Lecture Notes on General Relativity

Matthias Blau
Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics Institut fr Theoretische Physik u Universitt Bern a CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

These notes are also available from http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/Lecturenotes.html Last update March 2, 2012

Contents
0 Introduction Part I: Towards the Einstein Equations 1 From the Einstein Equivalence Principle to Geodesics 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Motivation: The Einstein Equivalence Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lorentz-Covariant Formulation of Special Relativity (Review) . . . . . . . . Accelerated Observers and the Rindler Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Coordinate Transformations in Minkowski Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metrics and Coordinate Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Geodesic Equation and Christoel Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christoel Symbols and Coordinate Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13 13 13 21 28 32 35 38 40 42 42 45 46 48 51 53 57 59 63 68 68 69 72 75 79 80

2 The Physics and Geometry of Geodesics 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Variational Principles for Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ane and Non-ane Parametrisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Simple Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consequences and Uses of the Euler-Lagrange Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conserved Charges and (a rst encounter with) Killing Vectors . . . . . . . . . . The Newtonian Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rindler Coordinates Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Gravitational Red-Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locally Inertial and Riemann Normal Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Tensor Algebra 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 From the Einstein Equivalence Principle to the Principle of General Covariance . Tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tensor Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tensor Densities and Volume Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Coordinate-Independent Interpretation of Tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vielbeins and Orthonormal Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Tensor Analysis 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 The Covariant Derivative for Vector Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Invariant Interpretation of the Covariant Derivative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extension of the Covariant Derivative to Other Tensor Fields . . . . . . . . . . . Main Properties of the Covariant Derivative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tensor Analysis: Some Special Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Covariant Dierentiation Along a Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parallel Transport and Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniqueness of the Levi-Civita Connection (Christoel symbols) . . . . . . . . . . Generalisations: Torsion and Non-Metricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86 86 87 88 90 92 96 97 98 99 102

5 Physics in a Gravitational Field 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

The Principle of Minimal Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Particle Mechanics in a Gravitational Field Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Klein-Gordon Scalar Field in a Gravitational Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Maxwell Theory in a Gravitational Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 On the Energy-Momentum Tensor for Weyl-invariant Actions . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Scalar Field in (1+1) Minkowski and Rindler Space-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Conserved Quantities from Covariantly Conserved Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Conserved Quantities from Covariantly Conserved Tensors? . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 115

6 The Lie Derivative, Symmetries and Killing Vectors 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Symmetries of a Metric (Isometries): Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 The Lie Derivative for Scalars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 The Lie Derivative for Vector Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 The Lie Derivative for other Tensor Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 The Lie Derivative of the Metric and Killing Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Killing Vectors and Conserved Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 124

7 Curvature I: The Riemann Curvature Tensor 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Curvature: Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 The Riemann Curvature Tensor from the Commutator of Covariant Derivatives . 124 Symmetries and Algebraic Properties of the Riemann Tensor . . . . . . . . . . . 127 The Ricci Tensor and the Ricci Scalar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9

An Example: The Curvature Tensor of the Two-Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 More on Curvature in 2 (spacelike) Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Bianchi Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Another Look at the Principle of General Covariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Generalisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 138

8 Curvature II: Geometry and Curvature 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Intrinsic Geometry, Curvature and Parallel Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Vanishing Riemann Tensor and Existence of Flat Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . 141 The Geodesic Deviation Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 The Raychaudhuri Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Curvature and Killing Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 151

9 The Einstein Equations 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 A More Systematic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 The Newtonian Weak-Field Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 The Einstein Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Signicance of the Bianchi Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 The Cosmological Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 The Weyl Tensor and the Propagation of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 161

10 The Einstein Equations from a Variational Principle

10.1 The Einstein-Hilbert Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 10.2 The Matter Action and the Covariant Energy-Momentum Tensor . . . . . . . . . 165 10.3 Consequences of the Variational Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 10.4 Canonical vs Covariant Energy-Momentum Tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 10.5 Comments on Gravitational Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 10.6 The Palatini Variational Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Part II: Selected Applications of General Relativity 187

11 The Schwarzschild Metric

188

11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 11.2 Static Spherically Symmetric Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 11.3 Solving the Einstein Equations for a Static Spherically Symmetric Metric . . . . 191 11.4 Schwarzschild Coordinates and Schwarzschild Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 11.5 Measuring Length and Time in the Schwarzschild Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 11.6 Birkhos Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 11.7 Interior Solution for a Static Star and the TOV Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 12 Particle and Photon Orbits in the Schwarzschild Geometry 208

12.1 From Conserved Quantities to the Eective Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 12.2 The Equation for the Shape of the Orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 12.3 Timelike Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 12.4 The Anomalous Precession of the Perihelia of the Planetary Orbits . . . . . . . . 215 12.5 Null Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 12.6 The Bending of Light by a Star: 3 Derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 12.7 A Unied Description in terms of the Runge-Lenz Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 13 Approaching the Schwarzschild Radius rs 229

13.1 Stationary Observers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 13.2 Vertical Free Fall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 13.3 Vertical Free Fall as seen by a Distant Observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 13.4 Innite Gravitational Red-Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 13.5 The Geometry Near rs and Minkowski Space in Rindler Coordinates . . . . . . . 234 13.6 Tortoise Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 13.7 The Klein-Gordon Field in the Schwarzschild Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 14 The Schwarzschild Black Hole 242

14.1 Crossing rs with Painlev-Gullstrand Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 e 14.2 Lema and Novikov Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 tre 14.3 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates and Event Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 14.4 Kerr-Schild Form of the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 14.5 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 14.6 The Kruskal Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

14.7 Killing Horizon and Surface Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 14.8 Some Qualitative Aspects of Gravitational Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 14.9 Other Black Hole Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 14.10Appendix: Summary of Schwarzschild Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 15 The Reissner-Nordstrm Solution 278

15.1 The Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 15.2 Basic Properties of the Naked Singularity Solution with m2 q 2 < 0 . . . . . . . 281 15.3 Basic Properties of the Extremal Solution with m2 q 2 = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 15.4 Basic Properties of the Non-extremal Solution with m2 q 2 > 0 . . . . . . . . . 285 15.5 Motion of a Charged Particle: the Eective Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 15.6 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates: General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 15.7 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates: the Reissner-Nordstrm Metric . . . . . . . . 294 15.8 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates: General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 15.9 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates: the Reissner-Nordstrm Metric . . . . . . . . . . . 297 16 Interlude: Maximally Symmetric Spaces 300

16.1 Homogeneous, Isotropic and Maximally Symmetric Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 16.2 The Curvature Tensor of a Maximally Symmetric Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 16.3 Maximally Symmetric Metrics I: Solving the Einstein Equations . . . . . . . . . 303 16.4 Maximally Symmetric Metrics II: Embeddings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 17 Cosmology I: Basics 308

17.1 Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 17.2 Fundamental Observations I: The Cosmological Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 17.3 Fundamental Observations II: Olbers Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 17.4 Fundamental Observations III: The Hubble(-Lema tre) Expansion . . . . . . . . 311

17.5 Mathematical Model: the Robertson-Walker Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 17.6 Area Measurements and Number Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 17.7 The Cosmological Red-Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 17.8 The Red-Shift Distance Relation (Hubbles Law) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

18 Cosmology II: Basics of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Cosmology

325

18.1 The Ricci Tensor of the Robertson-Walker Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 18.2 The Matter Content: A Perfect Fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

18.3 Conservation Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 18.4 The Einstein and Friedmann Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 19 Cosmology III: Qualitative Analysis 335

19.1 The Big Bang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 19.2 The Age of the Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 19.3 Long Term Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 19.4 Density Parameters and the Critical Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

19.5 The dierent Eras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 19.6 The Universe Today: the -CDM Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 19.7 Flatness, Horizon & Cosmological Constant Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 20 Cosmology IV: Some Exact Solutions 349

20.1 The Milne Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 20.2 The Einstein Static Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 20.3 The Matter Dominated Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 20.4 The Radiation Dominated Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 20.5 The Cosmological Constant Dominated Era: (Anti-) de Sitter Space . . . . . . . 355 20.6 The -CDM Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 359

21 Interior Solution for a Collapsing Star

21.1 The Set-Up: Geometry and Matter Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 21.2 k = 0 Collapse and Painlev-Gullstrand Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 e 21.3 k = +1 Collapse and Comoving Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 22 de Sitter and anti-de Sitter Space 366

22.1 Embeddings, Isometries and Coset Space Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 22.2 Some Coordinate Systems for de Sitter space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 22.3 Some Coordinate Systems for anti-de Sitter space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 22.4 Warped Products, Cones, and Maximal Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

23 Linearised Gravity and Gravitational Waves

388

23.1 Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 23.2 The Linearised Einstein Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 23.3 Newtonian Limit Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 23.4 ADM and Komar Energies of an Isolated System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 23.5 Gauge Invariance, Gauge Conditions and Polarisation Vector in Maxwell Theory 396 23.6 Linearised Gravity: Gauge Invariance and Coordinate Choices . . . . . . . . . . . 398 23.7 The Wave Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 23.8 The Polarisation Tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 23.9 Physical Eects of Gravitational Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 24 Exact Wave-like Solutions of the Einstein Equations 24.1 Plane Waves in Rosen Coordinates: Heuristics 406

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

24.2 From pp-waves to plane waves in Brinkmann coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 24.3 Geodesics, Light-Cone Gauge and Harmonic Oscillators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 24.4 Curvature and Singularities of Plane Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 24.5 From Rosen to Brinkmann coordinates (and back) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 24.6 More on Rosen Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 24.7 The Heisenberg Isometry Algebra of a Generic Plane Wave . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 24.8 Plane Waves with more Isometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 25 Kaluza-Klein Theory 422

25.1 Motivation: Gravity and Gauge Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 25.2 The Kaluza-Klein Miracle: History and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 25.3 The Origin of Gauge Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 25.4 Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 25.5 First Problems: The Equations of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 25.6 Masses and Charges from Scalar Fields in Five Dimenions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 25.7 Kinematics of Dimensional Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 25.8 The Kaluza-Klein Ansatz Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 25.9 Non-Abelian Generalisation and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

Introduction

1905 was Einsteins magical year. In that year, he published three articles, on light quanta, on the foundations of the theory of Special Relativity, and on Brownian motion, each one separately worthy of a Nobel prize. Immediately after his work on Special Relativity, Einstein started thinking about gravity and how to give it a relativistically invariant formulation. He kept on working on this problem during the next ten years, doing little else. This work, after many trials and errors, culminated in his masterpiece, the General Theory of Relativity, presented in 1915/1916. It is clearly one of the greatest scientic achievements of all time, a beautiful theory derived from pure thought and physical intuition, capable of explaining, still today, almost 100 years later, virtually every aspect of gravitational physics ever observed. Einsteins key insight was that gravity is not a physical external force like the other forces of nature but rather a manifestation of the curvature of space-time itself. This realisation, in its simplicity and beauty, has had a profound impact on theoretical physics as a whole, and Einsteins vision of a geometrisation of all of physics is still with us today. These lecture notes for an introductory course on General Relativity are based on a course that I originally gave in the years 1998-2003 in the framework of the Diploma Course of the ICTP (Trieste, Italy). Currently these notes form the basis of a course that I teach as part of the Master in Theoretical Physics curriculum at the University of Bern. In the intervening years, I have made (and keep making) various additions to the lecture notes, and they now include more material than is needed for (or can realistically be covered in) an introductory 1-semester course, say, but I hope to have nevertheless have conserved the introductory character and accessible style of the original notes. Part I of these lecture notes will be dedicated to explaining and exploring the consequences of Einsteins insights into the relation between gravity and space-time geometry, and to developing the machinery (of tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry) required to describe physics in a curved space time, i.e. in a gravitational eld. Part II then deals with various applications of General Relativity. Foremost among them is the description of the classical predictions of General Relativity and their experimental verication. Other subjects that are covered include the strange world of Black Holes, Cosmology, some elementary aspects of the theory of gravitational waves, and some intriguing theories of gravity in higher dimensions known as Kaluza-Klein theories.
Remarks:

1. General Relativity may appear to you to be a dicult subject at rst, since it requires a certain amount of new mathematics and takes place in an unfamiliar

arena. However, this course is meant to be essentially self-contained, requiring only a familiarity with Special Relativity, Lagrangian mechanics. vector calculus and coordinate transformations To be precise, by special relativity I mean the covariant formulation in terms of the Minkowski metric etc.; special relativity is (regardless of what you may have been taught) not fundamentally a theory about people changing trains erratically, running into barns with poles, or doing strange things to their twins; rather, it is a theory of a fundamental symmetry principle of physics, namely that the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations and that they should therefore also be formulated in a way which makes this symmetry manifest. [Litmus Test: does the content of section 1.2 look familiar to you?] I will thus attempt to explain every single other thing that is required to understand the basics of Einsteins theory of gravity (but it also means that I will not be able to discuss some mathematically more advanced and yet equally important aspects of General Relativity). Nevertheless, the purpose of these notes is to supplement the course, not to replace a text-book. You should turn to other sources for other explanations, more on the historical and experimental side, and exercises to test your understanding of these matters. 2. I make no claim to originality in these notes. In particular, in earlier versions of these notes the presentation of much of the introductory material followed quite closely the treatment in Weinbergs classic S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology Readers familiar with this book will still recognise the similarities in various places (and I have made no attempt to disguise this). Even though my own way of thinking about general relativity is somewhat more geometric, I have found that the approach adopted by Weinberg is ideally suited to introduce general relativity to students with little mathematical background. I have also used a number of other sources, including, in particular, Sean Carrolls on-line lecture notes (http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/) which have, in the meantime, been expanded into the lovely textbook S. Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity 3. A relatively new introductory book that I like and highly recommend is J. Hartle, Gravity: an Introduction to Einsteins General Relativity 10

At a more advanced level, my favourites are S. Hawking, G. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time E. Poisson, A Relativists Toolkit: the Mathematics of Black Hole Mechanics R. Sexl, H. Urbantke, Gravitation and Kosmologie (a gem which unfortunately seems to have never been translated into English) R. Wald, General Relativity If you are missing exercises in or to these lecture notes, then take a look at A. Lightman, W. Press, R. Price, S. Teukolsky, Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation for almost 500 fully solved problems in relativity. And nally, there is of course the unique and amazing treasure-trove / cornucopia C. Misner, K. Thorne, J. Wheeler, Gravitation 4. Invariably, any set of (introductory) lecture notes has its shortcomings, due to lack of space and time, the requirements of the audience and the expertise (or lack thereof) and interests of the lecturer. These lecture notes are, of course, no exception. In my opinion, among the weaknesses of this course or these lecture notes are the following: The history of the development of general relativity is an important and complex subject, crucial for a thorough appreciation of general relativity. My remarks on this subject are scarce and possibly even misleading at times and should not be taken as gospel. No mention is made of manifolds and bundles as this would require some background in dierential geometry and topology I did not want to assume. These notions are not strictly needed at the introductory stages, but are required for a better appreciation of general relativity and an understanding of fundamental results like the singularity theorems. Moreover, practically no mention is made of the manifestly coordinate independent calculus of dierential forms. Given a little bit more time, it would be possible to cover the (extremely useful) vielbein and dierential form formulations of general relativity, and a supplement to these lecture notes on this subject is in preparation. The discussion of the causal structure of the Schwarzschild metric and its Kruskal-Szekeres extension currently stops short of introducing Penrose diagrams. These are useful and important and, once again, given a bit more time, this is a subject that could and ought to be covered as well. 11

There are numerous other important topics not treated in these notes, foremost among them perhaps a discussion of the canonical ADM formalism, more generally a discussion of notions of energy in general relativity (which is only briey touched upon in these notes), the post-Newtonian approximation, results of mathematical general relativity regarding singularities or properties of general back hole solutions etc. Including all these topics would require at least one more one-semester course and would turn these lecture notes into a (rather voluminous) book. The former was not possible, given initially the constraints of the ICTP Diploma Course and now those of the Bologna system, and the latter is not my intention, since a number of excellent textbooks on General Relativity have appeared in recent years. I can only hope that these lecture notes provide the necessary background for studying these more advanced topics. Further additions and updates to these notes are in preparation. I am grateful for feedback of any kind: complaints, constructive criticism, corrections, and suggestions for what else to include. If you have any comments on these notes, or also if you just happen to nd them useful, please let me know ([email protected]).

