What's the underlying frame of the Einstein's Field Equation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the coordinate systems used in solving Einstein's Field Equations (EFE) in General Relativity (GR) and how these relate to the underlying structure of spacetime. Participants explore the implications of different coordinate choices, the nature of the metric, and the relationship between the EFE and physical measurements in curved spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the coordinate system in which the EFE is set up and solved, suggesting an assumption of Euclidean 4D space and inquiring about its mapping to curved spacetime.
  • Another participant asserts that GR is generally covariant, indicating that the EFE can be solved in any coordinate system, with the choice of coordinates being important for finding exact solutions.
  • Some participants discuss the ADM formalism as a method for solving the EFE in extended regions of spacetime, particularly for initial-value problems.
  • There is a contention regarding the relevance of the metric, with some arguing that the metric is essential and others suggesting it may not be necessary for certain calculations.
  • Participants explore the implications of using different frames for measuring the stress-energy tensor and how this affects solving the EFE.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of gravity in GR, with some asserting that gravity is not a force but a warping of spacetime, while others clarify that this perspective holds under certain conditions.
  • Some participants challenge the assumption that the EFE only admits flat space solutions, pointing out that other vacuum solutions exist, such as Schwarzschild and Kerr spacetimes.
  • There is a debate about whether these vacuum solutions imply the presence of mass, with differing views on their applicability in describing portions of spacetime.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the coordinate systems and metrics used in solving the EFE, with no consensus reached on the necessity of a specific frame or the implications of different solutions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of vacuum solutions and their relation to mass.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the EFE is nonlinear, which distinguishes it from linear equations like Maxwell's equations. There are also mentions of the importance of symmetry in choosing coordinate systems for solving the EFE.

  • #181
Orodruin said:
What would be measured by a radar measurement’s round trip time (multiplied by c/2) would be
$$
\int \sqrt{-\frac{g_{rr}}{g_{tt}}} dr = \int g_{rr} dr.
$$
Did you get that formula from the metric ## ds^2 = g_{tt}\, (c\,dt)^2 - g_{rr}\,dr^2##, by setting ##ds^2 = 0## for the light-like path?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
Pyter said:
Did you get that formula from the metric ## ds^2 = g_{tt}\, (c\,dt)^2 - g_{rr}\,dr^2##, by setting ##ds^2 = 0## for the light-like path?
Yes. What you want is to integrate dt to obtain the global time difference.

Note: It is ##ds^2 = g_{tt} dt^2 + g_{rr} dr^2##. The signs are included in the metric components.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pyter
  • #183
Orodruin said:
Note: It is ##ds^2 = g_{tt} dt^2 + g_{rr} dr^2##. The signs are included in the metric components.
Right. But not ##c^2##, I guess? Otherwise either the RHS of the line element is not dimensionally correct, or ##g_{tt}## has a dimension different from ##g_{rr}##.
 
  • #184
Pyter said:
Right. But not ##c^2##, I guess? Otherwise either the RHS of the line element is not dimensionally correct, or ##g_{tt}## has a dimension different from ##g_{rr}##.
I always use units with ##c = 1##. It is just more ... natural.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #185
Orodruin said:
Yes. What you want is to integrate dt to obtain the global time difference.

Note: It is ##ds^2 = g_{tt} dt^2 + g_{rr} dr^2##. The signs are included in the metric components.
So for the round-trip coordinate time ##\Delta t## of the complete null path ##ds=0## from the spaceship hovering at fixed ##(\theta, \phi, r_1)## to the star surface at ##(\theta, \phi, r_0)## and back we get the value of that integral multiplied by 2.
 
  • #186
Yes
 
  • #187
Orodruin said:
I always use units with ##c = 1##. It is just more ... natural.
Of course, I was talking about MKS units.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K