10

In almost general case, the space-time metrics looks like: \begin{equation} ds^2 = g_{00}(dx^0)^2 + 2g_{0i}dx^0dx^i + g_{ik}dx^idx^k, \end{equation} where $i,k = 1 \ldots 3$ - are spatial indeces.

The spatial distance between points (as determined, for example, by the stationary observer): \begin{equation} dl^2 = \left( -g_{ik} + \frac{g_{0i}g_{0j}}{g_{00}}\right)dx^idx^j = \gamma_{ik}dx^idx^j, \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \gamma_{ik} = -g_{ik} + \frac{g_{0i}g_{0j}}{g_{00}} , \end{equation}

And we can rewrite merics in a form: \begin{equation} ds^2 = g_{00}(dx^0 - g_idx^i)^2 - dl^2, \end{equation} in the last expression $g_i$ is: \begin{equation}\label{vecg} g_i = -\frac{g_{0i}}{g_{00}}. \end{equation}

My question in general souns like, how do the velocity of a certain particle are determined by different types of observers? Or special case: which type of the observer can determine velocity $v^2 = \frac{dl^2}{g_{00}(dx^0 - g_idx^i)^2}$?

I am confused by the fact that time $\sqrt{g_{00}}(dx^0 - g_idx^i)$ is not the proper time of any observer. What is this time?

I had draw the space-time diagram to clarify my question. Here $x^0$ - coordinate time, $t$ - "orthogonal" time defined as $dt = dx^0 - g_idx^i$. Is it correct? enter image description here

Sergio
  • 2,595
  • Hi. It would depend on the type of matter distribution if you have curved spacetime. The most common case is in cosmology for example, where observers move along "flow lines" along the fluid, so an observer's 4-velocity is $(1,0,0,0)$. – Dr. Ikjyot Singh Kohli Oct 17 '17 at 19:27
  • The formula is valid also in flat spacetime dealing with non-orthogonal coordinates. You are computing just the velocity using the proper time evaluated along a $x^0$-curve... Tomorrow I will write an explicit answer. – Valter Moretti Oct 17 '17 at 21:11
  • @Valter Moretti "proper time evaluated along..." which type of an observer belong this proper time? – Sergio Oct 18 '17 at 06:05
  • @Sergio, I am too busy. I hope later today I will able to answer your question. It is related to the so-called Born metric.... – Valter Moretti Oct 18 '17 at 08:04
  • Which book/paper do you get these formulas? Landau vol 2, 2nd ed §89 motivates your formula that it is the time in point B (dx going from A to B) at the time x0 at point A. (it is in the chapter of time independent gravitational field, and I dont know if it applies generally) – lalala Dec 27 '23 at 14:37

2 Answers2

7

I assume that, referring to local coordinates $x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3$, the vector $\partial_{x^0}$ is timelike and $\partial_{x^i}$ are spacelike for $i=1,2,3$.

I henceforth use the signature $-,+,+,+$.

Notions like velocity can be defined in general coordinate systems but some precautions are necessary.

  • First of all $x^0$ is not the physical time measured along timelike curves $x^i=$ constant (i=1,2,3) representing observers at rest with the coordinates and thus parametrized by the coordinate $x^0$. The physical time, measured with physical clocks, is the proper time along these curves $d\tau = \sqrt{-g_{00}} dx^0$. In practical terms, a "small" displacement $$\Delta a \partial_{x^0}$$ along this temporal axis corresponds to a physical interval of time $$\Delta\tau = \sqrt{-g(\Delta a \partial_{x^0},\Delta a \partial_{x^0})}= \Delta a \sqrt{-g_{00}}$$