12

Part I: Towards the Einstein Equations

1
1.1

From the Einstein Equivalence Principle to Geodesics

Motivation: The Einstein Equivalence Principle

First of all, let us ask the question why we should not be happy with the classical Newtonian description of gravity. Well, for one, this theory is not Lorentz invariant, postulating an action at a distance and an instantaneous propagation of the gravitational eld to every point in space. This is something that Einstein had just successfully exorcised from other aspects of physics, and clearly Newtonian gravity had to be revised as well. It is then immediately clear that what would have to replace Newtons theory is something rather more complicated. The reason for this is that, according to Special Relativity, mass is just another form of energy. But then, since gravity couples to masses, in a relativistically invariant theory gravity will also have to couple to energy. In particular, therefore, gravity would have to couple to gravitational energy, i.e. to itself. As a consequence, the new gravitational eld equations will, unlike Newtons, have to be non-linear: the eld of the sum of two masses cannot equal the sum of the gravitational elds of the two masses because it should also take into account the gravitational energy of the two-body system. But now, having realised that Newtons theory cannot be the nal word on the issue, how does one go about nding a better theory? I will rst very briey discuss (and then dismiss) what at rst sight may appear to be the most natural and simple approach to formulating a relativistic theory of gravity, namely the simple replacement of Newtons eld equation = 4GN (1.1)

for the gravitational potential given a mass density (with GN denoting, here and throughout, Newtons constant, i.e. the gravitational coupling constant) by its relativistically covariant version = 4GN 2 = 4GN . (1.2)

While this looks promising, something cant be quite right about this equation. We already know (from Special Relativity) that is not a scalar but rather the 00-component of a tensor, the energy-momentum tensor, so if actually appears on the right-hand side, cannot be a scalar, while if is a scalar something needs to be done to x the right-hand side.

13

Turning rst to the latter possiblility, one option that suggests itself is to replace by the trace T = T of the energy-momentum tensor. This is by denition / construction a scalar, and it will agree with in the non-relativistic limit. Thus a rst attempt at xing the above equation might look like 2 = 4GN T . (1.3)

This is certainly an attractive equation, but it denitely has the drawback that it is too linear. Recall from the discussion above that the universality of gravity (coupling to all forms of matter) and the equivalence of mass and energy lead to the conclusion that gravity should couple to gravitational energy, invariably predicting non-linear (selfinteracting) equations for the gravitational eld. However, the left hand side could be such that it only reduces to 2 or of the Newtonian potential in the Newtonian limit of weak stationary elds. Thus a second attempt at xing the above equation might look like 2() = 4GN T , (1.4) where () for weak elds. Such a scalar relativistic theory of gravity and variants thereof were proposed and studied among others by Abraham, Mie, and Nordstrm. As it stands, this eld equation appears to be perfectly consistent (and it may be interesting to discuss if/how the Einstein equivalence principle, which will put us on our route towards metrics and space-time curvature) is realised in such a theory. However, regardless of this, this theory is incorrect simply because it is ruled out experimentally. The easiest way to see this (with hindsight) is to note that the energy-momentum tensor of Maxwell theory (5.32) is traceless, and thus the above equation would predict no coupling of gravity to the electro-magnetic eld, in particular to light, hence in such a theory there would be no deection of light by the sun etc.1 The other possibility to render (1.2) consistent is the, a priori perhaps much less compelling, option to think of and or 2 not as scalars but as (00)-components of some tensor, in which case one could try to salvage (1.2) by promoting it to a tensorial equation {Some tensor generalising } 4GN T . (1.5) This is indeed the form of the eld equations for gravity (the Einstein equations) we will ultimately be led to (see section 9.4), but Einstein arrived at this in a completely dierent, and much more insightful, way. Let us now, very briey and in a streamlined way, try to retrace Einsteins thoughts which, as we will see, will lead us rather quickly to the geometric picture of gravity sketched in the Introduction. He approached this by thinking about three related issues,
For more on the history and properties of scalar theories of gravity see the review by D. Giulini, What is (not) wrong with scalar gravity?, arXiv:gr-qc/0611100.
1

14

1. the equivalence principle of Special Relativity; 2. the relation between inertial and gravitational mass; 3. Special Relativity and accelerations. As regards the rst issue, let me just recall that Special Relativity postulates a preferred class of inertial frames, namely those travelling at constant velocity to each other. But this raises the questions (I will just raise and not attempt to answer) what is special about constant velocities and, more fundamentally, velocities constant with respect to what? Some absolute space? The background of the stars? . . . ? Regarding the second issue, recall that in Newtonian theory, classical mechanics, there are two a priori independent concepts of mass: inertial mass mi , which accounts for the resistance against acceleration, and gravitational mass mg which is the mass gravity couples to. Now it is an important empirical fact that the inertial mass of a body is equal to its gravitational mass. This is usually paraphrased as all bodies fall at the same rate in a gravitational eld. This realisation, at least with this clarity, is usually attributed to Galileo (it is not true, though, that Galileo dropped objects from the leaning tower of Pisa to test this - he used an inclined plane, a water clock and a pendulum). These experiments were later on improved, in various forms, by Huygens, Newton, Bessel and others and reached unprecedented accuracy with the work of Baron von Etvs (1889-. . . ), who was able to show that inertial and gravitational mass of dierent o o materials (like wood and platinum) agree to one part in 109 . In the 1950/60s, this was still further improved by R. Dicke to something like one part in 1011 . More recently, rumours of a fth force, based on a reanalysis of Etvs data (but buried in the o o meantime) motivated experiments with even higher accuracy and no dierence between mi and mg was found. Now Newtons theory is in principle perfectly consistent with mi = mg , and Einstein was very impressed with their observed equality. This should, he reasoned, not be a mere coincidence but is probably trying to tell us something rather deep about the nature of gravity. With his unequalled talent for discovering profound truths in simple observations, he concluded (calling this der glcklichste Gedanke meines Lebens (the u happiest thought of my life)) that the equality of inertial and gravitational mass suggests a close relation between inertia and gravity itself, suggests, in fact, that locally eects of gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable, locally: GRAVITY = INERTIA = ACCELERATION He substantiated this with some classical thought experiments, Gedankenexperimente, as he called them, which have come to be known as the elevator thought experiments:

15

Figure 1: An experimenter and his two stones freely oating somewhere in outer space, i.e. in the absence of forces.

Figure 2: Constant acceleration upwards mimics the eect of a gravitational eld: experimenter and stones drop to the bottom of the box. 1. Consider somebody in a small sealed box (elevator) somewhere in outer space. In the absence of any forces, this person will oat. Likewise, two stones he has just dropped (see Figure 1) will oat with him. 2. Now assume (Figure 2) that somebody on the outside suddenly pulls the box up with a constant acceleration. Then of course, our friend will be pressed to the bottom of the elevator with a constant force and he will also see his stones drop to the oor. 3. Now consider (Figure 3) this same box brought into a constant gravitational eld. Then again, he will be pressed to the bottom of the elevator with a constant force and he will see his stones drop to the oor. With no experiment inside the elevator can he decide if this is actually due to a gravitational eld or due to the fact that somebody is pulling the elevator upwards. 16

Figure 3: The eect of a constant gravitational eld: indistinguishable for our experimenter from that of a constant acceleration in Figure 2. Thus our rst lesson is that, indeed, locally the eects of acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. 4. Now consider somebody cutting the cable of the elevator (Figure 4). Then the elevator will fall freely downwards but, as in Figure 1, our experimenter and his stones will oat as in the absence of gravity. Thus lesson number two is that, locally the eect of gravity can be eliminated by going to a freely falling reference frame (or coordinate system). This should not come as a surprise. In the Newtonian theory, if the free fall in a constant gravitational eld is described by the equation x = g (+ other forces) , then in the accelerated coordinate system (x, t) = x gt2 /2 the same physics is described by the equation = 0 (+ other forces) , (1.8) (1.7) (1.6)

and the eect of gravity has been eliminated by going to the freely falling coordinate system . The crucial point here is that in such a reference frame not only our observer will oat freely, but he will also observe all other objects obeying the usual laws of motion in the absence of gravity. 17

Figure 4: Free fall in a gravitational eld has the same eect as no gravitational eld (Figure 1): experimenter and stones oat.

Figure 5: The experimenter and his stones in a non-uniform gravitational eld: the stones will approach each other slightly as they fall to the bottom of the elevator.

18

Figure 6: Experimentator and stones freely falling in a non-uniform gravitational eld. The experimenter oats, so do the stones, but they move closer together, indicating the presence of some external force. 5. In the above discussion, I have put the emphasis on constant accelerations and on locally. To see the signicance of this, consider our experimenter with his elevator in the gravitational eld of the earth (Figure 5). This gravitational eld is not constant but spherically symmetric, pointing towards the center of the earth. Therefore the stones will slightly approach each other as they fall towards the bottom of the elevator, in the direction of the center of the gravitational eld. Thus, if somebody cuts the cable now and the elevator is again in free fall (Figure 6), our experimenter will oat again, so will the stones, but our experimenter will also notice that the stones move closer together for some reason. He will have to conclude that there is some force responsible for this. This is lesson number three: in a non-uniform gravitational eld the eects of gravity cannot be eliminated by going to a freely falling coordinate system. This is only possible locally, on such scales on which the gravitational eld is essentially constant. Einstein formalised the outcome of these thought experiments in what is now known as the Einstein Equivalence Principle which roughly states that physics in a freely falling frame in a gravitational eld is the same physics in an inertial frame in Minkowski space in the absence of gravitation. Two formulation are At every space-time point in an arbitrary gravitational eld it is possible 19

to choose a locally inertial (or freely falling) coordinate system such that, within a suciently small region of this point, the laws of nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems in the absence of gravitation. (Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology) and Experiments in a suciently small freely falling laboratory, over a suciently short time, give results that are indistinguishable from those of the same experiments in an inertial frame in empty space. (Hartle, Gravity). There are dierent versions of this principle depending on what precisely one means by the laws of nature. If one just means the laws of Newtonian (or relativistic) mechanics, then this priciple essentially reduces to the statement that inertial and gravitational mass are equal. Usually, however, this statement is taken to imply also Maxwells theory, quantum mechanics etc. What it asserts in its strong form is that [. . . ] there is no experiment that can distinguish a uniform acceleration from a uniform gravitational eld. (Hartle, Gravity) The power of the above principle lies in the fact that we can combine it with our understanding of physics in accelerated reference systems to gain insight into the physics in a gravitational eld. Two immediate consequences of this (which are hard to derive on the basis of Newtonian physics or Special Relativity alone) are light is deected by a gravitational eld just like material objects; clocks run slower in a gravitational eld than in the absence of gravity. To see the inevitability of the rst assertion, imagine a light ray entering the rocket / elevator in Figure 1 horizontally through a window on the left hand side and exiting again at the same height through a window on the right. Now imagine, as in Figure 2, accelerating the elevator upwards. Then clearly the light ray that enters on the left will exit at a lower point of the elevator on the right because the elevator is accelerating upwards. By the equivalence principle one should observe exactly the same thing in a constant gravitational eld (Figure 3). It follows that in a gravitational eld the light ray is bent downwards, i.e. it experiences a downward acceleration with the (locally constant) gravitational acceleration g. To understand the second assertion, one can e.g. simply appeal to the so-called twinparadox of Special Relativity: the accelerated twin is younger than his unaccelerated inertial sibling. Hence accelerated clocks run slower than inertial clocks. Hence, by

20

the equivalence principle, clocks in a gravitational eld run slower than clocks in the absence of gravity. Alternatively, one can imagine two observers at the top and bottom of the elevator, having identical clocks and sending light signals to each other at regular intervals as determined by their clocks. Once the elevator accelerates upwards, the observer at the bottom will receive the signals at a higher rate than he emits them (because he is accelerating towards the signals he receives), and he will interpret this as his clock running more slowly than that of the observer at the top. By the equivalence principle, the same conclusion now applies to two observers at dierent heights in a gravitational eld. This can also be interpreted in terms of a gravitational red-shift or blue-shift (photons losing or gaining energy by climbing or falling in a gravitational eld), and we will return to a more quantitative discussion of this eect in section 2.8. 1.2 The Lorentz-Covariant Formulation of Special Relativity (Review)

What the equivalence principle tells us is that we can expect to learn something about the eects of gravitation by transforming the laws of nature (equations of motion) from an inertial Cartesian coordinate system to other (accelerated, curvilinear) coordinates. As a rst step, we will, in section 1.3 below, discuss the above example of an observer undergoing constant acceleration in the context of special relativity. As a preparation for this, and the remainder of the course, this section will provide a lightning review of the Lorentz-covariant formulation of special relativity, mainly to set the notation and conventions that will be used throughout, and only to the extent that it will be used in the following. 1. Minkowski space(-time) (a) The arena of special relativity is Minkowski space-time [henceforth Minkowski space for short, the union of space and time is implied by uttering the word Minkowski]. It is the space of events, labelled by 3 Cartesian spatial coordinates xk and a time-coordinate t or, more usefully, by the coordinates ( a ) = ( 0 = ct, k = xk ) , (1.9)

where c is the speed of light. Typically in these notes a will indicate such a (locally) inertial coordinate system, whereas generic coordinates will be called x etc. We will almost always work in units in which c = 1. (b) Minkowski space is equipped with a prescription for measuring distances, encoded in a line-element which, in these coordinates, takes the form ds2 = (d 0 )2 + 21 (d k )2 .
k

(1.10)

(c) This can be written as ds2 = (d 0 )2 + (d k )2 ab d a d b . (1.11)

with metric (ab ) = diag(1, +1, +1, +1) or, more explicitly, 1 0 0 0 0 +1 0 0 = 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 +1

ab

(1.12)

(thus we are using the mostly plus convention). 2. Lorentz Transformations (a) Lorentz transformations are by denition those linear transformations a a = La b that leave the Minkowski line-element invariant, d2 ab d a d b = ab d a d b = ds2 s ab La Lbd = cd . c (1.14) (1.13)

In matrix notation this can also be written as = L , Lt L = (1.15)

where Lt is the transpose of L. This is the dening condition for Lorentz transformations, and the Lorentz signature analogue of the condition Rt R = for an orthogonal transformation (rotation or reection) in Euclidean space, with metric ab ik = ik . Alternative notation:
a = Lab b

or

a = Lab b

(1.16)

Strictly speaking a and a may be considered to refer to two dierent quan tities, to the cooordinates of the new point in the old coordinate system versus the coordinates of the old point in the new coordinate system. However, for many elementary purposes this dierence between what is known as the active (moving points) versus the passive (relabelling points) point of view is not crucial, and one should not be hung-up on notation: coordinates are fundamentally just book-keeping devices so use whatever is convenient for current book-keeping or other purposes.

22

(b) Innitesimal Lorentz rotations, i.e. Lorentz transformations with L of the form L = + , innitesimal, are characterised by ( + )t ( + ) = () + ()t = 0 . (1.17)

Thus the matrix is anti-symmetric. In components, an innitesimal Lorentz transformation therefore has the form a = a b b with ab ac cb = ba . (1.18)

(c) Poincar transformations are those ane transformations that leave the Mine kowski line-element invariant. They are composed of Lorentz transformations and arbitrary constant translations and thus have the form a a = La b + a , innitesimally a = a b + a . b (1.20) Any two inertial systems in the sense of the equivalence principle of special relativity are related by a Poincar transformation. e 3. Distance & Causal Structure (a) The Minkowski metric denes the Lorentz (and Poincar) invariant distance e
b b a a ()2 = ab (P Q )(P Q ) a a betwen two events P and Q with coordinates P and Q respectively.

