definition of observer and time measured by different observers in general relativity












5












$begingroup$


An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
begin{align*}
gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
end{align*}
together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_{gamma(lambda)}M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ and
begin{align}
g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_{ab}~. qquad (1)
end{align}
Here, $v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ is the velocity of the worldline $gamma$ at the point $gamma(lambda)in M$ and $g$ is the metric tensor field on $M$. The time measured by the clock carried by this observer between events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is defined as
begin{align}
tau_gamma = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)})}~.
end{align}
However,
begin{align}
g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}) = g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
end{align}
which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
begin{align*}
delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
end{align*}
and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
begin{align}
tau_delta = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{delta(lambda)}(v_{delta, delta(lambda)},v_{delta, delta(lambda)})}~.
end{align}
From equations (1) and (2), we get $tau_gamma = tau_delta$ and this will be true for all observers measuring time between $lambda_0, lambda_1$.



However, I know that my conclusion is wrong. Can you point out where I went astray?






general-relativity observers







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    5












    $begingroup$


    An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
    begin{align*}
    gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
    lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
    end{align*}
    together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_{gamma(lambda)}M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ and
    begin{align}
    g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_{ab}~. qquad (1)
    end{align}
    Here, $v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ is the velocity of the worldline $gamma$ at the point $gamma(lambda)in M$ and $g$ is the metric tensor field on $M$. The time measured by the clock carried by this observer between events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is defined as
    begin{align}
    tau_gamma = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)})}~.
    end{align}
    However,
    begin{align}
    g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}) = g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
    end{align}
    which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



    This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
    begin{align*}
    delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
    lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
    end{align*}
    and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
    begin{align}
    tau_delta = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{delta(lambda)}(v_{delta, delta(lambda)},v_{delta, delta(lambda)})}~.
    end{align}
    From equations (1) and (2), we get $tau_gamma = tau_delta$ and this will be true for all observers measuring time between $lambda_0, lambda_1$.



    However, I know that my conclusion is wrong. Can you point out where I went astray?






    general-relativity observers







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
      begin{align*}
      gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
      end{align*}
      together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_{gamma(lambda)}M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ and
      begin{align}
      g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_{ab}~. qquad (1)
      end{align}
      Here, $v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ is the velocity of the worldline $gamma$ at the point $gamma(lambda)in M$ and $g$ is the metric tensor field on $M$. The time measured by the clock carried by this observer between events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is defined as
      begin{align}
      tau_gamma = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)})}~.
      end{align}
      However,
      begin{align}
      g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}) = g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
      end{align}
      which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



      This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
      begin{align*}
      delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
      end{align*}
      and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
      begin{align}
      tau_delta = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{delta(lambda)}(v_{delta, delta(lambda)},v_{delta, delta(lambda)})}~.
      end{align}
      From equations (1) and (2), we get $tau_gamma = tau_delta$ and this will be true for all observers measuring time between $lambda_0, lambda_1$.



      However, I know that my conclusion is wrong. Can you point out where I went astray?






      general-relativity observers







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
      begin{align*}
      gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
      end{align*}
      together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_{gamma(lambda)}M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ and
      begin{align}
      g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_{ab}~. qquad (1)
      end{align}
      Here, $v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}$ is the velocity of the worldline $gamma$ at the point $gamma(lambda)in M$ and $g$ is the metric tensor field on $M$. The time measured by the clock carried by this observer between events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is defined as
      begin{align}
      tau_gamma = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)})}~.
      end{align}
      However,
      begin{align}
      g_{gamma(lambda)}(v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma, gamma(lambda)}) = g_{gamma(lambda)}(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
      end{align}
      which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



      This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
      begin{align*}
      delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
      end{align*}
      and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
      begin{align}
      tau_delta = int_{lambda_0}^{lambda_1} dlambda sqrt{g_{delta(lambda)}(v_{delta, delta(lambda)},v_{delta, delta(lambda)})}~.
      end{align}
      From equations (1) and (2), we get $tau_gamma = tau_delta$ and this will be true for all observers measuring time between $lambda_0, lambda_1$.



      However, I know that my conclusion is wrong. Can you point out where I went astray?






      general-relativity observers




      general-relativity observers






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 18 hours ago









      damaihatidamaihati

      683




      683






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          Your conclusion is correct, because what you are doing by saying that $g(v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)}) = 1$ is that the parameter $lambda$ is exactly equal to proper time. You can have different parametrizations $tilde{lambda}$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})},v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})}) neq 1$ and then, of course, they do not correspond to proper time of the observer on the curve.



