definition of observer and time measured by different observers in general relativityWhy do clocks measure arc-length?Are there more distinctive names of “null curves” with certain additional properties (absence of “chord curves”)?An argument that massive particles don't redshift?How to determine the three-velocity measured by a single observer?Global symmetries of spacetime and general covarianceHow a reference frame relates to observers and charts?When the $x^0$ coordinate represents time in GR?How to make sense of this definition of a reference frame?How one uses the definition of observers in General Relativity?How do we measure distances in the FLRW metric?

how to check a propriety using r studio

How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?

expand `ifthenelse` immediately

Arrow those variables!

Get value of a counter

Theorems that impeded progress

What's that red-plus icon near a text?

How do I deal with an unproductive colleague in a small company?

Maximum likelihood parameters deviate from posterior distributions

Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

How old can references or sources in a thesis be?

Can a Cauchy sequence converge for one metric while not converging for another?

Alternative to sending password over mail?

Java Casting: Java 11 throws LambdaConversionException while 1.8 does not

How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?

Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?

Can you really stack all of this on an Opportunity Attack?

Roll the carpet

Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?

Two films in a tank, only one comes out with a development error – why?

How to source a part of a file

Languages that we cannot (dis)prove to be Context-Free

Linear Path Optimization with Two Dependent Variables



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


Why do clocks measure arc-length?Are there more distinctive names of “null curves” with certain additional properties (absence of “chord curves”)?An argument that massive particles don't redshift?How to determine the three-velocity measured by a single observer?Global symmetries of spacetime and general covarianceHow a reference frame relates to observers and charts?When the $x^0$ coordinate represents time in GR?How to make sense of this definition of a reference frame?How one uses the definition of observers in General Relativity?How do we measure distances in the FLRW metric?













5












$begingroup$


An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
beginalign*
gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
endalign*

together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_gamma(lambda)M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_gamma, gamma(lambda)$ and
beginalign
g_gamma(lambda)(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_ab~. qquad (1)
endalign

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
beginalign
tau_gamma = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda))~.
endalign

However,
beginalign
g_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda)) = g_gamma(lambda)(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
endalign

which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
beginalign*
delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
endalign*

and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
beginalign
tau_delta = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_delta(lambda)(v_delta, delta(lambda),v_delta, delta(lambda))~.
endalign

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?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    5












    $begingroup$


    An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
    beginalign*
    gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
    lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
    endalign*

    together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_gamma(lambda)M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_gamma, gamma(lambda)$ and
    beginalign
    g_gamma(lambda)(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_ab~. qquad (1)
    endalign

    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
    beginalign
    tau_gamma = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda))~.
    endalign

    However,
    beginalign
    g_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda)) = g_gamma(lambda)(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
    endalign

    which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



    This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
    beginalign*
    delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
    lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
    endalign*

    and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
    beginalign
    tau_delta = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_delta(lambda)(v_delta, delta(lambda),v_delta, delta(lambda))~.
    endalign

    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?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
      beginalign*
      gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
      endalign*

      together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_gamma(lambda)M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_gamma, gamma(lambda)$ and
      beginalign
      g_gamma(lambda)(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_ab~. qquad (1)
      endalign

      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
      beginalign
      tau_gamma = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda))~.
      endalign

      However,
      beginalign
      g_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda)) = g_gamma(lambda)(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
      endalign

      which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



      This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
      beginalign*
      delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
      endalign*

      and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
      beginalign
      tau_delta = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_delta(lambda)(v_delta, delta(lambda),v_delta, delta(lambda))~.
      endalign

      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?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      An observer in general relativity is defined as a future directed timelike worldline
      beginalign*
      gamma:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto gamma(lambda)
      endalign*

      together with an orthonormal basis $e_a(lambda) in T_gamma(lambda)M$ where $e_0(lambda)= v_gamma, gamma(lambda)$ and
      beginalign
      g_gamma(lambda)(e_a(lambda),e_b(lambda))=eta_ab~. qquad (1)
      endalign

      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
      beginalign
      tau_gamma = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda))~.
      endalign

      However,
      beginalign
      g_gamma(lambda)(v_gamma, gamma(lambda),v_gamma, gamma(lambda)) = g_gamma(lambda)(e_0(lambda),e_0(lambda))=1 qquad (2)
      endalign

      which follows from the requirement of eq.(1). We are using signature $(+,-,-,-)$.



      This is all standard definition. Suppose, we have another observer $delta$:
      beginalign*
      delta:I subset mathbb R &to M \
      lambda &mapsto delta(lambda)
      endalign*

      and the time measured by his clock between the same two events $lambda_0, lambda_1$ is
      beginalign
      tau_delta = int_lambda_0^lambda_1 dlambda sqrtg_delta(lambda)(v_delta, delta(lambda),v_delta, delta(lambda))~.
      endalign

      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













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 8 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 $tildelambda$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda),v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda)) neq 1$ 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
            2 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 $tildelambda$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda),v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda)) neq 1$ 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
            2 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 $tildelambda$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda),v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda)) neq 1$ 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
            2 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 $tildelambda$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda),v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda)) neq 1$ 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 $tildelambda$ of the curve $gamma$ that have $g(v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda),v_gamma,gamma(tildelambda)) neq 1$ 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 8 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
            2 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
            2 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
          2 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
          2 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

          Category:Fedor von Bock Media in category "Fedor von Bock"Navigation menuUpload mediaISNI: 0000 0000 5511 3417VIAF ID: 24712551GND ID: 119294796Library of Congress authority ID: n96068363BnF ID: 12534305fSUDOC authorities ID: 034604189Open Library ID: OL338253ANKCR AUT ID: jn19990000869National Library of Israel ID: 000514068National Thesaurus for Author Names ID: 341574317ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

          Reverse int within the 32-bit signed integer range: [−2^31, 2^31 − 1]Combining two 32-bit integers into one 64-bit integerDetermine if an int is within rangeLossy packing 32 bit integer to 16 bitComputing the square root of a 64-bit integerKeeping integer addition within boundsSafe multiplication of two 64-bit signed integersLeetcode 10: Regular Expression MatchingSigned integer-to-ascii x86_64 assembler macroReverse the digits of an Integer“Add two numbers given in reverse order from a linked list”

          Kiel Indholdsfortegnelse Historie | Transport og færgeforbindelser | Sejlsport og anden sport | Kultur | Kendte personer fra Kiel | Noter | Litteratur | Eksterne henvisninger | Navigationsmenuwww.kiel.de54°19′31″N 10°8′26″Ø / 54.32528°N 10.14056°Ø / 54.32528; 10.14056Oberbürgermeister Dr. Ulf Kämpferwww.statistik-nord.deDen danske Stats StatistikKiels hjemmesiderrrWorldCat312794080n790547494030481-4