A The wave vector ##k_\mu## in curved spacetime

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kostik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vector Wave
Kostik
Messages
250
Reaction score
28
TL;DR Summary
How do we define the wave vector ##k_\mu## in curved spacetime?
A plane wave (which can be a scalar function like air pressure, a vector function like the electric field ##\bf{E}## or a tensor field like the spacetime metric ##g_{\mu\nu}##) is a function of $$\xi = \omega t - {\bf{k} \cdot \bf{x}} = k_\sigma x^\sigma.$$ We call ##k_0## the wave vector. The quantity ##\xi## is the phase, which marks where ##e^{i\xi}## falls on the unit circle. This is plainly coordinate invariant, hence a scalar. Since $$k_\mu = \xi_{,\mu}$$ we know that ##k_\mu## is a vector.

How does one define the wave vector in curved spacetime? In curved space, there is not generally a plane wave solution to the covariant d’Alembert equation $$g^{\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu;\rho;\sigma} \quad\quad\quad (*) $$ In the plane wave case, the idea is to write a periodic ("monochromatic") wave in complex form, i.e., $$g_{\mu\nu}(x) = A_{\mu\nu}e^{ik_\sigma x^\sigma} = A_{\mu\nu}e^{i\xi}$$ (where the physical wave is the real part) and then define the phase $$\xi(x) = \arg[g_{\mu\nu}(x)] \quad\quad\quad(**)$$ Then, as before, the wave vector can be defined as ##k_\mu = \xi_{,\mu} ## (now a field function of ##x##).

For a periodic wave in curved space, can we extend this definition? How does one, for example, take a solution ##g_{\mu\nu}(x)## to the covariant d'Alembert equation ##(*)## and write it as the real part of a complex function, so that we can define the phase by ##(**)##?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kostik said:
TL;DR Summary: How do we define the wave vector ##k_\mu## in curved spacetime?

For a periodic wave in curved space, can we extend this definition?
That is a good question. The key point in the question is that in flat spacetime ##x## is a four-vector so ##g_{\mu\nu}x^\mu k^\nu=\phi## clearly requires that ##k## also be a four-vector.

In curved spacetime however ##x## is not a vector. It is an element of a manifold, which lacks the structure of a vector space.

I admit not knowing the details of this resolution, but I suspect the key lies in the fact that in curved spacetime ##dx## is a vector. So the definitions should still work, taken as local definitions in the tangent space rather than global definitions in the manifold.
 
Dale said:
I admit not knowing the details of this resolution, but I suspect the key lies in the fact that in curved spacetime ##dx## is a vector. So the definitions should still work, taken as local definitions in the tangent space rather than global definitions in the manifold.
This is the correct answer, not just for the wave vector, but for every vector and tensor in curved spacetime; they are all objects in the tangent space at a point. The most complete discussion of this that I know of in a GR textbook is the one in Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler, which takes, IIRC, multiple chapters to fully develop this idea and how it works.
 
First of all, we are not talking about linearized GR, right?

In GR and in generally curved spacetimes, the problem actually begins earlier, i.e. in the definition of a "plane wave" per se, and in a coordinate-free manner. The resolution is given in early papers by Ehlers and Kundt 1962, and a good presentation is given in Stewart: Advanced General Relativity, section 2.9.

The idea is to look at coordinate-free characteristics a plane wave as we know it in Minkowski spactime has and take these as defining properties in curved spacetime. This leads to a definition within the context of null congruences, generated by a null vector field ##l^\mu##. A plane-fronted wave is hereby characterized as a null congruence which is geodesic, and free of rotation, shear and expansion.

And if, in addition, the tangent (null) vector field ##l^\mu## is covariantly constant (##\nabla_\mu l_\nu=0##), then the wave is called a pp-wave ("plane-fronted with parallel rays"). In my eyes this is as closest to a plane wave as it can get in GR.

A newer publication is by Hogan and Puetzfeld, although I have not yet studied it:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-16826-0
 
Last edited:
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