(1.19)

(1.21)

(b) Depending on the sign of ()2 , the two events P, Q are called, spacelike, lightlike (null) or timelike separated, > 0 spacelike separated 2 () = (1.22) = 0 lightlike separated < 0 timelike separated

(c) The set of events that are lightlike separated from P dene the lightcone at P . It consists of two components (joined at P ), the future and the past 0 0 lightcone, distinguished by the sign of Q P (positive for Q on the future 0 0 lightcone, Q > P , negative for Q on the past lightcone).

4. Curves and Tangent Vectors (a) A parametrised curve is given by a map a (). The tangent vector to the curve at the point (0 ) has components a (0 ) = 23 d a ()|=0 . d (1.23)

It is called spacelike, lightlike (null) or timelike, depending on the sign of ab a b , > 0 spacelike a b (1.24) ab = 0 lightlike < 0 timelike

This sign (and hence this classication) depends only on the image of the curve, not its parametrisation.

(b) A curve whose tangent vector is everywhere timelike is called a timelike curve (and likewise for lightlike and spacelike curves). A curve whose tangent vector is everywhere timelike or null (i.e. non-spacelike) is called a causal curve. Worldlines of massive particles are timelike curves, those of massless particles (light) are null curves. (c) A natural Lorentz-invariant parametrisation of timelike curves is provided by the Lorentz-invariant proper time along the curves, a = a ( ) , with cd = ab ds2 = ab d a d b = ab a b d (1.26) (1.25)

d a ( ) d b ( ) = c2 . d d

Likewise spacelike curves are naturally parametrised by proper distance ds. The derivative with respect to proper time will be denoted by an overdot, d a ( ) . a ( ) = d (1.27)

Because is Lorentz-invariant, = , tangent vetors a of -parametrised curves transform linearly under Lorentz transformations, d a a d a ( ) = ( ) = b b ( ) = La b ( ) . b d d (1.28)

These are the prototypes of what are called Lorentz vectors or, more generally, Lorentz tensors. 5. Lorentz Vectors (a) Lorentz vectors (or 4-vectors) are objects with components v a which transform under Lorentz transformations with the matrix La (to be thought of as b the Jacobian of the transformation relating a and a ), v a = Lab v b . 24 (1.29)

(b) ab can be regarded as dening an indenite scalar product on the space of Lorentz vectors, and the Minkowski norm ab v a v b and the Minkowski scalar product ab v a wb of Lorentz vectors are invariant under Lorentz transformations, ab v a v b = ab v a v b , ab v a wb = ab v a wb . (1.30) A vector is called, spacelike, lightlike (null) or timelike depending on the sign of its Minkowski norm. (c) One can identify Minkowski space with its tangent space, i.e. with the vector space V = R1,3 of 4-vectors equipped with the quadratic form or scalar product ab with signature (1,3). 6. Other Lorentz Tensors (a) Lorentz scalars are objects that are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Examples are scalar products and norms of Lorentz vectors. (b) Lorentz covectors are objects ua that transform under Lorentz transformations with the (contragredient = transpose inverse) representation = (Lt )1 = L 1 , i.e. ua = ab ub , ab = ac Lcd db , (1.32) where ab denotes the components of the inverse metric 1 . In terms of , the condition that L is a Lorentz transformation (i.e. preserves ab ) can evidently be written as Lt L = t = ac bd cd = ab . (1.33) (1.31)

Covectors can be regarded as element of the dual V of the space of 4-vectors, with ua dening the Lorentz-invariant linear mapping u : v V u(v) = ua v a R . (1.34)

Examples are ua = ab v b va with v a a Lorentz vector, the scalar product ab dening the isomorphism V V . = (c) Lorentz (p, q)-tensors are objects that transform under Lorentz transformations like a product of p vectors and q convectors,
a ...a a d b1 ...b a ...a Tc11...cqp Tc11...cqp = Lab11 . . . L bp cd1 . . . cqq Td1 ...dp . 1 p q

(1.35)

In particular, direct products of vectors and covectors like V a W b Uc are tensors. A special case is ab , which is a Lorentz-invariant (0, 2)-tensor by denition, c ab = a bd cd = ab . (1.36) 25

Linear combinations of (p, q)-tensors are again (p, q)-tensors. Arbitrary products and contractions of Lorentz tensors are again Lorentz tensors (and the tensor type can be read o from the number and position of the free indices). 7. Tensor Fields (a) Lorentz tensor elds are assignments of Lorentz tensors to each point of Minkowski space, a ...a T : Tc11...cqp () . (1.37) (b) Given a vector eld V a (), ab V a ()V b () is an example of a scalar eld, and given a scalar eld f (), its partial derivatives give a covector eld Ua () = a f () a f () (1.38)

(providing the justication for abbreviating a = a ). More generally, the partial derivatives of the components of a (p, q)-tensor, Tc11...cqp ()
a ...a

a Tc11...cqp ()

a ...a

(1.39)

are the components of a (p, q + 1)-tensor, and the wave operator 2 = ab a b (1.40)

is a Lorentz-invariant dierential operator mapping (p, q) tensor elds to (p, q) tensor elds. (c) Tensorial equations of the form Tc11...cqp () = 0
a ...a

(1.41)

are Lorentz invariant in the sense that they are satised in one inertial system i they are satised in all inertial systems. 8. Wordlines of Massive Particles (a) In the covariant formulation, the timelike worldline of a massive particle is parametrised by proper time, a = a ( ). The velocity (tangent) vector ua a ( ) is a Lorentz vector, normalised as ua ua ab ua ub = 1 . (1.43) (1.42)

26

(b) The Lorentz-covariant acceleration is the 4-vector d2 d c u = 2 c , d d and the equation of motion of a massive free particle is ac = ac = (1.44)

d2 c ( ) = 0 . (1.45) d 2 We will study this equation further (in any arbitrary coordinate system) in section 1.4. For observers with non-zero acceleration it follows from (1.43) by dierentiation that ac is orthogonal to ub , ac uc cb ac ub = 0 , and therefore spacelike, cb ac ab a2 > 0 . (1.47) Observers with constant acceleration will be the subject of section 1.3. (c) The action for a free massive particle with worldline a ( ) is essentially the total proper time along the path, S[] = mc2 d = mc ab d a d b , (1.48) (1.46)

worldlines of free massive particles extremising (maximising) the proper time. In terms of an arbitrary parametrisation a = a () of the path, this action can be written as S[] = d L , d a d b L = mc ab d d
1/2

(1.49)

A special choice is = t, for which Lt = mc2 9. Energy-Momentum 4-Vector (a) The covariant momenta pa are dened by pa = L = mab ub (d a /d) pa = mua = m(d a /d ) (1.51) 1 v 2 /c2 v = d/dt = dx/dt . (1.50)

(independently of the choice of ). (b) Its components are p0 = E/c , pk = p(c)k (1.52) where p(c)k are the canonical momenta associated to the Lagrangian Lt , pk =
(c)

Lt = m(v)vk , v k

(1.53)

with (v) = (1 v 2 /c2 )1/2 , and E = H is the corresponding energy or Hamiltonian (c) (1.54) H = pk v k Lt = m(v)c2 . 27

(c) The pa are the compoments of a Lorentz vector, the energy-momentum 4vector. It satises the mass-shell relation ab pa pb = m2 c2 1.3 E 2 = m2 c4 + p2 c2 . (1.55)

Accelerated Observers and the Rindler Metric

We return to the issue discussed in the context of the Einstein equivalence principle in section 1.1, namely physics as experienced by an observer undergoing constant acceleration (as a precursor to studying this observer in a genuine gravitational eld), now specically within the framework of special relativity. Specialising (1.46) to an observer accelerating in the 1 -direction (so that in the momentary restframe of this observer one has ua = (1, 0, 0, 0), aa = (0, a, 0, 0)), we will say that the observer undergoes constant acceleration if a is time-independent. To determine the worldline of such an observer, we note that the general solution to (1.43) with u2 = u3 = 0, ab ua ub = (u0 )2 + (u1 )2 = 1 , (1.56) is u0 = cosh F ( ) , u1 = sinh F ( ) (1.57) for some function F ( ). Thus the acceleration is aa = F ( )(sinh F ( ), cosh F ( ), 0, 0) , with norm a2 = F 2 , and an observer with constant acceleration is characterised by F ( ) = a , ua ( ) = (cosh a, sinh a, 0, 0) . This can now be integrated, and in particular a ( ) = (a1 sinh a, a1 cosh a, 0, 0) (1.61) (1.60) (1.59) (1.58)

is the worldline of an observer with constant acceleration a and initial condition a ( = 0) = (0, a1 , 0, 0). The worldlines of this observer is the hyperbola ab a b = ( 0 )2 + ( 1 )2 = a2 in the quadrant 1 > | 0 | of Minkoskwi space-time. We can now ask the question what the Minkowski metric or line-element looks like in the restframe of such an observer. Note that one cannot expect this to be again the constant Minkowski metric ab : the transformation to an accelerated reference system, 28 (1.62)

worldline of a stationary observer

eta constant

rho constant

Figure 7: The Rindler metric: Rindler coordinates (, ) cover the rst quadrant 1 > | 0 |. Indicated are lines of constant (hyperbolas, worldlines of constantly accelerating observers) and lines of constant (straight lines through the origin). The quadrant is bounded by the lightlike lines 0 = 1 = . A stationary observer reaches and crosses the line = in nite proper time = 0 . while certainly allowed in special relativity, is not a Lorentz transformation, while ab is, by denition, invariant under Lorentz-transformations. We are thus looking for coordinates that are adapted to these accelerated observers in the same way that the inertial coordinates are adapted to stationary observers ( 0 is proper time, and the spatial components i remain constant). In other words, we seek a coordinate transformation ( 0 , 1 ) (, ) such that the worldlines of these accelerated observers are characterised by = constant (this is what we mean by restframe, the observer stays at a xed value of ) and ideally such that then is proportional to the proper time of the observer. Comparison with (1.61) suggests the coordinate transformation 0 (, ) = sinh 1 (, ) = cosh . (1.63)

It is now easy to see that in terms of these new coordinates the 2-dimensional Minkowski metric ds2 = (d 0 )2 + (d 1 )2 (we are now suppressing, here and in the remainder of this subesection, the transverse spectator dimensions 2 and 3) takes the form ds2 = 2 d 2 + d2 . This is the so-called Rindler metric. Let us gain a better understanding of the Rindler coordinates: 29 (1.64)

 The Rindler coordinates and are obvisouly in some sense hyperbolic (Lorentzian) analogues of polar coordinates (x = r cos , y = r sin , ds2 = dx2 + dy 2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 ). In particular, since ( 1 )2 ( 0 )2 = 2 , 0 = tanh , 1 (1.65)

by construction the lines of constant , = 0 , are hyperbolas, ( 1 )2 ( 0 )2 = 2 , 0 while the lines of constant = 0 are straight lines through the origin, 0 = (tanh 0 ) 1 . The null lines 0 = 1 correspond to = . Thus the Rindler coordinates cover the rst quadrant 1 > | 0 | of Minkowski space and can be used as coordinates there. The metric in these new coordinates is time-independent, where time means , and time-independent means that the coecients of the metric or line-element in (1.64) do not depend on . This is due to the fact that the generator of time evolution is actually the generator of a Lorentz boost in the ( 0 , 1 )-plane in Minkowski space, = ( 0 ) 0 + ( 1 ) 1 = 1 0 + 0 1 . (1.66)

Since a Lorentz boost leaves the Minkowski metric invariant, it has to be independent, as is indeed the case. Along the worldline of an observer with constant one has d = 0 d, so that his proper time parametrised path is 0 ( ) = 0 sinh /0 and his 4-velocity is given by u0 = d 0 ( ) = cosh /0 d u1 = d 1 ( ) = sinh /0 . d (1.68) 1 ( ) = 0 cosh /0 , (1.67)

These satisfy (u0 )2 +(u1 )2 = 1 (as they should), and comparison with (1.60,1.61) shows that the observers (constant) acceleration is a = 1/0 . Even though (1.64) is just the metric of Minkwoski space-time, written in accelerated coordinates, this metric exhibits a number of interesting features that are prototypical of more general metrics that one encounters in general relativity: 1. First of all, we notice that the coecients of the line element (metric) in (1.64) are no longer constant (space-time independent). Since in the case of constant acceleration we are just describing a fake gravitational eld, this dependence 30

on the coordinates is such that it can be completely and globally eliminated by passing to appropriate new coordinates (namely inertial Minkowski coordinates). Since, by the equivalence principle, locally an observer cannot distinguish between a fake and a true gravitational eld, this now suggests that a true gravitational eld can be described in terms of a space-time coordinate dependent line-element ds2 = g (x)dx dx where the coordinate dependence on the x is now such that it cannot be eliminated globally by a suitable choice of coordinates. 2. We observe that (1.64) appears to be ill-dened at = 0. However, in this case we already know that this is a mere coordinate singularity at = 0 (akin to the coordinate singularity at the origin of standard polar coordinates in the Cartesian plane). More generally, whenever a metric written in some coordinate system appears to exhibit some singular behaviour, one needs to investigate whether this is just a coordinate singularity or a true singularity of the gravitational eld itself. 3. The above coordinates do not just fail at = 0, they actually fail to cover large parts of Minkowski space. Thus the next lesson is that, given a metric in some coordinate system, one has to investigate if the space-time described in this way needs to be extended beyond the range of the original coordinates. One way to analyse this question (which we will make extensive use of in sections 13 and 14 when trying to understand and come to terms with black holes) is to study light rays or the worldlines of freely falling (inertial) observers. In the present example, it is evident that a stationary inertial observer (at xed value of 1 , say, with 0 = his proper time), will discover that = + is not the end of the world (he crosses this line at nite proper time = 1 ) and that Minkowski space continues (at the very least) into the quadrant 0 > | 1 |. 4. Related to this is the behaviour of lightcones when expressed in terms of the coordinates (, ) or when drawn in the (, )-plane (do this!). These lightcones satisfy ds2 = 0, i.e. 2 d 2 = d2 d = 1 d . (1.69)

describing outgoing ( grows with ) respectively ingoing ( decreases with increasing ) light rays. These lightcones have the familiar Minkowskian shape at = 1, but the lightcones open up for > 1 and become more and more narrow for 0, once again exactly as we will nd for the Schwarzschild black hole metric (see Figure 14 in section 13). 5. It follows from (1.66) that the Minkowski norm of is | |2 = ( 0 )2 ( 1 )2 . (1.70)

Thus this generator of Rindler time-translations really is timelike in the region 1 > | 0 | covered by the Rindler coordinates, but it actually becomes lightlike on 31

the boundary 1 = | 0 | of that region. As we will discuss in section 14.7, such a Killing horizon also happens to be one of the characteristic properties of a black hole. 6. Finally we note that there is a large region of Minkowski space that is invisible to the constantly accelerated observers. While a static observer will eventually receive information from any event anywhere in space-time (his past lightcone will eventually cover all of Minkowski space . . . ), the past lightcone of one of the Rindler accelerated observers (whose worldlines asymptote to the lightcone direction 0 = 1 ) will asymptotically only cover one half of Minkowski space, namely the region 0 < 1 . Thus any event above the line 0 = 1 will forever be invisible to this class of observers. Such an observer-dependent horizon has some similarities with the event horizon characterising a black hole (section 13). For more on Rindler coordinates, see sections 2.7 and 5.6. 1.4 General Coordinate Transformations in Minkowski Space

We now consider the eect of arbitrary (general) coordinate transformations on the laws of special relativity and the geometry of Minkowski space(-time). Let us see what the equation of motion (1.45) of a free massive particle looks like when written in some other (non-inertial, accelerating) coordinate system. It is extremely useful for bookkeeping purposes and for avoiding algebraic errors to use dierent kinds of indices for dierent coordinate systems. Thus we will call the new coordinates x ( b ) and not, say, xa ( b ). First of all, proper time should not depend on which coordinates we use to describe the motion of the particle (the particle couldnt care less what coordinates we experimenters or observers use). [By the way: this is the best way to resolve the so-called twinparadox: It doesnt matter which reference system you use - the accelerating twin in the rocket will always be younger than her brother when they meet again.] Thus d 2 = ab d a d b a b = ab dx dx . x x Here
a J (x) =

(1.71)

a (1.72) x is the Jacobi matrix associated to the coordinate transformation a = a (x ), and we will make the assumnption that (locally) this matrix is non-degenerate, thus has an inverse Ja (x) or Ja () which is the Jacobi matrix associated to the inverse coordinate transformation x = x ( a ),
a a J Jb = b a Ja J = .

