1
$\begingroup$

Let us assume the static, spherically-symmetric space time given by $$ds^2 = -e^{2\Phi(r)}dt^2+e^{2\Lambda(r)}dr^2+r^2d\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta\,d\phi^2.$$ For a static star, in which case the fluid has no motion, the only nonzero component of the four velocity field is $U^0$. According to Schutz's A First Course in General Relativity, the normalization condition $\mathbf{U}\cdot\mathbf{U} = -1$ demands $$U^0 =e^{-\Phi}\,\,\,\mathrm{and}\,\,\,U_0=-e^\Phi.$$

However, it seems to me that the normalization condition just as easily allows $$U^0 =-e^{-\Phi}\,\,\,\mathrm{and}\,\,\,U_0=e^\Phi.$$ Is it true that both are acceptable? Is Schutz's statement just a convention to keep $U^0$ positive?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Short answer: you want the velocity vector to be future directed, which means that $U^0$ must indeed be positive.

We postulate that time is not completely symmetric, in the sense that there's such a thing as future and past. If you have that and you choose the $t$ coordinate so that it increases with time, then that forces $U^0$ to be positive. If you wanted to be difficult you could instead define $t$ so that it increases into the past, and then $U^0$ would be negative; I don't know why you'd do that, though.

More mathematically, remember that the set of null vectors at any given point is a double cone: it has two halves, pointing in opposite direction, and any timelike vector is going to be inside either of these two. We say that a spacetime is time orientable if it's possible to call one half "future" and the other "past" in a continuous manner throughout spacetime, or, in other words, if there exists a continuous nonzero timelike vector field (I think these should be equivalent). You can think of this as analogous to how a surface is orientable if we can choose a continuous normal vector. It turns out that every spacetime that arises in practice is time orientable.

I say this because the notion of future/past directed is only well defined in a time oriented spacetime; otherwise, you could take your "future" directed vector $\mathbf{U}$, parallel transport it on a closed loop and end up with a "past" directed vector. Thankfully, this doesn't happen in this example, or indeed in any other example you're likely to find.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.