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
269
Reaction score
32
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:
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top