0

We have the following relation between the spatial part of the coordinate acceleration $A$ in an inertial frame and the proper acceleration $a$ in the comoving frame (supposing $1+1$ dimensions for simplicity): $$ a\left(\tau\right) = \gamma^3 A\left(t\right) \,, $$ where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor. When $a\left(\tau\right) = a$ is constant, i.e. uniform acceleration, we can integrate this twice to obtain the trajectory $x$ in function of $t$ in spacetime (these will ultimately yield the well-known Rindler coordinates).

I want to explore non-uniform acceleration but am struggling how to tackle this problem. More precisely, suppose that we want to study a linear acceleration; is the time variation in the proper acceleration the coordinate time ($t$) or the proper time ($\tau$)? In other words, do we consider $a\left(t\right) = a_{0}t$ or $a\left(\tau\right) = a_{0}\tau$? For the former, we can proceed as before by integrating twice to obtain the trajectory in spacetime but in the latter, this is not straightforward. In the latter case, we can integrate once to obtain: $$ \frac{\text{d}x}{\text{d}t} = \frac{a_{0}\int\tau\, \text{d}t}{\sqrt{1+\left(a_{0}\int\tau\, \text{d}t\right)^2}}\,.$$ Note that we cannot solve the integral since we do not know the proper time as a function of the time coordinate. Moreover, it holds that $$\frac{\text{d}\tau}{\text{d}t} = \frac{1}{\gamma} = \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\text{d}x}{\text{d}t}\right)^2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\left(a_{0}\int\tau\, \text{d}t\right)^2}}\,.$$ From the last expression, I wanted to derive a differential equation for $\tau\left(t\right)$ such that I can solve the proper time as a function of time but I can't get to that differential equation.

To summarize, I have two questions:

  1. If we suppose a non-uniform acceleration, do we specify the proper acceleration as a function of the time coordinate or as a function of the proper time?
  2. If as a function of proper time, is there a way to obtain a differential equation for $\tau\left(t\right)$?

Thanks in advance.

Kabouter9
  • 137
  • "We have the following relation between the acceleration A in an arbitrary (non-inertial) frame and the proper acceleration a in the comoving frame" This relation does not hold in general, if ever. Consider a Rindler observer. In the non-inertial Rindler frame the Rindler observer's coordinate acceleration is $A=0$, but their proper acceleration $a\ne 0 = \gamma^3 A$ – Dale Dec 06 '23 at 16:34
  • @Dale, how would this possible? Scalar are invariant under coordinate transformations. If in one frame $a \neq 0$, then in the other, it cannot be zero as far as I know. – Kabouter9 Dec 06 '23 at 16:37
  • The proper acceleration $a$ is a scalar, but the coordinate acceleration $A$ is not. The coordinate acceleration $A$ is a coordinate-dependent quantity, it is not a tensor of any type. – Dale Dec 06 '23 at 16:39
  • Maybe I phrased it incorrectly but $A$ is spatial part of the coordinate acceleration. – Kabouter9 Dec 06 '23 at 16:40
  • Yes, that is what I understood. See my comments above – Dale Dec 06 '23 at 16:41
  • I don't see why $A$ should vanish in the Rindler frame. Do you have a reference for that? – Kabouter9 Dec 06 '23 at 16:47
  • See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates "These transformations define the Rindler observer as an observer that is 'at rest' in Rindler coordinates". That is indeed the whole point of Rindler coordinates, to make observers with constant proper acceleration $a$ have zero coordinate acceleration $A$ – Dale Dec 06 '23 at 16:50
  • I see, but I see this formula appearing everywhere: here, here. Where is it going wrong then? – Kabouter9 Dec 06 '23 at 16:57
  • Both of those are from one user who did not explain what those formulas mean or give any reference for where they obtained them. They just jumped into using it and seemed to have considerable trouble doing so. I would recommend finding that formula in a more complete source. I suspect that they are talking about the coordinate acceleration in an inertial frame. – Dale Dec 06 '23 at 17:04
  • Here are some references: Appendix F, video. Does there even exist coordinate acceleration in an inertial frame? If yes, suppose an inertial frame. How would this affect my question? – Kabouter9 Dec 06 '23 at 17:11
  • The derivation in Appendix F starts with the velocity addition formula, so that is definitely an inertial frame. And yes, of course you can have coordinate acceleration in an inertial frame: any object undergoing proper acceleration will also have coordinate acceleration in any inertial frame. That is almost the definition of an inertial frame. How does it affect your question? The relation that is the basis of your question is wrong. I don’t think your question exists once you remove that – Dale Dec 07 '23 at 03:28
  • I don't get it. If we suppose that the coordinate acceleration $A$ is from an inertial frame, the relation should hold en hence the remaining part of my post? – Kabouter9 Dec 07 '23 at 09:04
  • Wasn’t the entire goal to construct the relationship between an arbitrary non-inertial frame and the proper acceleration? If that wasn’t the goal then why did you start from that and, more importantly, what is the new goal? – Dale Dec 07 '23 at 11:33
  • My ultimate goal is to find (numerically) a coordinate transformation that brings me to the proper comoving frame. To find that, I wanted to know what the trajectory looks like in a spacetime diagram. Hence I was looking for a way to find $x(t)$ for what as far as I understand needs to be an inertial frame. – Kabouter9 Dec 07 '23 at 12:15
  • So the current question, as modified, helps with that second part. Given the proper acceleration and proper time, i.e. what is measured by the non-inertial observer directly, this question now gives you the coordinate trajectory in an inertial frame. One problem with the first part is that there is no such thing as the proper comoving frame for a non-inertial object. For a non-inertial observer there are any number of different coordinate systems that you could construct, all with equal validity and equal rights to be called a proper comoving frame. It is not unique – Dale Dec 07 '23 at 14:28
  • Thank you for your answer. Do you have by any change a reference where one constructs such as proper comoving frame? I'm not interested in the uniqueness, but rather want to apply B.C. where some interface (trajectory) is stationary (i.e. proper comoving frame). – Kabouter9 Dec 07 '23 at 14:34
  • My personal favorite is radar coordinates because they obey Einstein's 2nd postulate, which most others do not: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412024 and https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0501090 However, Fermi normal coordinates (see section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_reference_frame_(flat_spacetime) ) are more well known and even Riemann normal coordinates are used more frequently than radar coordinates. So you may want to investigate all of them to decide which you prefer – Dale Dec 07 '23 at 14:41
  • Great! Thank you for helping me. :-) – Kabouter9 Dec 07 '23 at 14:44

