Two Questions about Novikov Coordinates

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PeterDonis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coordinates
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the use of Novikov coordinates in Schwarzschild spacetime, particularly regarding their application to radial timelike geodesics and the transformation of metrics. Participants explore the implications of using different coordinate systems and seek feedback on specific transformations and references related to their questions.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the intention behind Novikov coordinates, emphasizing their role in creating a comoving coordinate chart for radial timelike geodesics.
  • Another participant notes the transformation of the metric using the areal radius ##R## instead of the rescaled coordinate ##R^*##, seeking feedback on the correctness of this transformation.
  • A participant introduces a cycloidal time coordinate ##\eta## and discusses its potential to rewrite the metric, questioning if this approach has been previously addressed in literature.
  • Some participants reference Landau & Lifschitz and Weinberg's works, suggesting they may contain relevant discussions or treatments of the posed questions.
  • One participant reflects on the general solutions derived in the referenced texts, noting their equivalence to the specific case being considered, while highlighting differences in approach between the texts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the applicability and correctness of the transformations discussed. While some agree on the relevance of the references mentioned, there is no consensus on the specific questions raised regarding the metric transformations and their implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the transformations and the potential for multiple interpretations of the metrics involved. There are indications of unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on specific coordinate choices.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying general relativity, particularly in the context of black hole physics and coordinate transformations in curved spacetimes.

Messages
49,548
Reaction score
25,665
TL;DR
Seeking feedback on whether and how Novikov coordinates on Schwarzschild spacetime can be reworked to use the areal radius at ##\tau = 0## directly, and whether the cycloidal time coordinate ##\eta## can be used instead of ##\tau##.
The general intention of Novikov coordinates on Schwarzschild spacetime is to construct a "comoving" coordinate chart for purely radial timelike geodesics, i.e., every such geodesic should have a constant radial coordinate, and the time coordinate should be the same as proper time for observers following the geodesics. The straightforward way to assign the radial coordinate is to look at the "maximum expansion" surface (the surface at which all of the geodesics are momentarily "at rest", i.e., orthogonal to the surface of constant proper time ##\tau##), standardly labeled ##\tau = 0##, and which corresponds to the ##T = 0## hypersurface in Kruskal coordinates (i.e., the "x-axis"). Each radial timelike geodesic intersects this surface at a unique point (we are ignoring the angular coordinates, so "point" here really means "2-sphere" in the full spacetime), which has an areal radius ##R## associated with it.

In the usual form of Novikov coordinates that I have seen, the radial coordinate is not ##R## directly, but is a rescaled coordinate that MTW calls ##R^*## (what I am calling ##R## here, MTW calls ##r_{\text{max}}##, defined as follows:

$$
R^* = \sqrt{ \frac{R}{2M} - 1 }
$$

This fixes the range of ##R^*## to ##0 \le R^* \lt \infty## (whereas ##R## has a minimum at ##2M## on the hypersurface in question). When working with the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime, this makes sense. However, it also makes the ##g_{R^* R^*}## term in the metric look quite complicated.

That leads to my first question: I have tried to rework these coordinates to use ##R## (i.e., the areal radius of each radial timelike geodesic at ##\tau = 0##) directly (because I want to use them in the exterior region of the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse spacetime, for which it will make it easier to match to the coordinates of the interior matter region at the boundary). I would like any feedback that others can give on whether the following transformation of the metric is correct, or any references to existing treatments along these lines in the literature.

The metric in the usual Novikov coordinates, using ##R^*##, is:

$$
ds^2 = - d\tau^2 + \frac{{R^*}^2 + 1}{{R^*}^2} \left( \frac{\partial r}{\partial R^*} \right)^2 d{R^*}^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2
$$

Here ##r## is the areal radius at the given event (i.e., not ##R##, the areal radius at ##\tau = 0##, but the actual areal radius on the geodesic labeled by ##R^*## as a function of ##\tau## and ##R^*##) and ##d \Omega^2## is the standard metric on a unit 2-sphere in the usual angular coordinates.

Using the equation for ##R^*## in terms of ##R## above, I obtain:

$$
R = 2M \left( {R^*}^2 + 1 \right)
$$

$$
\frac{\partial r}{\partial R^*} = \frac{\partial r}{\partial R} \frac{dR}{dR^*} = \frac{\partial r}{\partial R} 4 M R^* = \frac{\partial r}{\partial R} 4 M \sqrt{ \frac{R}{2M} - 1 }
$$

$$
dR^* = \frac{1}{4 M \sqrt{\frac{R}{2M} - 1}} dR = \frac{1}{\frac{dR}{dR^*}} dR
$$

Substituting these into the metric gives

$$
ds^2 = - d\tau^2 + \frac{1}{1 - \frac{2M}{R}} \left( \frac{\partial r}{\partial R} \right)^2 dR^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2
$$

where ##r## is now a function of ##R## and ##\tau##.