(1.73)

32

We see that in the new coordinates, proper time and distance are no longer measured by the Minkowski metric, but by d 2 = g (x)dx dx , where the metric tensor (or metric for short) g (x) is g (x) = ab a b . x x (1.75) (1.74)

The fact that the Minkowski metric written in the coordinates x in general depends on x should not come as a surprise - after all, this also happens when one writes the Euclidean metric in spherical coordinates etc. It is easy to check, using (1.73), that the inverse metric, which we will denote by g , g (x)g (x) = , is given by g (x) = ab x x . a b (1.76)

(1.77)

We will have much more to say about the metric below and, indeed, throughout this course. Turning now to the equation of motion, the usual rules for a change of variables give d a a dx = , d x d where
a x

(1.78)

is an invertible matrix at every point. Dierentiating once more, one nds d2 a = d 2 = a d2 x 2 a dx dx + x d 2 x x d d a d2 x x 2 b dx dx + x d 2 b x x d d

(1.79)

Thus, since the matrix appearing outside the square bracket is invertible, in terms of the coordinates x the equation of motion, or the equation for a straight line in Minkowski space, becomes d2 x x 2 a dx dx + a =0 . (1.80) d 2 x x d d The second term in this equation, which we will write as d2 x dx dx + d d = 0 , d 2 where = x 2 a , a x x (1.81)

(1.82)

33

represents a pseudo-force or ctitious gravitational force (like a centrifugal force or the Coriolis force) that arises whenever one describes inertial motion in non-inertial coora dinates. This term is absent for linear coordinate transformations a (x ) = M x . In particular, this means that the equation (1.45) is invariant under Lorentz transformations, as it should be. While (1.81) looks a bit complicated, it has one fundamental and attractive feature which will also make it the prototype of the kind of equations that we will be looking for in general. This feature is its covariance under general coordinate transformations, which means that the equation takes the same form in any coordinate system. Indeed, this covariance is in some sense tautologically true since the coordinate system {x } that we have chosen is indeed arbitrary. However, it is instructive to see how this comes about by explicitly transforming (1.81) from one coordinate system to another. Thus consider transforming (1.45) to another coordinate system {y }. Following the same steps as above, one thus arrives at the y-version of (1.79), namely d2 a a = d 2 y y 2 b dy dy d2 y + d 2 b y y d d

(1.83)

Equating this result to (1.79) and using y y a = , x a x one nds

y dy dy d2 y + = d 2 d d x

(1.84)

d2 x dx dx + d d d 2

(1.85)

Thus the geodesic equation transforms in the simplest possible non-trival way under coordinate transformations x y, namely with the Jacobian matrix (y)/(x). We will see later that this transformation behaviour characterises/denes tensors, in this particular case a vector (or contravriant tensor of rank 1). In particular, since this matrix is assumed to be invertible, we reach the conclusion that the left hand side of (1.85) is zero if the term in square brackets on the right hand side is zero, d2 y d2 x dx dx dy dy + =0 + (1.86) d d = 0 d 2 d d d 2 This is what is meant by the statement that the equation takes the same form in any coordinate system. We see that in this case this is achieved by having the equation transform in a particularly simple way under coordinate transformations, namely as a tensor.
Remarks:

1. We will see below that, in general, that is for an arbitrary metric, not necessarily related to the Minkowski metric by a coordinate transformation, the equation for 34

a geodesic, i.e. a path that extremises proper time or proper distance, takes the form (1.81), where the (pseudo-)force terms can be expressed in terms of the rst derivatives of the metric as
= g

1 2 (g , +g ,

g , ) .

(1.87)

[You should check yourself that plugging the metric (1.75) into this equation, you nd the result (1.82).] 2. In this sense, the metric plays the role of a potential for the pseudo-force and, more generally, for the gravitational force, and will thus come to play the role of the fundamental dynamical variable of gravity. Also, in this more general context the are referred to as the Christoel symbols of the metric or (in more fancy terminology) the components of the Levi-Civita connection, a privileged connection on the tangent (or frame) bundle of a manifold equipped with a metric. 1.5 Metrics and Coordinate Transformations

Above we saw that the motion of free particles in Minkowski space in curvilinear coordinates is described in terms of a modied metric, g , and a force term representing the pseudo-force on the particle. Thus the Einstein Equivalence Principle suggests that an appropriate description of true gravitational elds is in terms of a metric tensor g (x) (and its associated Christoel symbols) which can only locally be related to the Minkowski metric via a suitable coordinate transformation (to locally inertial coordinates). Thus our starting point will now be a space-time equipped with some metric g (x), which we will assume to be symmetric and non-degenerate, i.e. g (x) = g (x) det(g (x)) = 0 . (1.88)

A space-time equipped with a metric tensor g (x) is called a metric space-time or (pseudo-)Riemannian space-time. Here Riemannian usually refers to a space equipped with a positive-denite metric (all eigenvalues positive), while pseudo-Riemannian (or Lorentzian) refers to a space-time with a metric with one negative and 3 (or 27, or whatever) positive eigenvalues. The metric encodes the information how to measure (spatial and temporal) distances, as well as areas, volumes etc., via the associated line element ds2 = g (x)dx dx . (1.89)
Examples:

35

1. Examples that you may be familiar with are the Euclidean metrics on R2 or R3 , but written in polar or spherical coordinates, ds2 (R2 ) = dx2 + dy 2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 ds2 (R3 ) = dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 = dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . (1.90)

2. Restricting to constant radius r = R, this gives us the line-element on the circle S 1, ds2 (S 1 ) = R2 d2 , (1.91) or on the 2-sphere of radius R, ds2 (S 2 ) = R2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) R2 d2 . This generalises to the line-element on a 3-sphere, ds2 (S 3 ) = R2 (d 2 + sin2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 )) . etc. 3. These metrics can of course be elevated to space-time metrics by adding e.g. a (dt2 ). Thus the Minkowski metric in spatial spherical coordinates has the form ds2 (R1,3 ) = dt2 + dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . (1.94) (1.93) (1.92)

4. A space-time metric describing a spatially spherical universe with a time-dependent radius (expansion of the universe!) might be described by the line element ds2 = dt2 + a(t)2 d 2 + sin2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . (1.95)

We will discuss such metrics in detail later on in the context of cosmology, sections 17-20. 5. Another metric of fundamental importance for General Relativity, as it describes the gravitational eld outside a spherical star, is the Schwarzschild Metric ds2 = (1 2m/r)dt2 + (1 2m/r)1 dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . We will discuss this metric in great detail in sections 11-14.
Remarks:

(1.96)

1. A metric determines a geometry, but dierent metrics may well determine the same geometry, namely those metrics which are just related by coordinate transformations. In particular, distances should not depend on which coordinate system

36

is used. Hence, changing coordinates from the {x } to new coordinates {y (x )} and demanding that g (x)dx dx = g (y)dy dy , one nds that under a coordinate transformation the metric transforms as g = g x x J J g . y y (1.98)

(1.97)

2. Objects which transform in such a nice and simple way under coordinate transformations are known as tensors - the metric is an example of what is known as (and we will get to know as) a covariant symmetric rank two tensor. We will study tensors in much more detail and generality later, starting in section 3. 3. One point to note about this transformation behaviour is that if in one coordinate system the metric tensor has one negative and three positive eigenvalues (as in a locally inertial coordinate system), then the same will be true in any other coordinate system (even though the eigenvalues themselves will in general be dierent) this statement should be familiar from linear algebra as Sylvesters law of inertia. 4. In a pseudo-Riemannian space-time one has the same distinction between spacelike, timelike and lightlike separations as in Minkowski space(-time). Spacelike distances correspond to ds2 > 0, timelike distances to d 2 = ds2 > 0, and null or lightlike distances to ds2 = d 2 = 0. In particular, a vector V (x) at a point x is called spacelike if g (x)V (x)V (x) > 0 etc., and a curve x () is called spacelike if its tangent vector is everywhere spacelike etc. Using the denition of a vector in general relativity (to be introduced in section 3), namely an object that transforms in the obvious way, with the Jacobi matrix, under coordinate transformations, one sees that g (x)V (x)V (x) is a scalar, i.e. invariant under coordinate transformation, and hence the statement that a vector is, say, spacelike is a coordinate-independent statement, as it should be. 5. By drawing the coordinate grid determined by the metric tensor, one can convince onseself that in general a metric space or space-time need not or cannot be at. Example: the coordinate grid of the metric d 2 + sin2 d2 cannot be drawn in at space but can be drawn on the surface of a two-sphere because the innitesimal parallelograms described by ds2 degenerate to triangles not just at = 0 (as would also be the case for the at metric ds2 = dr 2 +r 2 d2 in polar coordinates at r = 0), but also at = . At this point the question naturally arises how one can tell whether a given (perhaps complicated looking) metric is just the at metric written in other coordinates or whether it describes a genuinely curved space-time. We will see later that there is an 37

object, the Riemann curvature tensor, constructed from the second derivatives of the metric, which has the property that all of its components vanish if and only if the metric is a coordinate transform of the at space Minkowski metric. Thus, given a metric, by calculating its curvature tensor one can decide if the metric is just the at metric in disguise or not. The curvature tensor will be introduced in section 7, and the above statement will be established in section 8.2. 1.6 The Geodesic Equation and Christoffel Symbols

We have seen that the equation for a straight line in Minkowski space, written in arbitrary coordinates, is d2 x dx dx (1.99) + d d = 0 , d 2 where the pseudo-force term is given by (1.82). We have also seen in (1.87) (pro vided you checked this) that can be expressed in terms of the metric (1.75) as = 1 g (g , +g , g , ) . 2 (1.100)

This gravitational force term is ctitious since it can globally be transformed away by going to the global inertial coordinates a . The equivalence principle suggests, however, that in general the equation for the worldline of a massive particle, i.e. a path that extremises proper time, in a true gravitational eld is also of the above form. We will now conrm this by deriving the equations for a path that extremises proper time from a variational principle. Recall from special relativity, that the Lorentz-invariant action of a free massive particle with mass m is S0 = m d , (1.101)

with d 2 = ab d a d b . We can adopt the same action in the present setting, with the coordinate-invariant Lagrangian based on the proper time d 2 = g (x)dx dx . Thus the action that we will consider is S0 [x] = m d = m g (x)dx dx . (1.103) (1.102)

Of course m drops out of the variational equations (as it should by the equivalence principle) and we will therefore ignore m in the following.
Remarks:

1. We can also consider spacelike paths that extremise (minimise) proper distance, by using the action S0 38 ds (1.104)

where ds2 = g (x)dx dx . (1.105)

2. One should also consider massless particles, whose worldlines will be null (or lightlike) paths. However, in that case one can evidently not use proper time or proper distance, since these are by denition zero along a null path, d 2 = 0. We will come back to this special case, and a unied description of the massive and massless case, below (section 2.1). 3. In all cases, we will refer to the resulting paths as geodesics. If required, we add the qualier timelike, spacelike or null, and this is meaningful and unambiguous since, as we will see below, a geodesic that is initially timelike will always remain timelike etc. In order to perform the variation, it is useful to introduce an arbitrary auxiliary parameter in the initial stages of the calculation via d = (g dx d and to write d = We are varying the paths x ( ) x ( ) + x ( ) (1.108) keeping the end-points xed, and will denote the -derivatives by x ( ). By the standard variational procedure one then nds d = = =
1 2

dx 1/2 d d )

(1.106)

(d /d)d =

(g dx d

dx 1/2 d d )

(1.107)

(g dx d

dx 1/2 d d )

dx dx dx dx 2g d d d d

1 2

d g , x x x + 2g x x + 2g , x x x d g x + 1 (g , +g , g , )x x x 2 (1.109)

Here the factor of 2 in the rst equality is a consequence of the symmetry of the metric, the second equality follows from an integration by parts, the third from relabelling the indices in one term and using the symmetry in the indices of x x in the other. If we now adopt the denition (1.100) for an arbitrary metric, = 1 g (g , +g , g , ) , 2 we can write the result as d = d g ( + x x )x . x (1.111) (1.110)

39

Thus we see that indeed the equations of motion for a massive particle in an arbitrary gravitational eld are d2 x dx dx (1.112) + d d = 0 . d 2 We will have much more to say about geodesics and variational principles in section 2. 1.7 Christoffel Symbols and Coordinate Transformations

The Christoel symbols play the role of the gravitational force term, and thus in this sense the components of the metric play the role of the gravitational potential. These Christoel symbols play an important role not just in the geodesic equation but, as we will see later on, more generally in the denition of a covariant derivative operator and the construction of the curvature tensor. Two elementary important properties of the Christoel symbols are that they are symmetric in the second and third indices, = , = , (1.113)

and that symmetrising over the rst pair of indices one nds + = g, . (1.114)

Knowing how the metric transforms under coordinate transformations, we can now also determine how the Christoel symbols (1.100) and the geodesic equation transform. A straightforward but not particularly inspiring calculation (which you should nevertheless do) gives x x y 2 x y = + . (1.115) x y y x y y Thus, transforms inhomogenously under coordinate transformations. If only the rst term on the right hand side were present, then would be a tensor. However, the second term is there precisely to compensate for the fact that x is also not a tensor - the combined geodesic equation transforms in a nice way under coordinate transformations. Namely, after another not terribly inspiring calculation (which you should nevertheless also do at least once in your life) , one nds
d2 y y dy dy + = d 2 d d x

d2 x dx dx + d d d 2

(1.116)

This is analogous to the result (1.85) that we had obtained before in Minkoswki space, and the same remarks about covariance and tensors etc. apply.
Remarks:

40

1. That the geodesic equation transforms in this simple way (namely as a vector) should not come as a surprise. We obtained this equation as a variational equation. The Lagrangian itself is a scalar (invariant under coordinate transformations), and the variation x is (i.e. transforms like) a vector. Putting these pieces together, one nds the desired result. [This comment may become less mysterious after the discussion of tensors and Lie derivatives . . . ] 2. There is of course a very good physical reason for why the force term in the geodesic equation (quadratic in the 4-velocities) is not tensorial. This simply reects the equivalence principle that locally, at a point (or in a suciently small neighbourhood of a point) you can eliminate the gravitational force by going to a freely falling (inertial) coordinate system. This would not be possible if the gravitational force term in the equation of motion for a particle were tensorial. You may feel that, after a promising start in sections 1.1 and 1.3, the things that we have done subsequently in sections 1.4 - 1.7 look terribly messy. I agree, indeed they are! However, I can assure you that things will improve dramatically rather quickly and that this section is by far the messiest part of the entire lecture notes. Indeed, the main purpose and benet of developing tensor calculus in the next couple of sections is to develop a formalism in the framework of which (among other things) one can avoid having to deal explicitly with objects that transform in complicated ways under coordinate transformations the transformation behaviour of any object is manifest (and does not have to be checked) it is straightforward to write down equations that are generally covariant, i.e. independent of the coordinate system in the sense that they are satised in all coordinate systems if and only if they are satised in one.

41

2
2.1

The Physics and Geometry of Geodesics

Variational Principles for Geodesics

As we have already noted in section 1.6, there is a problem with the action S m d (1.103) for massless particles (null geodesics). For this reason and many other practical purposes (the square root in the action is awkward) it is much more convenient to use, instead of the action S0 [x] = m the simpler Lagrangian
1 L = 2 g

d = m

dx dx d d

d L 0

(2.1)

dx dx d d d L .