  • A spacelike $3$-surface $\Sigma_{x^0}$ defined by fixing $x^0=$ constant can be interpreted as the rest space of the coordinate system provided a suitable (Euclidean) metric is defined on it. This is not the usual metric $h$ induced by $g$ in the standard way $h(X,Y):= g(X,Y)$ for $X,Y$ tangent to $\Sigma_{x^0}$. The definition of the physically correct metric arises form the constraint that light-like paths must have constant velocity $1$. It is not difficult to prove that (e.g., see Landau-Lifsits' book on Field Theory sect. 84 ch.10 for a nice physical "proof") the appropriate metric is just that you wrote. If you consider a pair of vectors tangent to the rest space $\Sigma_{x^0}$, i.e., $$X= \sum_{i=1}^3 X^i\partial_{x^i}\quad \mbox{and} \quad Y= \sum_{i=1}^3 Y^i\partial_{x^i}$$ then the physical scalar product is $$\gamma(X,Y) := \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \left(g_{ij} - \frac{g_{i0}g_{j0}}{g_{00}}\right) X^iY^j\:.$$ Notice that $\gamma$ is defined on all vectors in spacetime not only those tangent to $\Sigma_{x^0}$: If $$X= X^\mu\partial_{x^\mu}\quad \mbox{and} \quad Y= Y^\nu\partial_{x^\nu}$$ $$\gamma(X,Y) := \left(g_{\mu\nu} - \frac{g_{\mu 0}g_{\nu 0}}{g_{00}}\right) X^\mu Y^\nu = \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \left(g_{ij} - \frac{g_{i0}g_{j0}}{g_{00}}\right) X^iY^j$$ and it automatically extracts the spatial part of them, since $\gamma(X, \partial_{x^0})=0$.

Now we pass to the definition of velocity of a particle with respect to the said reference frame. The story of the particle is a curve $x^\mu = x^\mu(s)$, the nature of $s$ does not matter. The tangent vector to this curve is $$X= \frac{dx^\mu}{ds} \partial_{x^\mu}$$
We can write, if the curve is sufficiently smooth, $$x^\mu(s+ \Delta s) = x^\mu(s) + \Delta s X^\mu(s) + O((\Delta s^2)) \:.$$ During the interval of parameter $\Delta s$, the particle runs in $\Sigma_{x^{0}(s)}$ an amount of physical space
$$\Delta l = \sqrt{\gamma\left( \Delta s X,\Delta s X\right)} = \Delta s \sqrt{\gamma(X,X)}$$ up to second order $\Delta s$ infinitesimals.
The corresponding amount of physical time is extracted from the orthogonal projection of $\Delta s X$ along the time axis $\partial_{x^0}$ taking its normalization into account: $$T = g\left( \Delta s X, \frac{\partial_{x^0}}{\sqrt{-g_{00}}}\right) \frac{\partial_{x^0}}{\sqrt{-g_{00}}} = \Delta s \frac{X^0 g_{00} + \sum_{i=1}^3 g_{0i}X^i}{-g_{00}}\partial_{x^0}\:.$$

According to my first comment above, the length (with respect to $g$) of this vector is just the amount of physical time spent by the particle in the interval $\Delta s$ of parameter. This time is measured by the proper time of a clock moving along the $x^0$ axis. $$\Delta \tau = \sqrt{-g(T,T)} = \Delta s \frac{X^0 g_{00} + \sum_{i=1}^3 g_{0i}X^i}{\sqrt{-g_{00}}}$$ up to second order $\Delta s$ infinitesimals.

In summary, the velocity of the particle referred to the coordinates $x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3$ is $$v = \lim_{\Delta s \to 0}\frac{\Delta l}{\Delta \tau} = \sqrt{-g_{00}}\frac{\sqrt{\gamma(X,X)}}{X^0 g_{00} + \sum_{i=1}^3 g_{0i}X^i}$$ so that $$v^2 = -g_{00}\frac{\gamma(X,X)}{(X^0 g_{00} + \sum_{i=1}^3 g_{0i}X^i)^2} $$ This is the rigorous expression of the formula you wrote. The vector $X$ in your case has components $X^\mu = dx^\mu$. The minus sign in front of the right-hand side is just due to the different choice of the signature of the metric.

COMMENT. These notions are not related with the choice of a curved spacetime. Everything is valid also in Minkowski spacetime referring to non-Minkowskian coordinates with $g_{0k}\neq 0$ (and possibly $g_{00} \neq -1$). A standard example are coordinates at rest with a rotating platform with respect to an inertial system in Minkowki spacetime.

