Unbounded perturbed geometry due to analyticity

  • Thread starter Thread starter CharlesJQuarra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
CharlesJQuarra
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I have a certain Ansatz for a gravitational wave perturbation of the metric h_{\mu \nu} that is nonzero near an axis of background flat Minkowski spacetime

The Ansatz has the following form:

<br /> g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu} = \begin{bmatrix} -1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\ 0 &amp; 1 + V(x,y,t) &amp; U(x,y,t) &amp; 0 \\ 0 &amp; U(x,y,t) &amp; 1 -V(x,y,t) &amp; 0 \\ 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 \end{bmatrix}<br />

The Ansatz has the following property:

h^{\mu}_{\mu}=0

I want the Ansatz to be also in the Transverse-Traceless gauge, which implies

\partial_{\mu} h^{\mu \nu} = 0

When I apply this condition on the Ansatz, I'm left with two nontrivial conditions:

\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}= \frac{\partial V}{\partial y}

\frac{\partial U}{\partial y}=- \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}

Oh by Thor Almighty! these are the Cauchy-Riemann equations!

Now, is well known that *analytic complex functions are either constant or unbounded*.I am trying to interpret this correctly:

The Ansatz geometry does not seem to be able to become asymptotically Minkowski, if one asks that the metric is in the Transverse-Traceless gauge. For any far away region from the x=0, y=0 axis, h_{\mu \nu} will become larger in magnitude than \eta_{\mu \nu}, which seems that is not our linear regime anymore, and would produce some large deformations
Is there an intuitive reason why the Transverse-Traceless gauge is not consistent with a perturbed metric that has this form? what if I would've tried a compact set, bounded on z as well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I wouldn't describe your ansatz as a gravitational wave. Gravitational waves are transverse, so if the perturbations to the metric are in the x and y elements, it needs to propagate in the z direction, and therefore U and V need to depend on z. In fact, they need to depend on the quantity z-t or z+t.
 
Hi Ben,

True, I've should've added it explicitly. In any case the fact that the only nontrivial perturbation components are on the xx, xy, yx and yy means that derivatives of t and z do not show up in the gauge conditions \partial_{\mu} h^{\mu \nu} = 0.

The issue is that, for example, I cannot have the h_{ij} fields orthogonal to z propagation to vanish after a maximum width (like it would be the case for example, with a Gaussian beam), because the holomorphic nature of the non-trivial gauge conditions, forces these components to either be constant or become too large far away from the origin, even while one would've expected the functions to taper and become zero as we move away from the region with nontrivial fields, as we should be approaching Minkowski spacetime.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top