(2.2) (2.3)

and action S1 [x] =

Before discussing and establishing the relation between these two actions, let us rst verify that S1 really leads to the same equations of motion as S0 . Either by direct variation of the action, or by using the Euler-Lagrange equations L d L =0 , d x x one nds that the action is indeed extremised by the solutions to the equation d2 x dx dx + d d = 0 . d2 (2.5) (2.4)

This is identical to the geodesic equation derived from S0 (with , the proper time). Now let us turn to the relationship between, and comparison of, the two actions S0 and S1 . The rst thing to notice is that S0 is manifestly parametrisation-invariant, i.e. independent of how one parametrises the path. The reason for this is that d = (d /d)d is evidently independent of . This is not the case for S1 , which changes under parametrisations or, put more positively, singles out a preferred parametrisation (or, more precicesly, class of parametrisations). We will discuss this in somewhat more detail in subsection 2.2 Thus, what is the relation (if any) between the two actions? In order to explain this, it will be useful to introduce an additional eld e() (i.e. in addition to the x ()), and a master action (or parent action) S which we can relate to both S0 and S1 . Consider the action S[x, e] =
1 2

d e()1 g

dx dx m2 e() d d 42

1 d e()1 L 2 m2 e()

(2.6)

The crucial property of this action is that it is parametrisation invariant provided that one declares e() to transform appropriately. It is easy to see that under a transforma tion = f (), with x () = x () d = f ()d (2.7)

the action S is invariant provided that e() transforms such that e()d is invariant, i.e. ! e()d = e()d e() = e()/f () . (2.8) The rst thing to note now is that, courtesy of this parametrisation invariance, we can always choose a gauge in which e() = 1. With this choice, the action S[x, e] manifestly reduces to the action S1 [x] modulo an irrelevant eld-independent constant, S[x, e = 1] =
1 d L 2 m2

d = S1 [x] + const. .

(2.9)

Thus we can regard S1 as a gauge-xed version of S (no wonder it is not parametrisation invariant . . . ). We will come back to the small residual gauge invariance (reparametrisations that preserve the gauge condition e() = 1) below. Alternatively, instead of xing the gauge, we can try to eliminate e() (which appears purely algebraically, i.e. without derivatives, in the action) by its equation or motion. Varying S[x, e] with respect to e(), one nds the constraint g dx dx + m2 e()2 = 0 . d d (2.10)

This is just the usual mass-shell condition in disguise. It suggests that a better gauge xing than e() = 1 would have been e() = m1 . However, the sole eect of this would have been to replace L in (2.9) by mL, e() = 1 e() = m1 L mL . (2.11)

In any caser, for a massive particle, m2 = 0, one can also solve (2.10) for e(), e() = m1 g dx dx . d d (2.12)

Using this to eliminate e() from the action, one nds S[x, e = m1 . . .] = m d g dx dx = m d d d = S0 [x] . (2.13)

Thus for m2 = 0 we nd exactly the original action (integral of the proper time) S0 [x] (and since we havent touched or xed the parametrisation invariance, no wonder that S0 is parametrisation invariant). Thus we have elucidated the common origin of S0 and S1 for a massive particle.
Remarks:

43

1. An added benet of the master action S[x, e] is that it also makes perfect sense for a massless particle. For m2 = 0, the mass shell condition g dx dx =0 d d (2.14)

says that these particles move along null lines, and the action reduces to S[x, e] =
1 2

d e()1 g

dx dx d d

(2.15)

which is parametrisation invariant but can (as in the massive case) be xed to e() = 1, upon which the action reduces to S1 [x]. Thus we see that S1 [x] indeed provides a simple and uned action for both massive and massless particles, and in both cases the resulting equation of motion is the (anely parametrised) geodesic equation (2.5), d2 x dx dx + =0 . (2.16) d2 d d 2. One important consequence of (2.16) is that the quantity L is a constant of motion, i.e. constant along the geodesic, d2 x dx dx + =0 d2 d d d d g dx dx d d =0 . (2.17)

This useful result can be understood and derived in a variety of ways, the least insightful of which is direct calculation. Nevertheless, this is straightforward and a good exercise in -ology. An alternative derivation will be given in section 4.7, using the concept of parallel transport. From the present (action-based) perspective it is most useful to think of this as the conserved quantity associated (via Noethers theorem) to the invariance of the action S1 [x] under translations in . Note that evidently S1 [x] has this invariance (as there is no explicit dependence on ) and that this invariance is precisely the residual parametrisation invariance f () = + a, f () = 1, that leaves invariant the gauge condition e() = 1. For an innitesimal constant -translation one has x () = dx /d etc., so that L=0 L = d d L= d d dx L /d) d (dx + Euler Lagrange .

(2.18) Thus via Noethers theorem the associated conserved charge for a solution to the Euler-Lagrange equations is the Legendre transform H= L dx (dx /d) d L (2.19)

of the Lagrangian (aka the Hamiltonian, once expressed in terms of the momenta). In the case at hand, with the Lagrangian L consisting of a purely quadratic term 44

in the velocities (the dx /d), the Hamiltonian is equal to the Lagrangian, and hence the Lagrangian L itself is conserved, H=L , d L|solution = 0 . d (2.20)

3. This is as it should be: something that starts o as a massless particle will remain a massless particle etc. If one imposes the initial condition g dx dx d d = ,
=0

(2.21)

then this condition will be satised for all . In particular, therefore, one can choose = 1 for timelike (spacelike) geodesics, and can then be identied with proper time (proper distance), while the choice = 0 sets the initial conditions appropriate to massless particles (for which is then not related to proper time or proper distance). 2.2 Affine and Non-affine Parametrisations

To understand the signicance of how one parametrises the geodesic, observe that the geodesic equation itself, x + x x = 0 , (2.22) is not parametrisation invariant. Indeed, consider a change of parametrisation = f ( ). Then dx df dx = , (2.23) d d d and therefore the geodesic equation written in terms of reads d2 x dx dx f dx + = . d d d 2 f2 d (2.24)

Thus the geodesic equation retains its form only under ane changes of the proper time parameter , f ( ) = a + b, and parameters = f ( ) related to by such an ane transformation are known as ane parameters. From the rst variational principle, based on S0 , the term on the right hand side arises in the calculation of (1.109) from the integration by parts if one does not switch back from to the ane parameter . The second variational principle, based on S1 and the Lagrangian L, on the other hand, always and automatically yields the geodesic equation in ane form. Conversely, if we nd a curve that satises d2 x dx dx dx = () , + d 2 d d d 45 (2.25)

for some function (), we can deduce that this curve is the trajectory of a geodesic, but that it is simply not parametrised by an ane parameter (like proper time in the case of a timelike curve). Comparison of (2.24) and (2.25) shows that, given (), an ane parameter is determined by (f ( )) = or f f2 () = d d ln d d (2.26)

d = e ds (s) . (2.27) d In the following, whenever we talk about geodesics we will practically always have in mind the variational principle based on S1 leading to the geodesic equation (2.16) in anely parametrised form.

However, it should be kept in mind that sometimes non-ane parameters appear naturally. For instance, it is occasionally convenient to parametrise timelike geodesics in a geometry with coordinates x = (x0 = t, xk ) not by x = x ( ), where is the proper time along the geodesic, but rather as xk = xk (t). This is the same curve, but described with respect to coordinate time (which could for instance agree with the proper time of some other, perhaps stationary, observer). The curve t (t, xk (t)) will not be an anely parametrised curve unless t satises the geodesic equation t = 0 t = a + b. One occasion where this will play a role (and from where I have borrowed the symbol for the inanity) is in our discussion, much later, of the horizon of a black hole, where the lack of a certain coordinate to be an ane parameter is directly related to the physical properties of black holes (see section 14.7). In this context is known as the surface gravity of a black hole. 2.3 A Simple Example

It is high time to consider an example. We will consider the simplest non-trivial metric, namely the standard Euclidean metric on R2 in polar coordinates. Thus the line element is ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 (2.28) and the non-zero components of the metric are grr = 1, g = r 2 . Since this metric is diagonal, the components of the inverse metric g are grr = 1 and g = r 2 . A remark on notation: since , in g are coordinate indices, we should really have called x1 = r, x2 = , and written g11 = 1, g22 = r 2 , etc. However, writing grr etc. is more informative and useful since one then knows that this is the (rr)-component of the metric without having to remember if one called r = x1 or r = x2 . In the following we will frequently use this kind of notation when dealing with a specic coordinate system, while we retain the index notation g etc. for general purposes. 46

The Christoel symbols of this metric are to be calculated from = 1 (g, + g, g, ) . 2 (2.29)

Since the only non-trivial derivative of the metric is g,r = 2r, only Christoel symbols with exactly two s and one r are non-zero,
1 r = 2 (gr, + gr, g,r ) = r

r = r = r . Thus, since the metric is diagonal, the non-zero are

(2.30)

1 . (2.31) r Note that here it was even convenient to use a hybrid notation, as in gr , where r is a coordinate and is a coordinate index. Once again, it is very convenient to permit oneself to use such a mixed notation. = = g r = g r = r r In any case, having assembled all the Christoel symbols, we can now write down the geodesic equations (one again in the convenient hybrid notation). For r one has r + r x x = 0 , which, since the only non-zero r is r , reduces to r r 2 = 0 . Likewise for one nds 2 + r = 0 . r (2.33) (2.32)

r = gr = grr r = r

(2.34)

Here the factor of 2 arises because both and = contribute. r r r Now this equation is supposed to describe geodesics in R2 , i.e. straight lines. This can be veried in general (but, in general, polar coordinates are of course not particularly well suited to describe straight lines). However, it is easy to nd a special class of solutions to the above equations, namely curves with = r = 0. These correspond to paths of the form (r(s), (s)) = (s, 0 ), which are a special case of straight lines, namely straight lines through the origin. The geodesic equations can of course also be derived as the Euler-Lagrange equations of the Lagrangian L = 1 (r 2 + r 2 2 ) . (2.35) 2 Indeed, one has d d d d L L r r L L = r r 2 = 0 = r 2 + 2r r = 0 , 47 (2.36)

which are obviously identical to the equations derived above. You may have the impression that getting the geodesic equation in this way, rather than via calculation of the Christoel symbols rst, is much simpler. I agree wholeheartedly. Not only is the Lagrangian approach the method of choice to determine the geodesic equations. It is also frequently the most ecient method to determine the Christoel symbols. This will be described in the next section. Another advantage of the Lagrangian formulation is, as in classical mechanics, that it makes it much easier to detect and exploit symmetries. Indeed, you may have already noticed that the above second-order equation for is overkill. Since the Lagrangian does not depend on (i.e. it is invariant under rotations), one has d L =0 , d which means that L/ is a constant of motion, the angular momentum L, L = r2 = L . (2.38) (2.37)

This equation is a rst integral of the second-order equation for . We will come back to this in somewhat more generality below. The next simplest example to discuss would be the two-sphere with its standard metric d 2 + sin2 d2 . It will appear, in bits and pieces, in the next section to illustrate the general remarks. 2.4 Consequences and Uses of the Euler-Lagrange Equations

Recall from above that the geodesic equation for a metric g can be derived from the Lagrangian L = (1/2)g x x d L L =0 . d x x (2.39)

This has several immediate consequences which are useful for the determination of Christoel symbols and geodesics in practice. 1. Conserved charges / rst integrals of the geodesic equation Just as in classical mechanics, a coordinate the Lagrangian does not depend on explicitly (a cyclic coordinate) leads to a conserved quantity, assocaited with the translation invariance of the system in that direction. In the present context this means that if, say, L/x1 = 0 (this means that the coecients of the metric do not depend on x1 ), then the corresponding momentum p1 = L/ x1 = g1 x 48 (2.40)

is conserved along the geodesic.

Remarks:

(a) One might perhaps have wanted to argue that the denition (and interpretation) of conserved momenta should be based on the physical Lagrangian (2.1) dx dx (2.41) L = m g 0 d d with action S = m d , but this makes no dierence since the two momenta are essentially equal: one has L 0 = mp1 (dx1 /d) (2.42)

with p1 as dened in (2.40), so that this just supplies us with the additional information that the momenta obtained from the Lagrangian L should (for a massive particle) be interpreted as momenta per unit mass. This discrepancy could have been avoided by working with the Lagrangian mL (alternatively: xing the gauge e() = m1 in section 2.1, see (2.11)), but unless or until one starts coupling the particle to elds other than the gravitational eld it is unnecessary (and a nuisance) to carry m around all the time. (b) For example, on the two-sphere the Lagrangian reads L = 1 ( 2 + sin2 2 ) . 2 (2.43)

The angle is a cyclic variable and the angular momentum (actually angular momentum per unit mass for a massive particle) p = L = sin2 (2.44)

is a conserved quantity. This generalises to conservation of angular momentum for a particle moving in an arbitrary spherically symmetric gravitational eld. (c) Likewise, if the metric is independent of the time coordinate x0 = t, the corresponding conserved quantity p0 = g0 x E (2.45)

has the interpretation as minus the energy (per unit mass) of the particle, minus because, with our sign conventions, p0 = E in special relativity. We will discuss the relation between this notion of energy and the notion of energy familiar from special relativity (this requires an asymptotically Minkowski-like metric) in more detail in section 12.1. 49

(d) We will discuss in more detail in section 2.5 (and then again in section 6) how to detect and describe symmetries and conserved charges in coordinate systems in which the symmetries are not as manifest (via cyclic variables) as above. 2. Reading o (some) geodesics directly from the metric Another immediate consequence is the following: consider a space or space-time with coordinates {y, x } and a metric of the form ds2 = dy 2 + g (x, y)dx dx . Then the coordinate lines of y are geodesics. Indeed, since the Lagrangian is
1 L = 2 (y 2 + g x x ) ,

(2.46)

the Euler-Lagrange equations are of the form y 2 g ,y x x 1 = 0 (2.47)

x + terms proportional to x = 0 .

Therefore x = 0, y = 0 is a solution of the geodesic equation, and it describes motion along the coordinate lines of y.
Remarks:

(a) In the case of the two-sphere, with its metric ds2 = d 2 + sin2 d2 , this translates into the familiar statement that the great circles, the coordinate lines of y = , are geodesics. (b) The result is also valid when y is a timelike coordinate. For example, consider a space-time with coordinates (t, xi ) and metric ds2 = dt2 + a(t)2 gij (x)dxi dxj (2.48)

(this describes a space-time with spatial metric gij (x)dxi dxj and a timedependent radius a(t); in particular, such a space-time metric can describe an expanding universe in cosmology - see section 17). In such a space-time, there is, according to the above result, a privileged class of freely falling (i.e. geodesic) observers, namely those that stay at xed values of the spatial coordinates xi . For such observers, the coordinate-time t coincides with their proper time . 3. Using the Euler-Lagrange equations to determine the Christoel symbols Finally, the Euler-Lagrange form of the geodesic equations frequently provides the most direct way of calculating Christoel symbols - by comparing the EulerLagrange equations with the expected form of the geodesic equation in terms of Christoel symbols. Thus you derive the Euler-Lagrange equations, write them in the form x + terms proportional to xx = 0 , (2.49) 50

and compare with the geodesic equation x + x x = 0 to read o the .

