Weak Gravity & Newtonian Limit: Letting g^kmu = eta^kmu

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of a free-falling particle in a static metric within the context of weak gravity, specifically addressing the approximation where the metric tensor is expressed as a flat metric plus a small perturbation. Participants explore the implications of this approximation on the mathematical formulation and the assumptions involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the metric is expressed as ##g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}##, where ##|h_{\mu \nu} << 1|##, and question the reasoning behind setting ##g^{k\mu} = \eta^{k\mu}##.
  • It is suggested that the approximation retains only first-order terms in the perturbation ##h_{\mu\nu}##, implying that higher-order terms can be neglected.
  • One participant explains that the derivative operator is first order, leading to the conclusion that terms involving ##h^{\kappa \mu}## are second order and can be disregarded when contracted with the metric.
  • Another participant questions how a specific term becomes zero, proposing that the assumption of focusing on first-order terms implies that products of perturbations are second order and thus negligible.
  • A participant confirms that the source material indeed refers to the validity of the approximation being limited to first order.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the notion of retaining only first-order terms in the perturbation expansion, but there are ongoing questions and clarifications regarding the implications of this assumption and the treatment of specific terms.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the nature of the perturbation and its impact on the mathematical expressions, particularly regarding the treatment of higher-order terms and their relevance in the context of weak gravity.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
Assume we have a free-falling particle in gravity in a static metric. Its worldline is described by:

g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}

where ##|h_{\mu \nu} << 1|##.

Taken from Hobson's book:

hobson1.png


Why did they let ##g^{k\mu} = \eta^{k\mu}##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They only keep terms up to first order in the perturbation ##h_{\mu\nu}##.
However, I assume (7.6) is the metric written as a flat metric (##\eta_{\mu\nu}##) with an additional perturbation h.

Then insert the expansion into the connection and see what you get. Remember that the Minkowski metric in the usual coordinates is diagonal and constant.
 
unscientific said:
Why did they let ##g^{k\mu} = \eta^{k\mu}##?

Because the derivative operator itself is first order, so when you contract the metric with it, the term in ##h^{\kappa \mu}## is second order and can be dropped.
 
PeterDonis said:
Because the derivative operator itself is first order, so when you contract the metric with it, the term in ##h^{\kappa \mu}## is second order and can be dropped.

\frac{1}{2}g^{k \mu} \partial_k g_{00} = \frac{1}{2}(\eta^{k \mu} + h^{k \mu}) \partial_k g_{00}
= \frac{1}{2}\eta^{k \mu}\partial_k g_{00} + \frac{1}{2}h^{k \mu}\partial_k g_{00}
= \frac{1}{2}\eta^{k \mu}\partial_k g_{00} + \frac{1}{2}h^{k \mu} \partial_k h_{00}

How is the second term ##0##? Or are we making the assumption that we want only terms corresponding to first order, so ##h \times (\partial h)## is perturbation x perturbation which is second order?
 
unscientific said:
are we making the assumption that we want only terms corresponding to first order

Yes, that's what your source meant by "valid to first order".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: unscientific

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
4K