3
  • How Einstein's SR becomes GR?

$$ds^2=dr^2-c^2dt^2,$$

$$ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}.$$

  • When the $s$ is constant $ds^2=0$, isn't it true?

  • How to connect Einstein's SR with GR?

  • What is the GR-differential $ds^2$?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751

3 Answers3

2

The connection between general relativity and special relativity is fundamental. The principle of equivalence says that in a locally free falling system of coordinates, the effects of gravity are eliminated. This means that in a local coordinate system in free fall the metric tensor is that of special relativity. So very close to an event (i.e. in a finite neighborhood) the equations of general relativity are the same as sr. So the local structure of spacetime is minkowskian. GR is about the way you assemble sr local charts to form the riemann curved global structure of space time. That is why there exists local lorentz’s transformations, that act locally in the spacetime manifold. The GR field equations relate the local structure (sr near an event) to the global structure by means of the affine connection and spin connection. GR's metric tensor is the minkowski tensor locally. (Strong equivalence principle)

1

What is the GR-Differential $ds2$?

In SR, the interval between two events can be found by taking finite differences:

$s^2 = c^2 \Delta t^2 - \Delta x^2 - \Delta y^2 - \Delta z^2$

But, we also have:

$s^2 = c^2 \tau^2$ for $s^2 > 0$

$\tau$ is the proper time, i.e., the elapsed time along a straight (non-accelerated) worldline connecting the events.

However, if you want to find the elapsed time along a curved (accelerated) worldline between events, you must integrate the differential interval along the worldline:

$c \tau = \int_P^Q ds$

$ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2$

In GR, we not only must use the differential interval (line element), we must also consider that the line element varies from event to event:

$ds^2 = g_{00}(dx^0)^2 + g_{11}(dx^1)^2 + g_{22}(dx^2)^2 + g_{33}(dx^3)^2 + 2g_{01}dx^0 dx^1 + 2g_{02}dx^0 dx^2 + 2g_{03}dx^0 dx^3 + 2g_{12}dx^1 dx^2 + 2g_{13}dx^1 dx^3 + 2g_{23}dx^2 dx^3$

Which, using the summation convention, is much more easily written as:

$ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}$

The $g_{\mu\nu}$ are, in general, functions of the spacetime coordinates $x^{\mu}$

When the s is constant $ds^2=0$, isn't it true

You're thinking of derivative here rather than differential. In this context, we're interested in finding the spacetime equivalent of length in space along a path. Think of arc length instead.

0

It isn't possible to explain GR as an expansion of SR, or at least not in any useful way. That's because the fundamental principles of GR are different to SR.

However what you can do is show that SR is a subset of GR i.e. that GR reduces to SR when energy density is low. This is explained in Reducing General Relativity to Special Relativity in limiting case

John Rennie
  • 355,118
  • by this is not possible you means this is impossible!? but actually einstein did it!. –  Jun 29 '12 at 08:53
  • Einstein did not formulate GR by starting with SR and enhancing it. In effect he threw away the SR work and started from scratch. Obviously he must have had in mind that his new theory must have SR as a low mass limit, but he started from completely different principles to SR. See http://rafimoor.com/english/GRE1.htm for a good popular science level description. – John Rennie Jun 29 '12 at 09:18
  • @JohnRennie: How is this comment supposed to be read? GR has both local SR and asymptotic SR (for an asymptotically flat background, which Einstein considered often). He kept the local SR and kept the negative sign metric, so I can't see how you can say he started from scratch. – Ron Maimon Jun 30 '12 at 02:44
  • @JohnRennie: Why can't you say "GR is SR plus a spin-2 fluctuating graviton field"? – Ron Maimon Jun 30 '12 at 02:45
  • Because I think the key to understanding GR is understanding coordinate independence. This is true of SR but not emphasised in most courses. You certainly need a thorough grasp of SR before trying to learn GR, but I don't think viewing GR as an extension of SR will help you understand it. I think you need to approach GR with a new mindset. Your mileage may vary of course. – John Rennie Jun 30 '12 at 06:26
  • @Ron: You can't say that GR is SR + graviton because GR is a nonlinear theory and g+h is a linearized approximation that is rarely valid. This is very basic GR! – Ernesto Ulloa Jul 04 '12 at 13:53
  • @ErnestoUlloa: "g+h" is not a "linearized" approximation because I didn't say what order I keep. If you work in a "g+h" approximation to high order, it becomes a better and better approximation. The question of whether the perturbative spin-2 theory contains all the gravitational physics is interesting, and I would say the answer is "yes" with the same caveats about global effects you don't see in plane-wave perturbation theory without resummation, like gravitational instantons. – Ron Maimon Jul 04 '12 at 14:47
  • @JohnRennie: This is a little bit annoying. You are making claims based on how you learned it, rather than on the ideas themselves. GR can be seen as a special relativistic theory of gravity that also accidentally has extra diffeomorphism invariance, which is the point of view of Weinberg, for instance. Einstein thought the key to GR is Mach's principle, and holographic principle is just a souped up and correct version of Mach, so I don't think he was too far off. – Ron Maimon Jul 04 '12 at 14:59
  • @Ron: Sorry Ron, a nonlinear theory is not a limit of linear superposition. You will never satisfy nonlinear equations by adding linearized equation's solution. For instance try to reproduce black hole solutions using gravitons and a Minkowski metric! Good luck with that! This is learned in GR 101. – Ernesto Ulloa Jul 04 '12 at 19:08
  • @ErnestoUlloa: Linearized gravity is a nonlinear theory, it is only linear to lowest order in h. There are interaction terms from the expansion of the action in powers of h. The formation of black holes requires going to infinite order, it's true, and this is not clearly contained in the perturbation expansion, but it's no different than any other nonlinear solution in field theory, like instantons in gauge theory. – Ron Maimon Jul 05 '12 at 01:49
  • @Ron: It is known that BH solutions, for instance, can't be obtained to any order in perturbation theory. Linearized solutions, even to higher orders in h, will not reproduce the full nonlinear solutionsof GR because they are nonperturbative solutions. Also this series you are talking about may not be convergent. – Ernesto Ulloa Jul 09 '12 at 03:52
  • @ErnestoUlloa: Yes, I agree (this is also why I had a problem with string theory when I was a young child). But it is the same in gauge theory, and there we know how to deal with most of the issues. The formation and evaporation of black holes is nonperturbative. I don't know where we disagree. – Ron Maimon Jul 09 '12 at 03:58