Remarks:

(2.50)

(a) Careful - in this and similar calculations beware of factors of 2: x x = (x1 )2 + 2 x1 x2 + . . . 11 12 (2.51)

(b) For example, once again in the case of the two-sphere, for the -equation one has d L d L = 2 = 2 sin cos 2 . (2.52)

Comparing the variational equation sin cos 2 = 0 with the geodesic equation + 2 + 2 + 2 = 0 , one can immediately read o that = sin cos = = 0 . (2.55) (2.54) (2.53)

2.5

Conserved Charges and (a first encounter with) Killing Vectors

In the previous section we have seen that cyclic coordinates, i.e. coordinates the metric does not depend on, lead to conserved charges, as in (2.40). As nice and useful as this may be (and it is nice and useful), it is obvioulsy somewhat unsatisfactory because it is an explicitly coordinate-dependent statement: the metric may well be independent of one coordinate in some coordinate system, but if one now performs a coordinate transformation which depends on that coordinate, then in the new coordinate system the metric will typically depend on all the new coordinates. Nevertheless, the statement that a metric has a certain symmetry (a translational symmetry in the rst coordinate system) should be coordinate-independent, and thus there should be a corresponding rst integral of the geodesic equation in any coordinate system. 51

To see how this works, let us reconsider the situation discussed in the previous section, namely a metric which in some coordinate system, we will now call it {y }, has components g which are independent of y 1 , say. Translation invariance of the geodesic Lagrangian is the statement that the Lagrangian is invariant under the innitesimal variation y 1 = , y = 0 otherwise, and via Noethers theorem this leads to a conserved charge g1 y , as in (2.40). Now we ask ourselves what this statement corresponds to in another coordinate system. Note that in the y-coordinates, invariance is the statement that the metric is invariant under the (innitesimal) coordinate transformation y 1 y 1 + or y 1 = , y = 0 otherwise, (2.56) g y1 g = 0 . It is then clear that in another coordinate system, innitesimal y 1 -translations must also correspond to some innitesimal coordinate transformation (but not necessarily just a translation), x = V (x) . (2.57) In particular, if (as in the above example) in y-coordinates V has the components V 1 = 1, V = 0 otherwise, then in any other coordinate system one has x = (x /y )y = (x /y 1 ) so that
V = J1

(2.58)

(2.59)

is just the corresponding column of the Jacobi matrix. In order to determine how to characterise the translational symmetry (2.56) of the metric in an arbitrary coordinate system, we will now proceed in two (as it turns out ultimately equivalent) ways. 1. We can investigate directly, under which conditions on the V the transformation (2.57) leads to an invariance of the Lagrangian (2.2). Using x = x V one straightforwardly nds g x x = V g where V g = V g + ( V )g + ( V )g (2.62) Thus the condition for the innitesimal transformation (2.57) to leave the Lagrangian invariant is V g = 0 . (2.63) 52 (2.61) (2.60)

Noethers theorem then leads to the corresponding conserved charge QV = p V = g V x . (2.64)

Note that for constant components V , (2.63) is simply the statement that the metric is constant in the direction V , V g = 0. 2. Alternatively, we can determine the variation V g of the components g of the metric in x-coordinates from the variation (2.56) of the components g of the metric in y-coordinates by demanding that under a coordinate transformation the variation (2.56) of the metric transforms like the metric. Since we know how the metric transforms (1.98), and we also know how y1 transforms,
g = J J g

y1 = (y1 x ) J1 V

(2.65)

we nd the condition
y1 g = J1 (J J g ) = J J V g !

V g = J J J1 (J J g ) .

(2.66)

In order to disentangle this, one can make use of identities such as

J1 J = 1 J = J1 = V = J V

(2.67)

to show that this expression for V g is identical to that given in (2.62). All of this may seem a bit ham-handed at this point, and indeed it is. However, we will see later how these results can be written and understood in a much more pleasing and covariant way. In particular, we will see in section 4.5 how to write (2.62) in a way that makes it completely manifest that it transforms like the metric under coordinate transformations. Moreover, we will discover in section 6 that (2.62) is a special case of the Lie derivative of a tensor eld. Continuous symmetries of a metric correspond to vector elds along which the Lie derivative of the metric vanishes. Such vectors are known as Killing vectors, and are thus vectors V satisfying the Killing equation (2.63), LV g V g = 0 . 2.6 The Newtonian Limit (2.68)

We saw that the 10 components of the metric g appear to play the role of potentials for the gravitational force. In order to substantiate this, and to show that in an appropriate limit this setting is able to reproduce the Newtonian results, we now want to nd the relation of these potentials to the Newtonian potential, and the relation between the geodesic equation and the Newtonian equation of motion for a particle moving in a gravitational eld. 53

First let us determine the conditions under which we might expect the general relativistic equation of motion (namely the non-linear coupled set of partial dierential geodesic equations) to reduce to the linear equation of motion d2 x = dt2 of Newtonian mechanics, with the gravitational potential, e.g. = GN M . r (2.70) (2.69)

Thus we are trying to characterise the circumstances in which we know and can trust the validity of Newtons equations, such as those provided e.g. by the gravitational eld of the earth or the sun, the gravitational elds in which Newtons laws were discovered and tested. Two of these are fairly obvious: 1. Weak Fields: our rst plausible assumption is that the gravitational eld is in a suitable sense suciently weak. We will need to make more precise by what we mean by this, and we will come back to this below. 2. Slow Motion: our second, equally reasonable and plausible, assumption is that the test particle moves at speeds at which we can neglect special relativistic eects, so slow should be taken to mean that its velocity is small compared to the velocity of light. Interestingly, it turns out that one more condition is required. Note that the gravitational elds we have access to are not only quite weak but also only very slowly varying in time, and we will add this condition, 3. Stationary Fields: we will assume that the gravitational eld does not vary signicantly in time (over the time scale probed by our test particle). The very fact that we have to add this condition in order to nd Newtons equations (as will be borne out by the calculations below) is interesting in its own right, because it also shows that general relativity predicts phenomena deviating from the Newtonian picture even for weak elds, provided that they vary suciently rapidly (e.g. quickly oscillating elds), and one such phenomenon is that of gravitational waves (see section 23). Now, having formulated in words the conditions that we wish to impose, we need to translate these conditions into equations that we can then use in conjunction with the geodesic equation. 1. In order to dene a notion of weak elds, we need to keep in mind that this is not a coordinate-independent statement since we can simulate arbitrarily strong 54

gravitational elds even in Minkowski space by going to suitably accelerated coordinates, and therefore a weak eld condition will be a condition not only on the metric but also on the choice of coordinates. Thus we assume that we can choose coordinates {x } = {t, xi } in such a way that in these coordinates the metric diers from the standard constant Minkowski metric only by a small amount, g = + h (2.71) where we will implement by a small amount in the calculations below by dropping all terms that are at least quadratic in h . 2. The second condition is obviously (with the coordinates chosen above) dxi /dt 1 or, expressed in terms of proper time, dxi dt . d d (2.72)

3. The third condition of stationarity we implement simply by considering timeindependent elds, g ,0 = 0 h ,0 = 0 . (2.73) Now we look at the geodesic equation. The condition of slow motion (condition 2) implies that the geodesic equation can be approximated by x + t2 = 0 . 00 Stationarity (condition 3) tells us that
1 = 1 g g00 = 2 gi i g00 . 00 2

(2.74)

(2.75)

From the weak eld condition (condition 1), which allows us to write g = + h g = h , where h = h , we learn that
1 = 2 i i h00 , 00

(2.76)

(2.77) (2.78)

so that the relevant Christoel symbols are 000 = 0 , Thus the geodesic equation splits into t = 0 xi =
1 2 2 i h00 t

i00 = 1 i h00 . 2

(2.79)

(2.80)

55

 As the rst of these just says that t is constant, we can use this in the second equation to convert the -derivatives into derivatives with respect to the coordinate time t. Hence we obtain d2 xi 1 (2.81) = 2 h00 ,i dt2 (the spatial index i in this expression is raised or lowered with the Kronecker symbol, ik = ik ). Comparing this with the Newtonian equation (2.69), d2 xi = ,i (2.82) dt2 leads us to the identication h00 = 2, with the constant of integration absorbed into an arbitrary constant term in the gravitational potential. By relating this back to g , g00 = (1 + 2) . (2.83)

we nd the sought-for relation between the Newtonian potential and the space-time metric.
Remarks:

1. For the gravitational eld of isolated systems, it makes sense to choose the integration constant in such a way that the potential goes to zero at innity, and this choice also ensures that the metric approaches the at Minkowski metric at innity. 2. Restoring the appropriate units, in particular a factor of c2 , one nds that /c2 109 on the surface of the earth, 106 on the surface of the sun (see section 11.4 for some more details), so that the distortion in the space-time geometry produced by gravitation is in general quite small (justifying our approximations). 3. Within this Newtonian approximation, we can not distinguish the above result g00 = (1 + 2) from g00 = (1 + )2 , say (or a host of other possibilities). 4. Liewise, in this approximation it does not make sense to inquire about the other subleading components of the metric. As we have seen, a slowly moving particle in weak stationary gravitational eld is not sensitive to them, and hence can also not be used to probe or determine these components. 5. In this approximation, the modication of the space-time geometry can equivalently be described as, or attributed to, a space-time dependent speed of light, something like c2 (x) = (1 + 2(x))c2 . (2.84) Einstein realised fairly early on (1911) in his search for a relativistic theory of gravity that this would have to be part of the story. However, this interpretation is neitehr useful nor tenable when considering gravitational elds beyond the static Newtonian approximation, 56

6. Later on, we will determine the exact solution of the Einstein equations (the eld equations for the gravitational eld, i.e. for the metric) for the gravitational eld outside a spherically symmetric mass distribution with mass M (the Schwarzschild metric). The metric turns out to have the simple form (11.24) ds2 = 1 2GN M c2 r c2 dt2 + 1 2GN M c2 r
1

dr 2 + r 2 d2 .

(2.85)

From this expression one can read o that the leading correction to the at metric indeed arises from the 00-component of the metric, ds2 c2 dt2 + dr 2 + r 2 d2 +

2GN M 2 dt + . . . r

2GN M (dx0 )2 . = dx dx + rc2

(2.86)

This is indeed precisely of the above Newtonian form, with the standard Newtonian potential = GN M/r. One can then also determine the subleading post-Newtonian corrections to the gravitational eld, which are evidently suppressed by additional inverse powers of c2 . 2.7 Rindler Coordinates Revisited

In section 1.3 we had discussed the Minkowski metric in Rindler coordinates, i.e. in coordinates adapted to a constantly accelerating observer. In these coordinates the metric took the form (1.64), ds2 = 2 d 2 + d2 . (2.87)

What is the relation, if any, between this metric and the metric describing a weak gravitational eld, as derived above (after all, small accelerations should mimick weak gravitational elds)? At rst sight, the only thing they appear to have in common is that the departure from what would be the Minkowski-metric in these coordinates is encoded in the time-time component of the metric, 2 in one case, (1 + 2) in the other, but apart from that 2 and (1 + 2) look quite dierent. This dierence is, however, again a coordinate artefact and the Rindler metric can be made to look like the weak-eld metric with the help of a suitable further redenition of the coordinates. For starters, it will be convenient, for this purpose and for a generalisation which we will discuss below, to introduce the acceleration a explicitly into the coordinates by redening the coordinate transformation (1.63) to (I will now also call the Minkowski coordinates 0 = t and 1 = x) t(, ) = (/a) sinh a x(, ) = (/a) cosh a (2.88)

57

(so this diers by /a, a from the transformation given in (1.63)). Thus, now it is the observer at = 1 who has acceleration a and whose proper time is = . The Rindler metric now has the form ds2 = dt2 + dx2 = 2 d 2 + a2 d2 . Now the transformation = 1 + a leads to r ds2 = (1 + a)2 d 2 + d2 r r (2.90) (2.89)

and it is the observer at r = 0 who has proper time = and constant acceleration a. If one now assumes that the acceleration a is suciently small, one can approximate (1 + a)2 1 + 2a 1 + 2() , r r r (2.91)

and in = a we recognise precisely the Newtonian potential for a force a in the r r -direction. Thus the Rindler and weak eld form of the metric agree in this case.
Remarks:

1. Remarkably, this same form of the metric remains valid for an arbitrary timedependent acceleration a = a( ), and thus is capable of reproducing the weak eld form of the metric for general potentials. To see this, consider the wordline (t( ), x( )) with general 4-velocity (actually 2-velocity in this case) u0 = t( ) = cosh v( ) which satises (u0 )2 (u1 )2 = 1 , as it should, and has the time-dependent acceleration a( ) = v( ), (u1 )2 (u0 )2 = x2 t2 = v( )2 a( )2 . We can pass to adapted coordinates (, r ), as above, by setting (t(, r ), x(, r )) = (t() + r sinh v(), x() + r cosh v()) , leading to the metric ds2 = dt2 + dx2 = (1 + a())2 d 2 + d2 . r r (2.96) (2.95) (2.94) (2.93) , u1 = x( ) = sinh v( ) , (2.92)

This is indeed the direct generalisation of (2.90) to arbitrary accelerations, the original worldline manifestly corresponding to the observer at xed r = 0, with = , and the same remarks regarding the weak eld limit / small accelerations apply.

58

2. Another useful alternative coordinate transformation for constant a is = exp a, leading to ds2 = e 2a (d 2 + d 2 ) . (2.97) Note that in these coordinates the metric is conformally at, i.e. it diers from the at Minkowski metric d 2 + d 2 in these coordinates only by an overall factor. For the record, and for later use, we note that the complete coordinate transformation between the Minkowski coordinates (t, x) and the conformally at Rindler coordinates (, ) is (t, x) = (a1 e a sinh a, a1 e a cosh a) . (2.98)

In terms of the Minkowski null (or advanced and retarded time) coordinates uM = t x , vM = t + x ds2 = duM dvM , (2.99)

and their Rindler counterparts uR = , vR = + ds2 = e a(vR uR ) duR dvR , (2.100)

this transformation takes the form t x = a1 e a (sinh a cosh a) = a1 e a( ) or, compactly, uM = a1 e auR , vM = +a1 e +avR . (2.102) (2.101)

Note that the range of the coordinates is < , < + or < uR , vR < +, and that the coordinates (, ) or (uR , vR ) cover (and can be used in) the right-hand quadrant x > |t| of Minkowski space-time, corresponding to < uM = t x < 0 and 0 < vM = t + x < +, the so called (right) Rindler wedge. 2.8 The Gravitational Red-Shift

The gravitational red-shift (i.e. the fact that photons lose or gain energy when rising or falling in a gravitational eld) is a consequence of the Einstein Equivalence Principle (and therefore also provides an experimental test of the Einstein Equivalence Principle). It is clear from the expression d 2 = g (x)dx dx that e.g. the rate of clocks is aected by the gravitational eld. However, as everything is aected in the same way by gravity it is impossible to measure this eect locally. In order to nd an observable eect, one needs to compare data from two dierent points in a gravitational potential. The situation we could consider is that of two observers A and B moving on worldlines (paths) A and B , A sending light signals to B. In general the frequency, measured 59

in the observers rest-frame at A (or in a locally inertial coordinate system there) will dier from the frequency measured by B upon receiving the signal. In order to separate out Doppler-like eects due to relative velocities, we consider two observers A and B at rest radially to each other, at radii rA and rB , in a stationary spherically symmetric gravitational eld. This means that the metric depends only on a radial coordinate r and we can choose it to be of the form ds2 = g00 (r)dt2 + grr (r)dr 2 + r 2 d2 , (2.103)

where d2 is the standard volume element on the two-sphere (see section 11 for a more detailed justication of this ansatz for the metric). Observer A sends out light of a given frequency A , say n pulses per proper time unit A . Observer B receives these n pulses in his proper time B and interprets this as a frequency B . Thus the relation between the frequency A emitted at A and the frequency B observed at B is A B = . (2.104) B A I will now give two arguments to show that this ratio depends on the metric (i.e. the gravitational eld) at rA and rB through A = (g00 (rB )/g00 (rA ))1/2 . B (2.105)

1. The rst argument is essentially one based on geometric optics (and is best accompanied by drawing a (1+1)-dimensional space-time diagram of the light rays and worldlines of the observers). The geometry of the situation dictates that the coordinate time intervals recorded at A and B are equal, tA = tB as nothing in the metric actually depends on t. In equations, this can be seen as follows. First of all, the equation for a radial light ray is g00 (r)dt2 = grr (r)dr 2 , (2.106) or dt = dr grr (r) g00 (r)
1/2

(2.107)

