Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
Message from discussion Theory of Relativity
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Ken S. Tucker  
View profile  
 More options Apr 28 2005, 3:37 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca>
Date: 28 Apr 2005 12:37:47 -0700
Local: Thurs, Apr 28 2005 3:37 pm
Subject: Theory of Relativity
In this post, it's my intention to show the
extraordinary beauty and simplicity I find
in the Theory of Relativity.
  It employs the ingenious logic developed
by mathematicians called tensor analysis.

The fundamental assumption of relativity is
*absolute _spatial_ motion does not exist*,
however placing that principle into a succint
mathematical form seems to be difficult. So
that's what I'll try to do.

Beginning with the well known

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v  , u,v,w={0,1,2,3}.

We can use association provided the covariant
derivative,

g_uv;w = 0.

Then by association,

ds^2 = dx_u dx^u.

Expanding to time and space gives,

ds^2 = dx_0 dx^0 + dx_i dx^i  , i,j={1,2,3}.

The absolute spatial motion I'll define by

dx_i dx^i = Absolute spatial motion.

Absolute spatial motion cannot exist, IOW's
it vanishes, hence,

dx_i dx^i =0.

However, relative spatial motion cannot vanish,
it is always possible, so I'll select dx^i to
be relative spatial motion, so that dx^i >0 generally
and then require

dx_i =0  always,

to insure

dx_i dx^i=0   always,

and is the mathematical description of the
Principle of Relativity. More formally it's
expressed using the covariant 3-velocity,

U_i = dx_i/ds =0.

By using tensor algebra we obtain from that,

g_0i = - g_ij dx^j/dx^0,

and generally,

ds^2 = g_00 dx^0 dx^0 - g_ij dx^i dx^j   , (always).

For an SR application, sub the metric values,

g_00 = g_11 = g_22 = g_33 =1,

g_ij =0 when i =/= j and

g_0i = -dx^i/dx^0,

and find by algebra,

ds^2 = g_00 dx^0 dx^0 - g_ij dx^i dx^j

== dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2.

The succinct U_i=0 provides Minkowski spacetime,
which embodies the Lorentz transformation, but
done Generally Covariantly.

Moving to General Relativity, the following absolute
derivative vanishes (because U_i=0),

DU_i = U_i;w dx^w =0 .

Using association,

U_i = g_iu U^u =0

therefore,

DU_i = g_iu DU^u =0

and thus,

DU^u =0,  aka the geodesic equation.

We have arrived at the equation for the geodesic
(for ref see Weinberg's, Grav&Cosmo, Eq.(5.1.6))
using the Principle of Relativity given by U_i =0
and g_uv;w =0.

The g_uv;w=0 is the mathematical expression for
the Principle of Equivalence, and as is obvious,
is required to get DU^u=0 from U_i=0.

The geodesic equation is expanded to,

DU^u/ds = dU^u/ds + GAMMA^u_ab U^a U^b = 0

(ref, see Weinberg's Eq. (5.1.7)), and is the equation of
motion in General Relativity.

Up to this point we've used two assumptions

1)      U_i=0

2)      g_uv;w=0

where (1) is a statement of the law of Relativity that excludes
"absolute motion", and (2) is a statement that excludes absolute
acceleration, and at the same time is the Principle of Equivalence,
used to derive the General Relativity geodesic.

I use (1) and (2) in relativity mathematics, is there a reason not to?

TIA
Ken S. Tucker


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google