This form of the metric is interesting because the first factor in ##g_{RR}## now looks very similar to the factor in Schwarzschild coordinates, but with ##R## instead of ##r##--i.e., that factor is constant along every radial timelike geodesic.

That observation leads to my second question: we know that we can define a cycloidal time coordinate ##\eta## such that, for every radial timelike geodesic labeled by ##R## (its areal radius at "maximum expansion"), we have

$$
r = \frac{1}{2} R \left( 1 + \cos \eta \right)
$$

$$
\tau = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{R^3}{2M}} \left( \eta + \sin \eta \right)
$$

I note that the above equations imply

$$
\frac{\partial r}{\partial R} = \sqrt{\frac{2M}{R^3}} \frac{\partial \tau}{\partial \eta}
$$

This would seem to indicate that we should be able to rewrite the metric above to use ##\eta## as the time coordinate instead of ##\tau##. However, I have not been able to find any treatment along these lines. Does anyone know of a reference where this is done?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think this is discussed in Landau Lifschitz vol. 2 in the section about the collapse of a "dust cloud" to a black hole.
 
PeterDonis said:
This form of the metric is interesting because the first factor in ##g_{RR}## now looks very similar to the factor in Schwarzschild coordinates, but with ##R## instead of ##r##--i.e., that factor is constant along every radial timelike geodesic.

That observation leads to my second question: we know that we can define a cycloidal time coordinate ##\eta## such that, for every radial timelike geodesic labeled by ##R## (its areal radius at "maximum expansion"), we have

$$
r = \frac{1}{2} R \left( 1 + \cos \eta \right)
$$
This equation for ##r## suggests one more question: since we have ##\partial r / \partial R = r / R##, we can write ##r^2 = R^2 \left( r / R \right)^2## and write the metric as

$$
ds^2 = - d\tau^2 + A^2 \left( \eta \right) \left( \frac{1}{1 - \frac{2M}{R}} dR^2 + R^2 d\Omega^2 \right)
$$

where ##A \left( \eta \right) = \left( 1 + \cos \eta \right) / 2##. This form of the metric completely separates the ##\eta## dependence from the ##R## dependence (the factor inside the parentheses in the spatial part is in fact constant along each geodesic). Does that look correct, or have I missed something?

(Note, btw, that if we translate the ##\eta## dependence into a ##\tau## dependence, we will find that ##A## is a function of ##R## as well as ##\tau##, so we haven't completely separated the ##R## dependence and the ##\tau## dependence. This is because ##\tau## is a function of ##R## as well as ##\eta##, by the equation I gave in the OP, so inverting that will make ##\eta## a function of ##R## as well as ##\tau##.)
 
vanhees71 said:
I think this is discussed in Landau Lifschitz vol. 2 in the section about the collapse of a "dust cloud" to a black hole.
Do they specifically discuss any of the questions I've posed? I don't have a copy handy to check.
 
I think it answers your questions. At least they derive the dust collapse in terms of such coordinates. An equivalent treatment can also be found in Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (1971).
 
vanhees71 said:
I think it answers your questions. At least they derive the dust collapse in terms of such coordinates. An equivalent treatment can also be found in Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (1971).
Ok, thanks! When I get a chance I'll take a look.
 
vanhees71 said:
I think this is discussed in Landau Lifschitz vol. 2 in the section about the collapse of a "dust cloud" to a black hole.
vanhees71 said:
An equivalent treatment can also be found in Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (1971).
Ok, having now taken a look at these two references, I have a couple of comments:

Landau & Lifschitz start from a general comoving coordinate ansatz, and, as far as I can tell, obtain a general solution containing arbitrary functions, of which the case I am considering, with density constant inside the matter (varying in time but not space) and Schwarzschild vacuum outside, is a special case. I believe that their general solution ends up being equivalent to what I have derived for that special case.

Weinberg also starts from a general comoving coordinate ansatz, but he only derives the actual form of the metric in those coordinates inside the collapsing matter, where of course it takes the familiar FRW form. When it comes to matching the interior solution to an exterior solution in the vacuum region, rather than finding an expression for the vacuum metric in comoving coordinates, he instead finds an expression for the interior metric in Schwarzschild-like coordinates. So his approach is not the same as the one I am taking here. The two approaches must of course be equivalent physically.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Sure, there must be coordinate transformations leading from one to the other form of the solution. It's a gauge theory after all!
 
vanhees71 said:
Sure, there must be coordinate transformations leading from one to the other form of the solution. It's a gauge theory after all!
Yes, but it was helpful for me to have references to check, to increase my confidence that the metric I've come up with is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
897
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
991
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K