          Your conclusion from the OP just states that if you have two curves parametrized by proper time, then when they are evolved for the same amount of proper time, the same amount of proper time passes on them. A quite tautological statement!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think maybe the answer could be phrased differently: there is a mistake in the OP's math, which is that the limits of integration have no particular reason to be the same. I think the point is made more clearly, but that may just be me.
            $endgroup$
            – Javier
            12 hours ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470705%2fdefinition-of-observer-and-time-measured-by-different-observers-in-general-relat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          6












          $begingroup$

          Your conclusion is correct, because what you are doing by saying that $g(v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)}) = 1$ is that the parameter $lambda$ is exactly equal to proper time. You can have different parametrizations $tilde{lambda}$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})},v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})}) neq 1$ and then, of course, they do not correspond to proper time of the observer on the curve.



          Your conclusion from the OP just states that if you have two curves parametrized by proper time, then when they are evolved for the same amount of proper time, the same amount of proper time passes on them. A quite tautological statement!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think maybe the answer could be phrased differently: there is a mistake in the OP's math, which is that the limits of integration have no particular reason to be the same. I think the point is made more clearly, but that may just be me.
            $endgroup$
            – Javier
            12 hours ago
















          6












          $begingroup$

          Your conclusion is correct, because what you are doing by saying that $g(v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)}) = 1$ is that the parameter $lambda$ is exactly equal to proper time. You can have different parametrizations $tilde{lambda}$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})},v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})}) neq 1$ and then, of course, they do not correspond to proper time of the observer on the curve.



          Your conclusion from the OP just states that if you have two curves parametrized by proper time, then when they are evolved for the same amount of proper time, the same amount of proper time passes on them. A quite tautological statement!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think maybe the answer could be phrased differently: there is a mistake in the OP's math, which is that the limits of integration have no particular reason to be the same. I think the point is made more clearly, but that may just be me.
            $endgroup$
            – Javier
            12 hours ago














          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Your conclusion is correct, because what you are doing by saying that $g(v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)}) = 1$ is that the parameter $lambda$ is exactly equal to proper time. You can have different parametrizations $tilde{lambda}$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})},v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})}) neq 1$ and then, of course, they do not correspond to proper time of the observer on the curve.



          Your conclusion from the OP just states that if you have two curves parametrized by proper time, then when they are evolved for the same amount of proper time, the same amount of proper time passes on them. A quite tautological statement!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Your conclusion is correct, because what you are doing by saying that $g(v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)},v_{gamma,gamma(lambda)}) = 1$ is that the parameter $lambda$ is exactly equal to proper time. You can have different parametrizations $tilde{lambda}$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})},v_{gamma,gamma(tilde{lambda})}) neq 1$ and then, of course, they do not correspond to proper time of the observer on the curve.



          Your conclusion from the OP just states that if you have two curves parametrized by proper time, then when they are evolved for the same amount of proper time, the same amount of proper time passes on them. A quite tautological statement!







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 18 hours ago









          VoidVoid

          10.7k1757




          10.7k1757












          • $begingroup$
            I think maybe the answer could be phrased differently: there is a mistake in the OP's math, which is that the limits of integration have no particular reason to be the same. I think the point is made more clearly, but that may just be me.
            $endgroup$
            – Javier
            12 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            I think maybe the answer could be phrased differently: there is a mistake in the OP's math, which is that the limits of integration have no particular reason to be the same. I think the point is made more clearly, but that may just be me.
            $endgroup$
            – Javier
            12 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          I think maybe the answer could be phrased differently: there is a mistake in the OP's math, which is that the limits of integration have no particular reason to be the same. I think the point is made more clearly, but that may just be me.
          $endgroup$
          – Javier
          12 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          I think maybe the answer could be phrased differently: there is a mistake in the OP's math, which is that the limits of integration have no particular reason to be the same. I think the point is made more clearly, but that may just be me.
          $endgroup$
          – Javier
          12 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470705%2fdefinition-of-observer-and-time-measured-by-different-observers-in-general-relat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75
          Read more

          Berlina muro

          Image
          La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l
          Read more

          Berlina aerponto

          Image
          Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa
          Read more