From this we can calculate the coordinate time for the light ray to go from A to B. Say that the rst light pulse is emitted at point A at time t(A)1 and received at B at coordinate time t(B)1 . Then
rB

t(B)1 t(A)1 =

dr(grr (r)/g00 (r))1/2

(2.108)

rA

But the right hand side obviously does not depend on t, so we also have
rB

t(B)2 t(A)2 =

dr(grr (r)/g00 (r))1/2

(2.109)

rA

60

where t2 denotes the coordinate time for the arrival of the n-th pulse. Therefore, t(B)1 t(A)1 = t(B)2 t(A)2 , or t(A)2 t(A)1 = t(B)2 t(B)1 , (2.111) as claimed. Thus the coordinate time intervals recorded at A and B between the rst and last pulse are equal. However, to convert this to proper time, we have to multiply the coordinate time intervals by an r-dependent function, A,B = (g (rA,B ) dx dx 1/2 ) tA,B , dt dt (2.112) (2.110)

and therefore the proper time intervals will not be equal. For observers at rest, dxi /dt = 0, one has A,B = (g00 (rA,B ))1/2 tA,B . (2.113) Since tA = tB , (2.105) now follows from (2.104). 2. The second argument uses the null geodesic equation, in particular the conserved quantity associated to time-translations (recall that we have assumed that the metric (2.103) is time-independent), as well as a somewhat more covariant looking, but equivalent, notion of frequency. First of all, let the light ray be described the wave vector k . In special relativity, we would parametrise this as k = (, k) with = 2 the frequency. This is the frequency observed by an inertial observer at rest, with 4-velocity u = (1, 0, 0, 0). A Lorentz-invariant, and thus in our context now coordinate-independent, notion of the frequency as measured by an observer with velocity u is thus = u k . (2.114)

This includes as special cases the relativistic Doppler eect (where one compares with = k , u the tangent to the world line of a boosted observer), as u well as the gravitational red-shift we want to discuss here. A static observer in the spherically-symmetric and static gravitational eld (2.103) is described by the 4-velocity u = (u0 , 0, 0, 0) g u u = g00 (u0 )2 = 1 . (2.115)

Thus for the static observer at r = rA , say, one has u0 = (g00 (rA ))1/2 A (2.116)

(and likewise for the observer at r = rB ). The wave vector k is a null tangent vector, k k = 0, to a null geodesic corresponding to the Lagrangian
1 L = 1 g x x = 2 g00 (r)t2 + . . . 2

(2.117)

61

Since the metric is time-independent, there is (cf. the discussion in section 2.4) the corresponding conserved quantity E= L = g00 (r)t t (2.118)

(the minus sign serving only to make this quantity positive for t > 0). Then one nds that the frequency measured by the stationary observer at r = rA is A = u k = (g00 (rA ))1/2 k0 = (g00 (rA ))1/2 g0 (rA )x A = (g00 (rA ))1/2 g00 (rA )t = E (g00 (rA ))1/2 (2.119)

Since E is a conserved quantity, i.e. the same for the light ray at r = rA or r = rB , one sees that A /B = A /B is given by (2.105), as claimed. Note also that this derivation shows that the relation between and E is exactly like the relation (2.113) between ( )1 and (t)1 , which provides us with an interpreteation of the conserved quantity E for a massless particle / photon: it is the frequency measured with respect to coordinate time (as the momentum conjugate to the time-coordinate t this should not be too surprising). Using the Newtonian approximation, (2.105) becomes A 1 + (rB ) (rA ) , B or (2.120)

GN M (rB rA ) A B = (2.121) B rA rB Note that, for example, for rB > rA one has B < A so that, as expected, a photon looses energy when rising in a gravitational eld.

This result can also be deduced from energy conservation. A local inertial observer at the emitter A will see a change in the internal mass of the emitter mA = hA when a photon of frequency of A is emitted. Likewise, the absorber at point B will experience an increase in inertial mass by mB = hB . But the total internal plus gravitational potential energy must be conserved. Thus 0 = mA (1 + (rA )) + mB (1 + (rB )) , leading to A 1 + (rB ) = 1 + (rB ) (rA ) , B 1 + (rA ) (2.123) (2.122)

as before. This derivation (in quotes, because we are wildly mixing Newtonian gravity, special relativity and quantum mechanics - do take this derivation with an appropriately sized grain of salt, please) shows that gravitational red-shift experiments test the Einstein Equivalence Principle in its strong form, in which the term laws of nature is not restricted to mechanics (inertial = gravitational mass), but also includes quantum 62

mechanics in the sense that it tests if in an inertial frame the relation between photon energy and frequency is unaected by the presence of a gravitational eld. While dicult to observe directly (by looking at light form the sun), this prediction has been veried in the laboratory, rst by Pound and Rebka (1960), and subsequently, with one percent accuracy, by Pound and Snider in 1964 (using the Mssbauer eect). o Let us make some rough estimates of the expected eect. We rst consider light reaching us (B) from the sun (A). In this case, we have rB rA , where rA is the radius of the sun, and (also inserting a so far suppressed factor of c2 ) we obtain A B GN M (rB rA ) GN M = 2 . 2r r B c A B c rA Using the approximate values rA 0.7 106 km 7 108 g1 cm3 s2 (2.124)

Msun 2 1033 g GN

GN c2 7 1029 g1 cm = 7 1034 g1 km , one nds

(2.125)

2 106 . (2.126) In principle, such a frequency shift should be observable. In practice, however, the spectral lines of light emitted by the sun are strongly eected e.g. by convection in the atmosphere of the sun (Doppler eect), and this makes it dicult to measure this eect with the required precision. In the Pound-Snider experiment, the actual value of / is much smaller. In the original set-up one has rB rA 20m (the distance from oor to ceiling of the laboratory), and rA = rearth 6.4 106 m, leading to 2.5 1015 . (2.127)

However, here the experiment is much better controlled, and the gravitational red-shift was veried with 1% accuracy. 2.9 Locally Inertial and Riemann Normal Coordinates

Central to our initial discussion of gravity was the Einstein Equivalence Principle which postulates the existence of locally inertial (or freely falling) coordinate systems in which locally at (or around) a point the eects of gravity are absent. Now that we have decided that the arena of gravity is a general metric space-time, we should establish that such coordinate systems indeed exist. Looking at the geodesic equation, it it is clear that 63

absence of gravitational eects is tantamount to the existence of a coordinate system { a } in which at a given point p the metric is the Minkowski metric, gab (p) = ab and the Christoel symbol is zero, a (p) = 0. Owing to the identity bc g , = + , (2.128)

the latter condition is equivalent to gab ,c (p) = 0. I will sketch three arguments establishing the existence of such coordinate systems, each one having its own virtues and providing its own insights into the issue. Actually it is physically plausible (and fortuitously moreover true) that one can always nd coordinates which embody the equivalence principle in the stronger sense that the metric is the at metric ab and the Christoel symbols are zero not just at a point but along the entire worldline of an inertial (freely falling) observer, i.e. along a geodesic. Such coordinates, based on a geodesic rather than on a point, are known as Fermi normal coordinates. The construction is similar to that of Riemann normal coordinates (based at a point) to be discussed below. 1. Direct Construction We know that given a coordinate system { a } that is inertial at a point p, the metric and Christoel symbols at p in a new coordinate system {x } are determined by (1.75,1.82). Conversely, we will now see that knowledge of the metric and Christoel symbols at a point p is sucient to construct a locally inertial coordinate system at p. Equation (1.82) provides a second order dierential equation in some coordinate system {x } for the inertial coordinate system { A }, namely 2a a = x . x x (2.129)

By a general theorem, a local solution around p with given initial conditions a (p) and ( a /x )(p) is guaranteed to exist. In terms of a Taylor series expansion around p one has a (x) = a (p) + a 1 a |p (x p ) + | (p)(x p )(x p ) + . . . (2.130) p x 2 x

It follows from (1.75) that the metric at p in the new coordinate system is gab (p) = g (p) x x |p |p . a b (2.131)

Since a symmetric matrix (here the metric at the point p) can always be diagonalised by a similarity transformation, for an appropriate choice of initial condition ( a /x )(p) one can arrange that gab (p) is the standard Minkowski metric, gab (p) = ab . 64

With a little bit more work it can also be shown that in these coordinates (2.130) one also has gab ,c (p) = 0. Thus this is indeed an inertial coordinate system at p. As the matrix ( a /x )(p) which transforms the metric at p into the standard Minkowski form is only unique up to Lorentz transformations, overall (counting also the initial condition a (p)) a locally inertial coordinate system is unique only up to Poincar transformations - an unsurprising result. e 2. Geodesic (or Riemann Normal) Coordinates A slightly more insightful way of constructing a locally inertial coordinate system, rather than by directly solving the relevant dierential equation, makes use of geodesics at p. Recall that in Minkowski space the metric takes the simplest possible form in coordinates whose coordinate lines are geodesics. One might thus suspect that in a general metric space-time the metric will also (locally) look particularly simple when expressed in terms of such geodesic coordinates. Since locally around p we can solve the geodesic equation with four linearly independent initial conditions, we can assume the existence of a coordinate system { a } in which the coordinate lines are geodesics a ( ) = a . But this means that a = 0. Hence the geodesic equation reduces to a b c = 0 . bc (2.132)

As at p the a were chosen to be linearly independent, this implies abc (p) = 0, as desired. It is easy to see that the coordinates a can also be chosen in such a way that gab (p) = ab (by choosing the four directions at p to be orthonormal unit vectors). As an example, consider the standard metric ds2 = d 2 + sin2 d2 on the twosphere. Any point is as good as any other point, and one can construct an inertial coordinate system at the north pole = 0 in terms of geodesics shot o from the north pole into the = 0 ( 1 ) and = /2 ( 2 ) directions. The ane parameter along a great circle (geodesic) connecting the north pole to a point (, ) is , and thus is also the geodesic distance, and the coordinates of the point (, ) are ( 1 = cos , 2 = sin ). In particular, the north pole is the origin 1 = 2 = 0. Calculating the metric in these new components one nds (exercise! see also e.g. Hartles Gravity) that gab () = ab + O( 2 ), so that gab ( = 0) = ab and gab,c ( = 0) = 0, as required. Note also that one could have guessed these coordinates from the fact that near = 0 the metric is d 2 + 2 d2 , which is the Euclidean metric in polar coordinates ( cos , sin ). 3. A Numerological Argument This is my favourite argument because it requires no calculations and at the same time provides additional insight into the nature of curved space-times.

65

Assuming that the local existence of solutions to dierential equations is guaranteed by some mathematical theorems, it is frequently sucient to check that one has enough degrees of freedom to satisfy the desired initial conditions (one may also need to check integrability conditions). In the present context, this argument is useful because it also reveals some information about the true curvature hidden in the second derivatives of the metric. It works as follows: (a) Zeroth Derivatives: Consider a Taylor expansion of the metric around p in the sought-for new coordinates. Then the metric at p will transform with the matrix (x / a )(p). This matrix has (4 4) = 16 independent components, precisely enough to impose the 10 conditions gab (p) = ab up to Lorentz transformations. (b) First Derivatives: The derivative of the metric at p, gab ,c (p), will appear in conjunction with the second derivative 2 x / a b . The 4 (4 5)/2 = 40 coecients are precisely sucient to impose the 40 conditions gab ,c (p) = 0. (c) Second Derivatives: Now let us look at the second derivatives of the metric. gab ,cd has (10 10) = 100 independent components, while the third derivative of x () at p, 3 x / a b c has 4 (4 5 6)/(2 3) = 80 components. Thus 20 linear combinations of the second derivatives of the metric at p cannot in general be set to zero by a coordinate transformation. Thus these encode the information about the real curvature at p. This agrees nicely with the fact that the Riemann curvature tensor we will construct later turns out to have precisely 20 independent components. Repeating this argument in space-time dimension D = d + 1, one nds that the number of 2nd derivatives of the metric modulo coordinate transformations is D(D + 1) 2
2

D(D + 1)(D + 2) 1 = D2 (D 2 1) . 6 12

(2.133)

Again this turns out to agree with the number of independent components (7.16) of the curvature tensor in D dimensions.

66

Note: At this point in the course I nd it useful to develop in parallel (and suggest to read in parallel) the more formal material on tensor analysis in sections 3 - 8, say, and a detailed discussion of the basic properties of the Schwarzschild metric (sections 11.4 - 14), since much of the latter (in particular geodesics, solar system tests of general relativity, even the issues that arise in connection with the Schwarzschild radius) can be understood just on the basis of what has been done so far (if, for the time being, one accepts on faith that the Schwarzschild metric is the unique spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the Einstein eld equations). Not only is this an interesting and physically relevant application of the machinery developed so far, it also provides an appropriate balance between physics and formalism in the lectures.

67

3
3.1

Tensor Algebra
From the Einstein Equivalence Principle to the Principle of General Covariance

The Einstein Equivalence Principle tells us that the laws of nature (including the eects of gravity) should be such that in an inertial frame they reduce to the laws of Special Relativity (SR). As we have seen, this can be implemented by transforming the laws of SR to arbitrary coordinate systems and declaring that these be valid for arbitrary coordinates and metrics. However, this is a tedious method in general (e.g. to obtain the correct form of the Maxwell equations in the presence of gravity) and not particularly enlightning. We will thus replace the Einstein Equivalence Principle by the closely related Principle of General Covariance PGC: A physical equation holds in an arbitrary gravitational eld if 1. the equation holds in the absence of gravity, i.e. when g = , = 0, and 2. the equation is generally covariant, i.e. preserves its form under a general coordinate transformation. Concretely, the 2nd condition means the following: assume that you have some physical equation that in some coordinate system takes the form T = 0, where T = 0 could be some multi-component (thus T is adorned with various indices) dierential equation. Now perform a coordinate transformation x y(x), and assume that the new object T has the form T = (. . .)T + junk (3.1) where the term in brackets is some invertible matrix or operator. Then clearly the presence of the junk-terms means that the equation T = 0 is not equivalent to the equation T = 0. An example of an object that transform in this way is, as we have seen, the Christoel symbols. On the other hand, if these junk terms are absent, so that we have T = (. . .)T (3.2) then clearly T = 0 if and only if T = 0, i.e. the equation is satised in one coordinate system if and only if it is satised in any other (or all) coordinate systems. This is the kind of equation that embodies general covariance, and again we have already seen an example of such an equation, namely the geodesic equation, where the term (. . .) in brackets is just the Jacobi matrix. Thus, to be more concrete, we can replace the 2nd condition above by 68

2 the equation is generally covariant, i.e. it is satised in one coordinate system i it is satised in all coordinate systems. Let us now establish the above statement, namely that the Einstein equivalence principle implies that an equation that satises the conditions 1 and 2 (or 2) is valid in an arbitrary graviational eld: consider some equation that satises these conditions, and assume that we are in an arbitrary gravitational eld; condition 2 implies that this equation is true (or satised) in all coordinate systems if it is satised just in one coordinate system; now we know that we can always (locally) construct a freely falling coordinate system in which the eects of gravity are absent; the Einstein Equivalence Principle now posits that in such a reference system the physics is that of Minkowski space-time; condition 1 means that the equation is true (satised) there; thus it is valid in all coordinate systems; since we started o by considering an arbitrary graviational eld, it follows that the equation is now valid in an arbitrary gravitational eld, as claimed in the Principle of General Covariance. Note that general covariance alone is an empty statement since any equation (whether correct or not) can be made generally covariant simply by writing it in an arbitrary coordinate system. It develops its power only when used in conjunction with the Einstein Equivalence Principle as a statement about physics in a gravitational eld, namely that by virtue of its general covariance an equation will be true in a gravitational eld if it is true in the absence of gravitation. 3.2 Tensors

In order to construct generally covariant equations, we need objects that transform in a simple way under coordinate transformations. The prime examples of such objects are tensors. If you are already familiar with Lorentz tensors from special relativity (as briey recalled in section 1.2, these are objects which transform in a particularly simple multi-linear way under Lorentz transformations), then hardly anything in this or the subsequent section 3.3 should be new or unexpected (but interesting new features will arise in particular when we move on from tensor algebra to tensor analysis in section 4). 69

Scalars The simplest example of a tensor is a function (or scalar) f which under a coordinate transformation x y (x ) simply transforms as f (y(x)) = f (x) , (3.3)

or f (y) = f (x(y)). One frequently suppresses the argument, and thus writes simply, f = f , expressing the fact that, up to the obvious change of argument, functions are invariant under coordinate transformations. Vectors The next simplest case are vectors V (x) transforming as V (y(x)) =

y V (x) . x

(3.4)

A prime example is the tangent vector x to a curve, for which this transformation behaviour y x (3.5) x y = x is just the familiar one. It is extremely useful to think of vectors as rst order dierential operators, via the correspondence V V := V . (3.6) One of the advantages of this point of view is that V is completely invariant under coordinate transformations as the components V of V transform inversely to the basis vectors . For more on this see sections 3.5 and 3.6 on the coordinate-independent interpretation of tensors below. Covectors A covector is an object U (x) which under a coordinate transformation transforms inversely to a vector, i.e. as
U (y(x)) =

x U (x) . y

(3.7)

A familiar example of a covector is the derivative U = f of a function which of course transforms as x (3.8) f (y(x)) = f (x) . y Covariant 2-Tensors Clearly, given the above objects, we can construct more general objects which transform in a nice way under coordinate transformations by taking products of them. Tensors in

70

general are objects which transform like (but need not be equal to) products of vectors and covectors. In particular, a covariant 2-tensor, or (0,2)-tensor, is an object A that transforms under coordinate transformations like the product of two covectors, i.e. A (y(x)) = x x A (x) . y y (3.9)

I will from now on use a shorthand notation in which I drop the prime on the transformed object and also omit the argument. In this notation, the above equation would then become x x A = A . (3.10) y y We already know one example of such a tensor, namely the metric tensor g (which happens to be a symmetric tensor). Contravariant 2-Tensors Likewise we dene a contravariant 2-tensor (or a (2,0)-tensor) to be an object B that transforms like the product of two vectors, B

y y = B . x x

(3.11)

An example is the inverse metric tensor g . (p, q)-Tensors

1 It should now be clear how to dene a general (p, q)-tensor - as an object T 1 ...p q with p contravariant and q covariant indices which under a coordinate transformation transforms like a product of p vectors and q covectors,

...

