Reaching the Rindler horizon in a finite proper time

teeeeee
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am trying to show that timelike geodesics reach the Rindler horizon (X=0) in a finite proper time.

The spacetime line element is

ds^{2} = -\frac{g^{2}}{c^{2}}X^{2}dT^{2}+dX^{2}+dY^{2}+dZ^{2}

Ive found something helpful here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3316839&postcount=375

But don't understand why you have to take T=∞ in order to find X=0?

I also don't understand how to work out that the worldine is given by r=(t,sech(t),0,0).

Any help will be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
teeeeee said:
I also don't understand how to work out that the worldine is given by r=(t,sech(t),0,0).
OK, to be consistent with your notation above I will use (T,X,Y,Z) for Rindler coordinates and I will use (t,x,y,z) for Minkowski coordinates. (This is the opposite of the convention used in the thread you linked to and also the opposite of the convention in the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates).

In Minkowski coordinates we can easily see that the worldline r=(t,1,0,0) is a geodesic. Transforming this to Rindler coordinates gives R=(atanh(t),\sqrt{1-t^2},0,0). Now, this parameterizes the worldline by the Minkowski time coordinate which, although it is not wrong, it is not very aesthetically pleasing. So we solve for t in terms of T:
T=atanh(t)
t=tanh(T)

Substituting that in we get
R=(atanh(tanh(T)), \sqrt{1-(tanh(T))^2},0,0)
R=(T, \sqrt{(sech(T))^2},0,0)
R=(T, sech(T),0,0)

teeeeee said:
But don't understand why you have to take T=∞ in order to find X=0?
We want to find when it crosses the Rindler horizon, which is located at X=0. So, we solve 0=sech(T) and get T=\infty
 
Thanks for your quick reply.

Still a couple of things I don't follow...

How exactly do you transform from
\textbf{r}=(t,1,0,0) to \textbf{R}=(atanh(t), \sqrt{1-t^{2}},0,0) ?

DaleSpam said:
Now, to find the proper time we use formula 1.97 in Sean Carroll's lecture notes
\tau = \int \sqrt{-g_{\mu\nu} \frac{dx^{\mu}}{dt} \frac{dx^{\nu}}{dt}} \, dt = \int sech^{2}(t) \, dt = tanh(t)

And how do you get from the square root expression to the sech-squared term?


Thanks for your patience!
 
teeeeee said:
How exactly do you transform from
\textbf{r}=(t,1,0,0) to \textbf{R}=(atanh(t), \sqrt{1-t^{2}},0,0) ?
This follows directly from the coordinate transformation equations (remember their convention is different from yours):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#Relation_to_Cartesian_chart

Just substitute in x=1.

teeeeee said:
And how do you get from the square root expression to the sech-squared term?
We have
\frac{d\mathbf x}{dt} = \frac{d\mathbf r}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt}(t,sech(t),0,0) = (1,-sech(t) \, tanh(t),0,0)
\mathbf g = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> -x^2 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)= \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> -sech(t)^2 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)
Substituting that in we obtain
\tau = \int \sqrt{-g_{\mu\nu} \frac{dx^{\mu}}{dt} \frac{dx^{\nu}}{dt}} \, dt
\tau = \int \sqrt{sech(t)^2-sech(t)^2 tanh(t)^2} \, dt
\tau = \int \sqrt{sech(t)^4} \, dt
\tau = \int sech(t)^2 \, dt
 
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