1 Answers1

1

The natural way is to specify proper acceleration with respect to proper time. This uniquely specifies your trajectory, given that you give its initial spacetime event and corresponding normalised 4-velocity.

Geometrically, this is the Minkowski analogue of reconstructing a curve in the plane, knowing its curvature as a function of its arc length. This uniquely specifies the curve up to a congruence, which is why you need to specify the initial point and corresponding tangent vector.

Concretely, in an inertial frame with coordinates $(t,x)$, and writing the proper time derivatives as $\dot{}$ and the coordinate time derivatives as $'$, you get the proper velocity and acceleration: $$ \begin{align} U &= (\dot t,\dot x) & A &= (\ddot t, \ddot x) \end{align} $$ so the definition of proper acceleration gives the ODE: $$ \begin{align} \ddot x &= a\dot t & \ddot t &= a\dot x \end{align} $$ This is a second order linear non-autonomous ODE, and the initial condition specifies $x(0),y(0),\dot x(0), \dot y(0)$ with the constraint that: $$ \dot t^2-\dot x^2 = 1 $$ which if obeyed for the initial condition is conserved by the equations of motion. Up to a Poincaré transformation, you can assume that: $$ \begin{align} t(0) &= 0 & x(0) &= 0 & \dot t(0) &= 1 & \dot x(0) = 0 \end{align} $$

You can use the relation to decouple the equations: $$ \begin{align} \ddot x &= a\sqrt{1+\dot x^2} & \ddot t &= a\sqrt{\dot t^2-1} \end{align} $$ You can therefore reconstruct your trajectory with no ambiguity by separating the variables and antiderivating. For coordinate time, this gives: $$ \int^\dot t \frac{du}{\sqrt{u^2-1}} = \cosh^{-1}(\dot t) \\ \cosh^{-1}(\dot t) = \int ad\tau \\ t(\tau) = \int_0^\tau \cosh\left(\int_0^{\tau_1} a(\tau_2)d\tau_2\right)d\tau_1 $$ For completeness, the same argument holds for the spatial coordinate: $$ x(\tau) = \int_0^\tau \sinh\left(\int_0^{\tau_1} a(\tau_2)d\tau_2\right)d\tau_1 $$ Notice that for constant proper acceleration, you recover hyperbolic motion.

As you can see the natural parameter is proper time. If you want to express everything in terms of coordinate time, the best way is to solve things with proper time and then invert $t(\tau)$ to get your desired dependence.

If you really want to parametrize with coordinate time, then $$ \frac{d}{dt} = \frac{1}{\dot t}\frac{d}{d\tau} $$ You get: $$ \begin{align} x' &= \frac{\dot x}{\dot t} \\ x'' &= \frac{\ddot x \dot t-\dot x\ddot t}{\dot t^3} \end{align} $$ Plugging in the previous equations of motion gives you your equation: $$ x'' = \frac{a}{\gamma^3} \\ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x'^2}} $$ The same previous initial conditions give: $$ \begin{align} x(0) &= 0 & x'(0) &= 0 \end{align} $$ Following the same method: $$ \int^{x'}\frac{du}{\sqrt{1-u^2}^3} = \frac{x'}{\sqrt{1-x'^2}} \\ \frac{x'}{\sqrt{1-x'^2}} = \int a dt \\ x(t) = \int_0^t\frac{dt_1}{\sqrt{\left(\int_0^{t_1} a(t_2) dt_2\right)^{-2}+1}} $$ If you want proper time, you just use with initial condition $\tau(0) = 0$: $$ \frac{d\tau}{dt} = \sqrt{1-x'^2} \\ \tau(t) = \int_0^t \frac{dt_1}{\sqrt{1+\left(\int_0^{t_1} a(t_2)dt_2\right)^2}} $$ Once again, you can check the consistency with hyperbolic motion.

Hope this helps.

LPZ
  • 11,449
  • 1
  • 4
  • 24
  • Thank you for your answer. Helped a lot! Only thing I don't get is how the definition of the proper acceleration implies that system of differential equations. – Kabouter9 Dec 07 '23 at 12:36
  • 1
    Glad it helped. You just use the the fact that $n = (\dot x,\dot t)$ is the unit normal vector to $U$, so $A = an$ with $a$ the proper acceleration by definition. It's the Minkowski analogue of the curvature for the 2D Frenet basis. – LPZ Dec 07 '23 at 12:58
  • Sorry for the belated reply but I have two more related questions. First, to be sure, if you write $\int_{0}^{t_{1}} a(t_{2}) dt_{2}$, you really mean $a(t_{2})$ and not $a(\tau(t_{2}))$ right? Secondly, suppose that I want to solve the inverse problem; given the velocity $dx/dt$, from your equation $x(t)$, I can find an equation for $a(t)$ but how can I write this in function of proper time? Thanks in advance. – Kabouter9 Feb 19 '24 at 13:15