Understanding Nordstrom Metric & Freely Falling Massive Bodies

  • Thread starter Thread starter c299792458
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric
c299792458
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Could somebody please explain something regarding the Nordstrom metric?

In particular, I am referring to the last part of question 3 on this sheet --

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/pilaftsi/GR/example3.pdf

about the freely falling massive bodies.

My thoughts: The gravitational effects would be significant since for a massive body, the geodesic is timelike. There woud thus be a \eta^{\mu\delta}\partial_\delta \phi \dot x^\beta \dot x_\beta is not of the form f(\lambda)\dot x^\mu so the affine parametrization does not eliminate this term containing the gravitational potential \phi.

Does this argument make any sense at all? Also, what more can I say about the geodesics of such massive particles?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, your argument does make sense. The Nordstrom metric describes the spacetime geometry produced by a static, spherically symmetric source of mass or energy. When a massive body moves through this geometry, it will experience an effective gravitational force due to the curvature of spacetime, as described by the metric. This force can be calculated from the Christoffel symbols associated with the metric. The geodesic equation for the massive body then takes the form of a second-order differential equation, with the gravitational force represented by terms containing derivatives of the gravitational potential.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top