  • Can you, please, clarify me about your answer with space-time diagramm. I had draw it and added to may question, but I do not completely sure of its correctness. – Sergio Oct 20 '17 at 12:34
  • @Sergio Yes, barring problems with the different signature, it seems to me that your picture is correct. – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 16:03
  • The crucial observation is the "line of simultaneity" you correctly indicated. To be precise, that line should be orthogonal to the temporal lines. The $x^0$ constant 3-surfaces are not orthogonal to $x^k=$ constant ($k=1,2,3$) lines just because $g_{0k} \neq 0$. – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 16:06
  • I have changed the diagram. Now "line of simultaneity" orthogonal to the temporal lines. Is it correct? – Sergio Oct 20 '17 at 16:46
  • Yes, it seems correct! – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 16:48
  • So, it turns out that the photon always moves along the coordinat time $x^0$ axis? – Sergio Oct 20 '17 at 16:52
  • The picture corresponds to the case of $v=1$ to be precise... – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 16:57
  • No, the photon moves along its worldline, I do not understand your comment. – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 17:00
  • Sorry I am busy for a chat I was about leaving. Write your comment, I will reply later... – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 17:01
  • @Sergio now the picture is wrong. The t axis and the $x^0$ axis coincide (though the units are different) what do not coincide are the surfaces at constant $x^0$ and the local infinitesimal surfaces of simultateity. – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 20:11
  • I use speed of light $c = 1$. $t$ mean physical time divided by $\sqrt{g_{00}}$ e.g. $dt = dx^0 - g_idx^i$. Physical time coordinale lines (lines of simultaneity) are orthogonal to spatial coordinates. Am I wrong? – Sergio Oct 20 '17 at 20:17
  • The tangent vector to the story of the particle has components along $x^0$ and along $x^i$, however since $x^i$ and $x^0$ are not orthogonal, when you orthogonally project this tangent vector along the $x^0$ axis there is a contribution from the $x^i$ component. – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 20:28
  • I think I understand this. Although I can now just be deluded. Did you saw my definition of $t$? – Sergio Oct 20 '17 at 20:32
  • Yes I have seen it is $dt = dx^0 - g_i dx^i$. – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 20:38
  • I think you are confounding components with vectors. What you indicate by $dx^\alpha$ are numbers components of vectors. I indicate vectors by $\partial_{x^\alpha}$. The $x^0$ axis is the vector $\partial_{x^0}$. The tangent vector to the worldline is $t= dx^0 \partial_{x^0} + dx^i\partial_{x^i}$. When you orthogonally project $t$ along $\partial_{x^0}$, the result is $g(t, \partial_{x^0}) = dx^0 g_{00} + dx^i g_{i0} = g_{00}(dx^0 - dx^i g_{i0}/(-g_{00}) )$...(the sign is due to my convention on signature different from yours) – Valter Moretti Oct 20 '17 at 20:54
  • I do not completely understand which direction it need to be drawn for the physical ime axis. Can you look my picture here https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B38PMqn0yNv-Ynk4QWFjREEtdXc – Sergio Oct 21 '17 at 12:48
  • I think it is correct, there is only a time axis in this discussion $\partial_{x^0}$ (though the physical unit along it is that of the proper time). However the orthogonal projection on the axis $\partial_{x^1}$ does not play any role in this discussion. What really matter are the orthogonal projection along $\partial_{x^0}$ and the orthogonal prjection along the orthogonal line to this vector which is nothing but the simultaneity line you indicated in another picture. – Valter Moretti Oct 22 '17 at 10:09
1

You write

The spatial distance between points (as determined, for example, by the stationary observer)...

But don't forget spatial distance is relative to the observer; recall "length-contraction" as taught in introductory special relativity. It is only those observers which are comoving with your given coordinate system $x^\mu$ which determine your spatial metric $\gamma_{ik}$. These observers have 4-velocity $(1/\sqrt{g_{00}},0,0,0)$, under your +--- metric signature. The spatial metric you give was derived by Landau & Lifshitz in their fields textbook (see $\S84$ in the 1994 edition). Landau & Lifshitz do state this assumption of comoving observers, and also give conditions for when such observers exist. Different observers will determine a different spatial 3-metric. I am writing a paper on such topics, and will link it when completed.

The discussed properties should be understood as only local, meaning in the immediate vicinity of the observer; this is particularly true in curved spacetime.

As for relative velocity in curved spacetime, suppose $\mathbf u$ and $\mathbf v$ are two observers (4-velocities) at the same event. Then their relative 3-velocity has Lorentz factor $$\gamma=\mathbf u\cdot\mathbf v$$ assuming metric signature +---. See Carroll's textbook.