Number of unknowns - Coordinate Transforms

thehangedman
Messages
68
Reaction score
2
In general relativity, what are the total number of unknowns for a generic coordinate transform? Is it just 4 * 4 = 16? Is there a way to break those down into combinations of types, such as boosts, rotations, reflections (parity?), etc, or is it just left wide open from an interpretive standpoint? My feeling is the answer is in fact 16 unknown functions of space-time and that the actual interpretation can't really be broken out like we do in SR (Lorentz)...

Your help is greatly appreciated...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is an infinite number of unknowns. Even if you only had a 1D manifold, there are an infinite number of degrees of freedom.
 
DaleSpam said:
It is an infinite number of unknowns. Even if you only had a 1D manifold, there are an infinite number of degrees of freedom.

I made a mistake in my question. I know that functions have an unlimited number of degrees of freedom, I meant to ask how many functions are involved in a generic coordinate transform in R^4. My guess is 16, since there are two indexes in the transformation matrix, each running over 4 values, but wanted clarity since there might be symmetries that eliminate elements (though I'm guessing not).
 
I think it is only 4 unknown functions. You can always write it as:
x'_0=f_0(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)
x'_1=f_1(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)
x'_2=f_2(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)
x'_3=f_3(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)
 
May be you are talking about gμv which seems to have 16 components.But it is symmetric,which will eliminate 6 so there will be only 10 independent components.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top