Advanced content suitable for researchers
is a Killing tensor field for Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime which models a homogeneous and isotropic universe. ( is the metric tensor, is the 4-velocity of observers comoving with the Hubble flow, and is the scale factor. The coordinate choice should not matter, as we can easily write the expression in a tensorial way. One can check that indeed , where the parentheses denote symmetrisation of the indices.) This is useful because Killing vectors and tensors correspond to symmetries of spacetime and hence conserved quantities. We can use to conveniently derive the cosmic redshift of photons, and decay of “peculiar velocity” for particles with mass. We start with the quantity:
which is conserved along a geodesic (more precisely, is the tangent vector to the geodesic, under some affine parameter e.g. proper time). It follows
For a photon, its tangent vector has norm-squared , and energy as measured by a Hubble observer (or proportional to this, depending on your choice of affine parameter). For a massive particle, its norm-squared is , and which is the Lorentz factor for the motion relative to the Hubble flow observer (assuming its worldline is parametrised by proper time). The usual results follow. In my view this is more elegant than most textbook approaches.
Note you can tweak some quantities, because multiplying a conserved quantity by a constant gives another conserved quantity, and the same applies for a Killing vector/tensor. So we may replace by the unnormalised scale factor , because is also a Killing tensor, with conserved quantity . Alternatively for a timelike particle with constant mass , we may define which is also conserved.
Curiously, the tensor contains the spatial projector for the Hubble observers. This is just the spatial part of the metric, along the usual homogeneous and isotropic slices. We can rearrange the conserved quantity to give: , then take the square root. In words, the spatial length of the tangent vector to a geodesic is inversely proportional to the scale factor. More precisely: this assumes an affine parameter, also the length is determined by Hubble flow observers. More simply, Hubble observers measure things to lessen? (I need to think about the spatial geodesic case more…)
The only textbook I know which identifies it as a Killing tensor is Carroll (2004, §8.5) . (However Wald (1984, §5.3a) deserves credit for using a Killing vector in the same fashion. See my forthcoming post on FLRW Killing vectors.) One source which gives the tensor is Maharaj & Maartens (1987a, §4) and (1987b, §3) . (While they identify the tensor, and the resulting conserved quantity which they interpret as linear momentum, the term “Killing tensor” is not mentioned.) Also there is similar content in much older sources, including Robertson & Noonan (1968) .
I presented this poster, “Static vs Falling: Time slicings of Schwarzschild black holes” at the GR21 conference in New York City, July 2016. You can download a PDF version. A big thank-you to those who gave feedback, especially to Jiří Podolský who encouraged me to publish it! The section on coordinate vectors has been updated. Also there is a major update to the poster.
The following is a natural choice of orthonormal tetrad for an observer moving radially in Schwarzschild spacetime with “energy per unit rest mass” e:
The components are given in Schwarzschild coordinates. (The ± signs are not independent — they must be either both +1 or both -1. Note that e does not distinguish between inward and outward motion. There is additional freedom to define any of these vectors as their negative.)
We normally think of e as invariant, where there is a presumption of freely falling / geodesic motion, but even if not we can regard it as an instantaneous value.
is the 4-velocity computed previously. The other vectors can be obtained from substituting and into the tetrad here. is determined from and the equation for e above, then V follows from inverting . This orthonormal frame is useful for determining the object’s perspective, e.g. tidal forces, visual appearances, etc.
Suppose an observer u moves radially with speed (3-velocity) relative to “stationary” Schwarzschild observers, where we define as inward motion. Then one natural choice of orthonormal tetrad is:
where the components are given in Schwarzschild coordinates. This may be derived as follows.
The Schwarzschild observer has 4-velocity
because the spatial coordinates are fixed, and the t-component follows from normalisation (Hartle §9.2).
We obtain by orthonormality: and , and again making the assumption the θ and φ components are zero. Note the negative of the r-component is probably an equally natural choice. Then and follow from simply normalising the coordinate vectors.
Strictly speaking this setup only applies for , because stationary timelike observers cannot exist inside a black hole event horizon! Yet remarkably the formulae can work out anyway (MTW …) . An alternate approach is local Lorentz boost described shortly.
Hartle … Also check no “twisting” etc…
A simple but useful identity is:
This follows from the definition of the Lorentz factor γ in terms of a relative speed V between two frames:
Alternatively raise both sides of the γ defining formula to the power of -2, obtaining , then multiply both sides by γ2 and rearrange.
Last time we derived the 4-velocity u of a small test body moving radially in the Schwarzschild geometry, in terms of e, the “energy per unit rest mass”. Another parametrisation is in terms of the 3-speed V relative to stationary observers. This turns out to be, in Schwarzschild coordinate expression,
To derive this, first consider the 4-velocity of stationary observers:
Evaluating and rearranging yields . Normalisation leads to , after some algebra including use of the identity . We allow also, and define this as inward motion. Carefully considering the sign, this results in the top equation. (An alternate derivation is to perform a local Lorentz boost. Later articles will discuss this… The Special Relativity formulae cannot be applied directly to Schwarzschild coordinates.)
Some special cases are noteworthy. For V=0, γ=1, and u reduces to uSchw. This corresponds to . Also we can relate the parametrisation by V (and γ) to the parametrisation by e via
where the leftmost equation follows from the definition , and subsequently the rightmost equation from γ=γ(V). For raindrops with e=1, the relative speed reduces to .
We would expect the construction to fail for , as stationary timelike observers cannot exist there, and so the relative speed to them would become meaningless. But curiously, it can actually work for a faster-than-light V>1 “Lorentz” boost, as even the authorities MTW (§31.2, explicit acknowledgement) and Taylor & Wheeler (§B.4, implicitly vrel>1 for r<2M) attest. Sometime, I will investigate this further…
A nice way to parametrise the 4-velocity u of a small test body moving radially within Schwarzschild spacetime is by the “energy per unit rest mass” e:
For the “±” term, choose the sign based on whether the motion is inwards or outwards. All components are given in Schwarzschild coordinates . The result was derived as follows. In geometric units, the metric is:
By definition , where is the Killing vector corresponding to the independence of the metric from t, and has components (Hartle §9.3). For geodesic (freefalling) motion e is invariant, however even for accelerated motion e is well-defined instantaneously and makes a useful parametrisation.
We want to find say. Rearranging the defining equation for e gives . Radial motion means , so the normalised condition yields the remaining component . The resulting formula is valid for all , and for e=1 the 4-velocity describes “raindrops” as expected.
Suppose two observers at the same place and time (that is, “event”) move with 4-velocities u and v respectively, then they measure their relative speed as follows. The Lorentz factor is simply
(The dot is not the Euclidean dot product, but uses the metric: where the indices and are summed over by the Einstein summation convention.) The proof is based on the axiom that some local inertial frame exists, although interestingly one does not need to explicitly construct it.
The relative 3-speed V, may then be recovered via:
See for instance Carroll (end of §2.5) who terms it “ordinary three-velocity”. Other sources express the first formula more indirectly, in terms of the energy and momentum measured by an observer : where is the 4-momentum of another observer/object, and combine this with (MTW Exercise 2.5 in §2.8 term it “ordinary velocity”, or Hartle §5.6, and Example 9.1 in §9.3).