A Question about Weinberg's GR book

LordShadow_05
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Why does Weinberg discard a term of the ricci tensor he should be taking into account in the post-newtonian approximation of fourth order?
To anyone who has studied Weinberg's book. Does anyone know why Weinberg discards the fourth order term of the purely spatial components of the ricci tensor? It's the chapter 9 (post-newtonian approximation) of his GR book. It doesn't make sense to me because he includes the R_{00} term of fourth order but not R_{ij}.
 

Attachments

  • Weinberg.webp
    Weinberg.webp
    22.9 KB · Views: 23
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that Weinberg's treatment reflects the physical hierarchy in gravitational systems: time components (energy) drive the dynamics while spatial components (stress) provide corrections. Including fourth-order R₀₀ but not R_ij maintains the appropriate balance between accuracy and computational tractability in the post-Newtonian framework.This is a standard and well-justified approach in post-Newtonian theory, used successfully in gravitational wave astronomy and precision tests of General Relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes LordShadow_05
Alien101 said:
It seems that Weinberg's treatment reflects the physical hierarchy in gravitational systems: time components (energy) drive the dynamics while spatial components (stress) provide corrections. Including fourth-order R₀₀ but not R_ij maintains the appropriate balance between accuracy and computational tractability in the post-Newtonian framework.This is a standard and well-justified approach in post-Newtonian theory, used successfully in gravitational wave astronomy and precision tests of General Relativity.
Ok, now I understand. Thank you very much!
 
The reason that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in the list (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) is because this list is meant to include only the Ricci terms that can be calculated from the list of affine connection terms given in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) on page 215. Note how all the connection terms that appear on the right sides of (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) are in the list (9.1.16) through (9.1.22). At the top of page 216, Weinberg refers to the connection terms in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) as the “known” affine connection terms.

You can show that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## depends on affine connection terms not included in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22), such as ##^4_{\Gamma^0_{0i}}## and ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So, ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).

If you proceed through Weinberg’s analysis on pages 216-220, you will see that he needs only the Ricci terms listed in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman, LordShadow_05 and Alien101
TSny said:
The reason that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in the list (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) is because this list is meant to include only the Ricci terms that can be calculated from the list of affine connection terms given in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) on page 215. Note how all the connection terms that appear on the right sides of (9.1.26) through (9.1.29) are in the list (9.1.16) through (9.1.22). At the top of page 216, Weinberg refers to the connection terms in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22) as the “known” affine connection terms.

You can show that ##^4_{R_{i j}}## depends on affine connection terms not included in (9.1.16) through (9.1.22), such as ##^4_{\Gamma^0_{0i}}## and ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So, ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is not included in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).

If you proceed through Weinberg’s analysis on pages 216-220, you will see that he needs only the Ricci terms listed in (9.1.26) through (9.1.29).
Oh I see. So the thing is that even if ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is of fourth order it doesn't contribute because we see that it is constructed with components of Christoffel's symbol that don't appear in the geodesic equation, so those components aren't measurable, right? I have calculated this component of the Ricci tensor including the "unknown" affine connection terms and I obtained the following:
$$^4_{R_{i j}}=\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^0_{i0}}-\partial_0 ^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}+\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ik}}-\partial_k ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ij}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^0_{i0}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{j0}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ik}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{jm}} - ^2_{\Gamma^k_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{k0}} - ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{mk}}$$
I find that this component of the Ricci tensor isn't only constructed with "unknown" affine connection terms but also with "known" ones. Then, why don't we take into account those terms which contain "known" affine connection terms?
Also, at the end of that same page (216) he uses the harmonic gauge ##\Gamma^{\lambda}=0##. For the component ##\lambda=0## he obtains the equation 9.1.35. For obtaining that equation he made use of the "unknown" affine connection term ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So why can he use the "unknown" terms here but not in the Ricci tensor?
Thank you very much for your comment.

Edit: my formula doesn't show up and I don't know why. I have attached an image.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9651.webp
    IMG_9651.webp
    10.9 KB · Views: 14
Tλλ
LordShadow_05 said:
Oh I see. So the thing is that even if ##^4_{R_{i j}}## is of fourth order it doesn't contribute because we see that it is constructed with components of Christoffel's symbol that don't appear in the geodesic equation, so those components aren't measurable, right? I have calculated this component of the Ricci tensor including the "unknown" affine connection terms and I obtained the following:
$$^4_{R_{i j}}=\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^0_{i0}}-\partial_0 ^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}+\partial_j ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ik}}-\partial_k ^4_{\Gamma^k_{ij}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^0_{i0}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{j0}}+ ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ik}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{jm}} - ^2_{\Gamma^k_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^0_{k0}} - ^2_{\Gamma^m_{ij}} ^2_{\Gamma^k_{mk}}$$
I find that this component of the Ricci tensor isn't only constructed with "unknown" affine connection terms but also with "known" ones. Then, why don't we take into account those terms which contain "known" affine connection terms?

The objective is to determine the free-fall equations of motion to order ##\frac {\overline{v}^4}{\overline r}.## This requires knowing the specific ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s on the right-hand sides of (9.1.16) – (9.1.22). Specifically, we need to find these: ##\overset{\small 2}{g}_{00}##, ##\overset{\small 4}{g}_{00}##, ##\overset{\small 3}{g}_{i0}##, and ##\overset{\small2}{g}_{ij}##.

These ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s are determined from the Einstein field equations ## \overset{\small 2}{R}_{00} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 0}{S}_{00} ##, ##\overset{\small 4}{R}_{00} = -8\pi G\overset{\small 2}{S}_{00}##, ##\overset{\small 3}{R}_{i0} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 1}{S}_{i0}##, and ##\overset{\small 2}{R}_{ij} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 0}{S}_{ij}##, where ##S_{\mu \nu} = T_{\mu \nu} - \frac 1 2 g_{\mu \nu} {T^{\lambda}}_{\lambda}##.

Setting up ##\overset{\small 4}{R}_{ij} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 2}{S}_{ij}## would not help. It would result in an equation involving unknown ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s that we do not need for the equations of motion. So, ##\overset{\small 4}{R}_{ij} = -8\pi G \overset{\small 2}{S}_{ij}## is not going to be helpful in determining the ##\overset{\small N}{g}_{\mu \nu}##’s that we need.

LordShadow_05 said:
Also, at the end of that same page (216) he uses the harmonic gauge ##\Gamma^{\lambda}=0##. For the component ##\lambda=0## he obtains the equation 9.1.35. For obtaining that equation he made use of the "unknown" affine connection term ##^3_{\Gamma^0_{ij}}##. So why can he use the "unknown" terms here but not in the Ricci tensor?

##\overset{\small 3}{\Gamma^0}_{ij}## does not appear in the list (9.1.16)-(9.1.22). But this term is nevertheless needed in deriving equation (9.1.35), which can be used to help simplify (9.1.30)-(9.1.33). I don’t see any problem here.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Back
Top