Understanding Observation Frames in GR Theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding observation frames in General Relativity (GR), specifically focusing on the Schwarzschild metric and the stress-energy tensor in non-vacuum solutions. Participants raise questions about the nature of coordinate systems and their implications in GR.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the frame in which the Schwarzschild metric is written, seeking clarity on the implications of different frames in GR.
  • Another participant points out that the Minkowski metric is applicable in any inertial frame, emphasizing that the metric can be expressed in any coordinate system without needing a specific frame of reference.
  • There is a suggestion that understanding GR as a theory about generalized coordinates may be more beneficial than focusing on frames.
  • Participants discuss the significance of coordinate time in the Schwarzschild solution, with one suggesting it represents time as measured by a clock far from gravitational influences.
  • Isotropic coordinates are introduced as a useful alternative for visualizing curved spacetime, with a focus on their properties compared to non-isotropic Schwarzschild coordinates.
  • Questions arise regarding the physical significance of coordinate time and how it relates to proper time measured by clocks affected by nearby masses.
  • Participants explore the implications of using isotropic coordinates for calculating orbital velocities and initial accelerations in gravitational fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the importance of frames in GR, with some arguing that frames are not necessary for understanding the metrics, while others emphasize their relevance. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to understanding these concepts.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the nature of frames and coordinates in GR, as well as the implications of using different coordinate systems. The relationship between coordinate time and proper time is also not fully resolved.

HomogenousCow
Messages
736
Reaction score
213
Hello I am having problems in GR because I do not understand how observations frames work in this theory. I have a few more specific questions.

-In the schwarzschild metric, which frame is the metric written in? (The one with swarzschild coordinates)
-In the non-vaccum solutions, how do we actually prescribe the components for the stress energy tensor, more specifically from which frame do we take the observed values from?

All other tips and pieces of wisdom are welcome
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
HomogenousCow said:
-In the minkowski metric, which frame is the metric written in? (The one with minkowski coordinates)

This is SR, not GR. The metric has the same form in any inertial frame.

HomogenousCow said:
-In the non-vaccum solutions, how do we actually prescribe the components for the stress energy tensor, more specifically from which frame do we take the observed values from?

At a given point in spacetime, they can be expressed in any frame you like. Their values in different frames are related by the tensor transformation law. You don't even need to have a frame of reference; you can just have some coordinate system that covers some open subset of spacetime.
 
Oops, my bad. Wrote minkowski instead of Schwarzschild.
 
HomogenousCow said:
Hello I am having problems in GR because I do not understand how observations frames work in this theory.

I would suggest that you not worry about frames at all, and simply understand GR as a theory about generalized coordinates. You can worry about frame-fields later.

-In the minkowski metric, which frame is the metric written in? (The one with minkowski coordinates)

The metric is written in coordinates, not in a frame.

Lets assume you have some coordinates for some point A = (t,p,q,r), t being your time coordinate.

Then the metric gives you the Lorentz interval from A to B, where B is a nearby point with coordinates t+dt, p+dp, q+dq, r+dr

Because the Lorentz interval is independent of frame, you don't need to specify what "frame" you use, as long as A and B are sufficiently close.

So you forget about the "frames" entirely, and concentrate on the Lorentz Interval, as something that you can measure that's *INDEPENENT* of your choice of frame.

-In the non-vaccum solutions, how do we actually prescribe the components for the stress energy tensor, more specifically from which frame do we take the observed values from?

Again, you don't need a frame. It's easier to visualize with one less dimension, so imagine one time coordinate t and two space coordinates p and q.

Then planes of constant t will slice your box up into slabs. Adding in planes of constant p and q dice your box into small cubes.

The stress-energy tensor gives the energy and momentum density in one of these small cubes.
 
HomogenousCow said:
Oops, my bad. Wrote minkowski instead of Schwarzschild.

OK. The Schwarzschild coordinates do not form a frame of reference. In GR, frames of reference are local, not global.
 
bcrowell said:
OK. The Schwarzschild coordinates do not form a frame of reference. In GR, frames of reference are local, not global.

But then what does the coordinate time in the metric actually mean?
 
HomogenousCow said:
But then what does the coordinate time in the metric actually mean?

It's a fairly "natural" choice of coordinate for a stationary observer. But like most coordinates, it doesn't have any great physical significance. If you realize this early on, you can save yourself a lot of misunderstandings.

If you want to leverage your intuition about flat space-time as much as possible, the isotropic form of Schwarzschild coordinates is useful:

http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500.6-001/Cosmology/IsotropicCoordinates.htm

Isotropic coordinates are used when the 3-D subspace of spacetime (sometimes called a time slice) needs to look as Euclidean as possible.

Isotropic coordinates share the same time coordinates as the non-isotropic Schwarzschild coordinates, but have a different definition for the radial coordinate.

Trying to assign coordinates to a curved space-time is rather similar to the task of assigning coordiantes to a curved Earth. Any representation of the surface of the Earth on a flat sheet of paper will be distorted. Similarly, any representation of curved space-time via global coordinates will be distorted.

The metric coefficients when properly interpreted tell you in what manner your choice of coordinates is distorted.

If your metric coordiates are all nearly a unit diagonal, the distortions due to curvature are minimal, and you can use your intuition with good results.

If you want to use your intuition in some region where the metric is not nearly a unit diagonal, it can be handy to choose a different set of coordinates that make the metric nearly a unit diagonal. Unfortunately, this can only be done locally, you can't make the metric a unit diagional everywhere, though you can make it a unit diagional at any particular point of interest.
 
pervect said:
It's a fairly "natural" choice of coordinate for a stationary observer. But like most coordinates, it doesn't have any great physical significance. If you realize this early on, you can save yourself a lot of misunderstandings.

If you want to leverage your intuition about flat space-time as much as possible, the isotropic form of Schwarzschild coordinates is useful:

http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500.6-001/Cosmology/IsotropicCoordinates.htm


Isotropic coordinates share the same time coordinates as the non-isotropic Schwarzschild coordinates, but have a different definition for the radial coordinate.

The Schwarzschild radius becomes different using isotropic coordinates (according to wikipedia).
What is the orbital velocity of a body in circular orbit using isotropic coordinates, is it still ##v=\sqrt{GM/r}##?
If you drop something from standstill using isotropic coordinates (all velocities equal to zero) what is the initial acceleration, ##\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}##?

The proper time will be given by the same expression even if isotropic coordinates are used?
 
HomogenousCow said:
But then what does the coordinate time in the metric actually mean?

In the Schwarzschild solution in Schwarzschild coordinates the coordinate time can be said to be the time as measured by a clock located infinitely far away from the center of the gravitational field and with no veloctiy relative to it. In the solar system we could think of a clock infinitely far away from the center of mass of the solarsystem as the "coordinate time".

In general, clocks will be effected by nearby masses and there motion, they always measure "proper time".

Coordinate time is useful as a concept if you want to compare, for instance a clock somewhere on Earth with a clock in a spacecraft encirculing one of the moons of saturn. You try to calculate how fast each clock ticks in coordinate time and then you compare them with each other...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
8K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K