suppose there is no curvature in one of the dimensions, say the ##x^1## dimension. Then the metric ##ds^2 = g_{mn} dx^m dx^n## should have no ##dx^1 dx^2## or ##dx^1 dx^3## terms, since translating along the ##x^1## coordinate direction should not alter how ##ds^2## depends upon ##x^2## or ##x^3##.

In the same way, there should be no ##dx^0 dx^m## terms in the metric if the curvature of spacetime is static in time.

Alternatively, if I make the change of coordinates ##x'^0=x^0+\text{constant}##, and ##x'^m=x^m## (##m=1,2,3##), and if the gravitational field is static, then ##g'_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}## (because the time translation cannot alter spacetime intervals). Hence, ##g_{\mu\nu} dx'^\mu dx'^\nu = g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu##, which implies there are no ##dx^0 dx^m## terms in the metric.

Is this the right way to explain Dirac's assertion?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
Physics news on Phys.org
A static field is one in which the timelike Killing field is everywhere orthogonal to the spacelike surfaces. Thus a vector (1,0,0,0), parallel to the Killing field, must be orthogonal to all vectors (0,a,b,c) that lie in the spacelike planes. The only way that happens is if ##g_{m0}=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72 and topsquark
Contrast this to a stationary spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, vanhees71 and topsquark
Kostik said:
In Dirac's "General Theory of Relativity", he begins Chap 16, with "Let us consider a static gravitational field and refer it to a static coordinate system. The ##g_{\mu\nu}## are then constant in time, ##g_{\mu\nu,0}=0##. Further, we must have ##g_{m0} = 0, (m=1,2,3)##."
Note the key phrase: "and refer it to a static coordinate system". His assertion is only true for such a coordinate system.

The modern way of making this point would be to say that in a static spacetime it is always possible to find a coordinate chart with no ##g_{m0}## cross terms. This is because a static spacetime has a timelike Killing vector field that is hypersurface orthogonal. But it is not necessary for any coordinate chart on a static spacetime to have no ##g_{m0}## cross terms. It is only possible. (Whereas, as @Orodruin mentioned, in a spacetime that is stationary but not static, it is not possible to find such a coordinate chart.)
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, vanhees71, topsquark and 1 other person
PeterDonis said:
Note the key phrase: "and refer it to a static coordinate system". His assertion is only true for such a coordinate system.

The modern way of making this point would be to say that in a static spacetime it is always possible to find a coordinate chart with no ##g_{m0}## cross terms. This is because a static spacetime has a timelike Killing vector field that is hypersurface orthogonal. But it is not necessary for any coordinate chart on a static spacetime to have no ##g_{m0}## cross terms. It is only possible. (Whereas, as @Orodruin mentioned, in a spacetime that is stationary but not static, it is not possible to find such a coordinate chart.)
Can you explain / clarify what a "static coordinate system" is, in non-modern language (i.e., the way Dirac would have explained it in 1975)?
 
One where the components of ##g## do not depend on ##x^0## and surfaces of constant ##x^0## are orthogonal to the ##x^0## direction.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis, topsquark and vanhees71
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top