Wald: Ch. 2, Problem 8.b

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rasalhague
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of coordinates in Minkowski space, specifically focusing on a set of "rotating coordinates" and the calculation of the metric tensor coefficients associated with these transformations. Participants explore the implications of the transformation, including issues related to the Jacobian matrix and the determinants of the metric tensor.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a transformation for rotating coordinates and calculates the Jacobian matrix, noting that both the Jacobian and the new metric tensor matrix have a determinant of zero, raising concerns about the validity of the transformation.
  • Another participant points out that the transformation maps a circle in the original coordinates to a single point in the new coordinates, suggesting that this is not a valid coordinate transformation.
  • A later reply acknowledges the oversight regarding a condition related to the angle phi, indicating that correcting this leads to a Jacobian with a determinant of one and a metric matrix with a determinant of negative one, which aligns with expectations.
  • Another participant identifies several typos in the transformation, including an incorrect exponent and the need to adjust the signs in the arguments of sine and cosine functions, suggesting that these errors affect the transformation's validity.
  • A participant thanks another for pointing out the typo and discusses the need to correctly express the argument of sine and cosine in the inverse transformation, indicating a potential misunderstanding in the transformation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the transformation, with some identifying errors and others suggesting corrections. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall correctness of the transformation and its implications for the metric tensor.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings in the transformation process, dependence on the correct interpretation of the angle phi, and unresolved issues regarding the determinants of the matrices involved.

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
Find the coefficients in coordinate bases, of the metric tensors for Minkowski space, for "rotating coordinates" defined by

[tex]t' = t,[/tex]

[tex]x' = (x^2+y^2)^{-1/2} \cos(\phi - \omega t),[/tex]

[tex]y' = (x^2+y^2)^{-1/2} \sin(\phi - \omega t),[/tex]

[tex]z' = z.[/tex]

I think the inverse coordinate transformation should be

[tex]t = t',[/tex]

[tex]x = (x'^2+y'^2)^{-1/2} \cos(-\phi + \omega t),[/tex]

[tex]y = (x^2+y^2)^{-1/2} \sin(-\phi + \omega t),[/tex]

[tex]z = z'.[/tex]

(EDIT: Insert prime symbols on x and y inside the brackets in the 3rd line of the inverse transformation.)

In Mathematica, I calculated the Jacobian matrix of this inverse transformation, using doubled letters for primed ones:

In[1]:= q = {tt, Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2]*Cos[-phi + omega*tt],
Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2]*Sin[-phi + omega*tt], zz}; J =
D[q, {{tt, xx, yy, zz}}]

Out[1]:= {{1, 0, 0, 0}, {omega Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2] Sin[phi - omega tt], (
xx Cos[phi - omega tt])/Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2], (yy Cos[phi - omega tt])/
Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2],
0}, {omega Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2] Cos[phi - omega tt], -((
xx Sin[phi - omega tt])/Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2]), -((
yy Sin[phi - omega tt])/Sqrt[xx^2 + yy^2]), 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}}

Then I calculated the new coefficients of the metric tensors thus:

In[2]:= g = DiagonalMatrix[{-1, 1, 1, 1}]; gg =
Transpose[J].g.J

Out[2]: {{-1 + omega^2 (xx^2 + yy^2) Cos[phi - omega tt]^2 +
omega^2 (xx^2 + yy^2) Sin[phi - omega tt]^2, 0, 0,
0}, {0, (xx^2 Cos[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2) + (
xx^2 Sin[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2), (
xx yy Cos[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2) + (
xx yy Sin[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2),
0}, {0, (xx yy Cos[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2) + (
xx yy Sin[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2), (
yy^2 Cos[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2) + (
yy^2 Sin[phi - omega tt]^2)/(xx^2 + yy^2), 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}}

The result is symmetric, but both the Jacobian matrix and the new coefficient matrix of the metric tensor field have determinant zero. I guess this means I'm doing something wrong, since the determinant of the latter matrix is used to measure spacetime volumes, but volume wouldn't be well defined if a particular volume could be zero when measured in one chart, and nonzero in another. Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It took me a moment to notice this issue, but there is something fishy about the transform. For given z and t, any x, y on the circle (x^2+Y^2)=k produce the same x', y' values. Thus, a circle in (x,y,z,t) gets mapped to a point in (x',y',z',t'). That's not a valid coordinate transform.
 
Ah, thanks, I see what's amiss now. I omitted his final condition: tan(phi) = y/x. Setting phi = ArcTan[y/x] gives a Jacobian matrix with determinant 1, and a metric matrix with determinant -1, as expected.
 
Several typos in your transformation as given. (x2 + y2) should have an exponent + 1/2. Also in the sin, cos argument you want to change the sign of just t, not both φ and t. In other words, you want the (x,y) coords to rotate in the opposite (time-reversed) sense wrt (x',y'). Since cos is an even function and sin is odd, what you have written amounts to a reflection y' = - y.
 
Thanks, Bill. I never spotted the minus sign in the exponent in the LaTeX till you pointed it out; that was just a typo, and didn't enter my calculations. I did evenually realize my mistake with inserting a minus sign before the phi. Also, the argument of sine and cosine in the inverse transformation should be phi'+omega*t', where phi' = arctan(y'/x'), shouldn't it?
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K