I Understanding Frequency in Rindler Coordinates for a Scalar Massless Field

Haorong Wu
Messages
417
Reaction score
90
TL;DR Summary
I derive two different frequencies in Rindler coordinates in 2 and 4 dimensions. Why they are different?
I consider a scalar massless field obeying the Klein-Gordon equation ##\Box \psi=0 ##.

First, in Minkowski spacetime, a solution of the equation is $$ u_{\mathbf k}(x^\mu)=((2\pi)^3 2 \omega)^{-1/2} e^{ik_\mu x^\mu}$$ where ##\mathbf k=(\omega, \vec k)##. So this mode has a frequency of ##\omega##.

Next, in the right part of the Rindler coordinates in 2-dimensions, where ##t=\frac 1 a e^{a\xi} \sinh (a\eta)##, and ##z=\frac 1 a e^{a\xi} \cosh (a\eta)##, the metric is ##ds^2=e^{2a\xi}(-d\eta^2+d\xi^2)##. The solution to the Klein-Gordon equation will be $$g_k=(4 \pi \omega)^{-1/2} e^{-i\omega \eta+i k \xi}.$$ So this mode has a frequency of ##\omega##. I have read several papers, all of which consider this scenario. One of them says that the derivation in 4-dimensions will be similar.

Now, I am considering in 4-dimensional Rindler coordinates, where the metric is ## ds^2=e^{2a\xi}(-d\eta^2+d\xi^2)+dx^2+dy^2##. I solve the Klein-Gordon equation##\Box \psi=[e^{-2a\xi} (-\partial^2_\eta+\partial^2_\xi)+\partial^2_x+\partial^2_y]\psi=0 ## yielding $$g_k=(4 \pi \omega)^{-1/2} \exp [i(-e^{2a\xi} \omega \eta +e^{2a\xi} k_z \xi +k_x x+k_y y)] $$ where I have assumed the wavevector is ##\mathbf k=(\omega, k_1, k_2, k_3)##. Since the ##x## and ##y## axes are orthogonal to the acceleration direction, I choose ##k_x## and ##k_y## to be unaltered. I am not sure what the frequency of this mode is. I have defined its frequency to be ##\omega##, but from its expression, it should have a frequency of ##e^{2a\xi} \omega##. Why it is enlarged by a factor ##e^{2a\xi}## compared to the previous 2-dimensional case? If the accelerating observer has a proper acceleration ##a##, then ##\xi=0## and ##e^{2a\xi}=1##. But I am not sure about this argument because some following analyse, such as find the Bogoliubov transform between ##u_{\mathbf k} ## and ##g_k##, will involve the coordinate ##\xi##.

Also, I consider an accelerating observer, whose 4-velocity in Rindler coordinates will be ##\mathbf u=(e^{-a\xi}, 0, 0, 0)## since its coordinates in ##x##, ##y##, ##\xi## coordinates are constant and ##\mathbf u \cdot \mathbf u=-1##. So the frequency observed by this observer should be ##-\mathbf u \cdot \mathbf k=e^{a \xi} \omega=\omega## since ##\xi=0## for the observer.

So should I take ##\omega## to be the frequency of this mode? Then why its wave function displays a different frequency? Also, I do not see any Doppler effects. Should I worry about that?

Many thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint 1: Take the 4-dimensional solution in Rindler coordinates and choose ##k_x=k_y=0##. Does it solve the 2-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation in Rindler coordinates?

Hint 2: Take the 4-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation in Rindler coordinates and multiply it (from the left) with ##e^{2a\xi}##. Can you solve this new equation?

Hint 3: Take the solution in Minkowski spacetime and express it in Rindler coordinates. Do you see something interesting? Take the solution in Rindler spacetime (in both 2 and 4 dimensions) and express it in Minkowski coordinates. Do you see something interesting?

Hint 4: When talking about solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation, sometimes you said "a solution", sometimes you said "the solution". Does the difference matter? If it does, then what's correct: "a" or "the"?

Hint 5: For any solution ##\psi(x)## in any system of coordinates ##x##, define frequency as
$$\Omega(x)=\frac{i\partial_0\psi(x)}{\psi(x)}$$
and apply the definition to various solutions. What do you obtain? Does this definition make sense?

Hint 6: For a moment forget relativity theory, both general and special. What does the word "frequency" mean? For what kind of phenomena is it defined?

Hint 7: Consider a table at rest in an inertial frame. At the table there is a classical pendulum swinging with the frequency ##\omega##, as seen by the observer not moving with respect to the table. What's the frequency of swinging as seen by an observer moving with velocity ##v## with respect to the table? What if ##v## is not constant, what's the frequency of swinging as seen by an observer moving with acceleration ##a##?

Conclusion: Can you give qualitative answers to all the questions above, without actual calculations? If you can, can you now answer your own question: how to understand frequency in Rindler coordinates?
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much, @Demystifier for those hints.

A1: Yes, they must solve the 2-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation. They just scale the "frequencies" ##\omega## and ##k_z## by a factor ##e^{2a\xi}##.

A2: I do not understand this change. Multiplying a factor should not change the equation since the factor can be safely removed from both side. Anyway, it can also give equivalent solutions $$g_k=(4 \pi \omega)^{-1/2} \exp [i(- \omega \eta + k_z \xi +e^{-2a\xi}k_x x+e^{-2a\xi}k_y y)].$$ The transverse frequencies are shrank by a factor of ##e^{-2a\xi}##.

A3: The Minkowski solutions in Rindler coordinates read $$u_k=C \exp [i(- \omega \frac 1 a e^{a\xi} \sinh (a\eta) + k_z \frac 1 a e^{a\xi} \cosh (a\eta) +k_x x+k_y y)] .$$
The two-dimensional Rindler solutions in Minkowski coordinates read $$g_k=C \exp [i(-\omega arctanh (t/z) /a + k_z \ln (a^2(z^2-t^2)) /2a ] . $$
The four-dimensional Rindler solutions in Minkowski coordinates read $$g_k=C \exp [i(-a(z^2-t^2)\omega arctanh (t/z) + a(z^2-t^2)k_z \ln (a^2(z^2-t^2)) /2+k_x x+k_y y)] .$$
But I could not see their relations, other than that the Minkowski solutions are linear combinations of Rindler solutions, and vice versa.

A4: Maybe I should always stick to "a" because frequencies can take an arbitrary value.

A5: This equation will give the number before the time coordinate. In Rindler coordinates, the two-dimensional solutions will give ##\omega ##, while the four-dimensional solutions will give ##e^{2a\xi} \omega ##. In a way, they are both right for frequencies. I think the difference is for the four-dimensional solutions, the frequencies are bounded by the transverse frequency ##k_x##, and ##k_y##, while for the two-dimensional solutions, the frequencies have no restrictions from them.

A6: A frequency is the reciprocal of a period, and a period is a time after which the wave will be the same. So I think the definition in hint 5 is well-defined because after substituting ##\eta \rightarrow \eta+2\pi/ \omega## or ##\eta \rightarrow \eta+2\pi/ e^{2a\xi}\omega## in 2- or 4- dimensional solutions, respectively, they all induce a factor of ##e^{i2\pi}=1##.

A7: This can be solved by the doppler shift equations. Whether ##v## is constant or not should be the same. If the observer is accelerating, we may use his or her velocity at a given time.So, the frequency is given by the number before the time coordinate. If we let the parameter ##a## in Rindler metric be the proper acceleration ##\alpha## of a Rindler observer, then ##\xi=0## and ##e^{2a\xi} \omega = \omega##. So the Doppler effect is not taken into consideration.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
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...
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...
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...
Back
Top