... 1 T ...p q 1

xq 1 ... y p x1 y 1 . . . p . . . T 1 ...p . = q x1 x y 1 y q

(3.12)

Remarks:

1. Note that, in particular, a tensor is zero (at a point) in one coordinate system if and only if the tensor is zero (at the same point) in another coordinate system. Thus, any law of nature (eld equation, equation of motion) expressed in terms of 1 ... tensors, say in the form T 1 ...p = 0, preserves its form under coordinate trasforq mations and is therefore automatically generally covariant, T
1 ...p 1 ...q

=0T

... p 1 1 ...q

=0

(3.13)

2. An important special example of a tensor is the Kronecker tensor . Together with scalars and products of scalars and Kronecker tensors it is the only tensor 71

whose components are the same in all coordinate systems. I.e. if one demands that transforms as a tensor, then one nds that it takes the same numerical values in all coordinate systems, i.e. = . Conversely, if one posits that = , one can deduce that transforms as (i.e. is) a (1, 1)-tensor. 3. One comment on terminology: it is sometimes useful to distinguish vectors from vector elds and, likewise, tensors from tensor elds. A vector is then just a vector V (x) at some point x of space-time whereas a vector eld is something that assigns a vector to each point of space-time, vector eld : and likewise, for tensors and tensor elds. 4. A covariant 2-tensor T , say, is said to be symmetric if T = T and antisymmetric if T = T . This is well-dened because it is a generally covariant notion: a tensor is symmetric in all coordinate system i it is symmetric in one coordinate system, etc. This denition can be extended to any or all pairs of covariant indices or pairs of contravariant indices. Thus e.g. a tensor T 1 ...p is called totally symmetric (or totally anti-symmetric) if it is symmetric (anti-symmetric) under the exchange of any pair of indices. On the other hand, it is not meaningful to talk of the symmetry of a (1,1)-tensor, say, as an equation like T = T is meaningless. 5. The number of independent components of a general (p, q)-tensor is 4p+q . The number of independent components is reduced if the tensor has some symmetry properties. Thus a symmetric (0,2)- or (2,0)-tensor has 4 5/2 = 10 independent components, an anti-symmetric (0,2)- or (2,0)-tensor has 4 3/2 = 6 independent components, and a totally anti-symmetric (0, 4)-tensor T1 ...4 has only got one independent component, namely T0123 (all the others being determined by antisymmetry). 6. Important examples of non-tensors are the Christoel symbols. Another impor1 ... tant example is the the ordinary partial derivative of a (p, q)-tensor, T 1 ...p q which is not a (p, q + 1)-tensor unless p = q = 0. This failure of the partial derivative to map tensors to tensors will motivate us below to introduce a covariant derivative which generalises the usual notion of a partial derivative and has the added virtue of mapping tensors to tensors. 3.3 Tensor Algebra x V (x) (3.14)

Tensors can be added, multiplied and contracted in certain obvious ways. The basic algebraic operations are the following: 72

1. Linear Combinations Given two (p, q)-tensors A

1 ...p 1 ...q

and B =A

1 ...p 1 ...q ,

their sum
1 ...p 1 ...q

C is also a (p, q)-tensor. 2. Direct Products Given a (p, q)-tensor A

1 ...p 1 ...q

1 ...p 1 ...q

+B

(3.15)

1 ...p 1 ...q

and a (p , q )-tensor B A
1 ...p 1 ...p 1 ...q B 1 ...q

1 ...p 1 ...q ,

their direct product (3.16)

is a (p + p , q + q )-tensor, 3. Contractions Given a (p, q)-tensor with p and q non-zero, one can associate to it a (p 1, q 1)tensor via contraction of one covariant and one contravariant index, A
1 ...p 1 ...q

1 ...p1 1 ...q1

=A

1 ...p1 1 ...q1

(3.17)

This is indeed a (p 1, q 1)-tensor, i.e. transforms like one. Consider, for example, a (1,2)-tensor A and its contraction B = A . Under a coordinate transformation B transforms as a covector: B = A = = = y x x A x y y x A y x x A = B . y y

(3.18)

A particular example of a contraction is the scalar product between a vector and a covector which is a scalar. Note that contraction over dierent pairs of indices will in general give rise to dierent tensors. E.g. A and A will in general be dierent. 4. Raising and Lowering of Indices These operations can of course be combined in various ways. A particular important operation is, given a metric tensor, the raising and lowering of indices with 1 ...p the metric. From the above we know that given a (p, q)-tensor A 1 ...q , the prod1 ...p uct plus contraction with the metric tensor g1 A 1 ...q is a (p 1, q + 1)-tensor. It will be denoted by the same symbol, but with one index lowered by the metric, i.e. we write 1 ...p 2 ...p g1 A 1 ...q A 1 ...q . (3.19) 73

Note that there are p dierent ways of lowering the indices, and they will in general give rise to dierent tensors. It is therefore important to keep track of this in the notation. Thus, in the above, had we contracted over the second index instead of the rst, we should write g2 A
1 ...p 1 ...q
1 A

3 ...p 1 ...q

(3.20)

Finally note that this notation is consistent with denoting the inverse metric by raised indices because g = g g g . (3.21) and raising one index of the metric gives the Kronecker tensor, g g g = . 5. Symmetrisation and anti-Symmetrisation Given any (0, 2)-tensor T , one can decompose it into its symmetric and antisymmetric parts as
1 T = 2 (T + T ) + 1 (T T ) T() + T[] . 2

(3.22)

(3.23)

The decomposition into symmetric and anti-symmetric parts is invariant under coordinate transformations. In particular, when T is a tensor, also T() and T[] are tensors, and thus (anti-)symmetrisation is yet another linear operation that one can perform on tensors. The factor 1 is chosen such that the symmetrisation of a symmetric tensor is the 2 same as the original tensor, T = T T() = T , T[] = 0 (3.24)

(and likewise for the anti-symmetrisation of anti-symmetric tensors). This can be generalised to the (anti-)symmetrisation of any pair of (contravariant or covariant) indices; e.g. T() = 1 (T + T ) 2 is the symmetrisation of T in its rst and second index. It can also be generalised to the total (anti-)symmetrisation of a higher-rank tensor; e.g. 1 T() 3! (T + T + T + T + T + T ) (3.26) is totally symmetric, i.e. symmetric under the exchange of any pair of indices, and T[]
1 3! (T

(3.25)

T T + T T + T ) 74

(3.27)

is totally anti-symmetric. The prefactor 1 is again there to ensure that the total 6 symmetrisation of a totally symmetric tensor is the original tensor (and likewise for the total anti-symmetrisation of totally anti-symmetric tensors). This generalises in an evident way to higher rank p tensors, with the combinatorial prefactor 1/p!. An observation we will frequently make use of to recognise when some object is a tensor is the following (occasionally known as the quotient theorem or quotient lemma):
p 1 Assume that you are given some object A 1 ...q . Then if for every covector U the 1 ...p 1 ...p contracted object U1 A 1 ...q transforms like a (p 1, q)-tensor, A 1 ...q is a (p, q)tensor. Likewise for contractions with vectors or other tensors so that if e.g. in an equation of the form A = B C (3.28)

...

you know that A transforms as a tensor for every tensor C, then B itself has to be a tensor. An elementary and ham-handed proof of this statement can be obtained by contradiction: assume that B does not transform as a tensor and write its transformation, as in (3.1), as B = (. . .)B + junk . (3.29) If junk = 0, then there will be some C such that junk contributes to the contraction B C . But that means that junk contributes to A , the transformed A, contradicting the premise that A is a tensor. 3.4 Tensor Densities and Volume Elements

While tensors are the objects which, in a sense, transform in the nicest and simplest possible way under coordinate transformations, they are not the only relevant objects. An important class of non-tensors are so-called tensor densities. The prime example of a tensor density is the determinant g := det g of the metric tensor (the minus sign is there only to make g positive in signature ( + ++)). It follows from the standard tensorial transformation law of the metric that under a coordinate transformation x y (x ) this determinant transforms as g = det x y
2

g = det

y x

g .

(3.30)

An object which transforms in such a way under coordinate transformations is called a scalar tensor density of weight w = +2. In general, a tensor density of weight w is an object that transforms as
... 1 T ...p q 1

= det

y x

xq 1 ... y p x1 y 1 . . . p . . . T 1 ...p . q x1 x y 1 y q

(3.31)

75

 In particular, this implies that gw/2 T transforms as (and hence is) a tensor, w/2 ... 1 T ...p q 1

xq y p x1 y 1 1 ... . . . p . . . gw/2 T 1 ...p . = q 1 q x x y 1 y

(3.32)

Conversely, therefore, any tensor density of weight w can be written as tensor times g+w/2 . In particular (and this will be important in the following), the square root of the determinant g transforms as, and hence is, a tensor density of weight w = +1. The algebraic rules for tensor densities are strictly analogous to those for tensors. Thus, for example, the sum of two (p, q) tensor densities of weight w (let us call this a (p, q; w) tensor) is again a (p, q; w) tensor, and the direct product of a (p1 , q1 ; w1 ) and a (p2 , q2 ; w2 ) tensor is a (p1 + p2 , q1 + q2 ; w1 + w2 ) tensor. Contractions and the raising and lowering of indices of tensor densities can also be dened just as for ordinary tensors.
Remarks:

1. The relevance of tensor densities arises from the fundamental theorem of integral calculus that says that the integral measure d4 x (more generally dD x in dimension D) transforms as y d4 y = det d4 x , (3.33) x i.e. as a scalar density of weight w = 1. Thus gd4 x is a volume element which is invariant under coordinate transformations, g d4 y = gd4 x . (3.34)

It can therefore be used to dene integrals of scalars (functions) in a general metric (curved) space in a coordinate-independent way via f := gd4 xf (x) . (3.35)

This will of course be important in order to formulate action principles etc. in a metric space in a generally covariant way. More generally, if f is any tensor density of weight w = +1, then its integral is well-dened and coordinate independent, d4 x f = d4 x f . (3.36)

2. This is also frequently the quickest way to determine the volume element in nonCartesian coordinates in Euclidean space. Thus, to determine what is the volume element in spherical coordinates {y k } = (r, , ), say, instead of laboriously determining the Jacobi matrix for the coordinate transformation, and then (equally laboriously) calculating its determinant (which would be the standard uninspiring 76

and uninspired procedure), all one needs to know is the metric in these coordinates to deduce ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) g = r 4 sin2 (3.37) and therefore d3 x = g d3 y = r 2 sin dr d d . (3.38)

Note that all this is as it should be. In order to measure things like distances, areas and volumes, all that one should need to know is the metric, not the Jacobian between two coordinate systems. 3. There is one more important tensor density which - like the Kronecker tensor - has the same components in all coordinate systems. This is the totally anti-symmetric Levi-Civita symbol (taking the values 0, 1) which is a tensor density of weight w = 1. Then g is a tensor (strictly speaking it is a pseudo-tensor because of its behaviour under reversal of orientation but this will not concern us here). To see this, recall rst of all the denition of the Levi-Civita symbol: it is totally anti-symmetric, =[] , (3.39) and has therefore only got one independent component which we will normalise to be 0123 = +1 . (3.40) Thus = +1 if the indices () are an even permutation of (0123), = 1 if the indices () are an odd permutation of (0123), and = 0 i any two indices are equal. This denition makes no reference to any coordinate system whatsoever, and thus tautologically the purely combinatorial object has the same components in all coordinate systems. This evidently extends to other dimensions, and we will dene the D = (d + 1)dimensional Levi-Civita symbol in the same way, 1 ...D =[1 ...D ] , 01...d = +1 . (3.41)

Next, recall one possible denition of the determinant det M of a (D D)-matrix M , namely as the coecient (proportionality factor) on the right-hand side of 1 ...D M 1 . . . M D = (det M ) 1 ...D . 1 D (3.42)

Now choose M to be the Jacobi matrix (y/x). Then the above equation shows that y x1 xD ... = det 1 ...D , (3.43) ... 1 D x y 1 y D i.e. that 1 ...D transforms as a tensor density of weight w = 1. 77

Going back to 4 dimensions, it follows that g (3.44)

is a totally anti-symmetric (0, 4) (pseudo-)tensor. Likewise, the totally anti-symmetric symbol is a tensor density of weight w = +1 and 1 (3.45) g is a totally anti-symmetric (4, 0) (pseudo-)tensor. Here, as usual, we have raised the indices of the tensor on the left-hand side with the metric, and is totally anti-symmetric, with 0123 = 1. The minus-sign arises because the contraction with the metrics on the right-hand side produces a factor of g det(g ) = 1 g(det(g ))1 = . g (3.46)

We could have chosen to not absorb the minus sign into the denition of , at the expense of an explicit minus sign on the right-hand side of (3.45). The convention we have adopted is more convenient, however, in particular since it is compatible with the standard practice in special relativity to (tacitly) identify = , the minus sign arising from raising the indices on with the Minkowski metric with 00 = 1, so that 0123 = 0123 . 4. There is an intimate relation between the preceding observations regarding the Levi-Civita symbol (remark 3) and those in remark 1 above regarding invariant volume elements. Namely, the usual coordinate volume element d4 x can be written as 1 d4 x = dx dx dx dx . (3.47) 4! This is not a tensor but transforms like a scalar density. On the other hand, if one works instead with the tensor one obtains a scalar, and this scalar is precisely the invariant volume element (3.34), 1 dx dx dx dx = gd4 x . 4! (3.48)

5. More generally (and without invoking a metric to provide the weight w = +1 density required for an invariant intetgration) this can be phrased in the following way: Let A1 ...4 be a totally anti-symmetric (0, 4)-tensor. Thus it will be proportional to the metric dependent Levi-Civita tensor 1 ...4 but we will now not make use of this fact (which would return us to the setting of the previous remark). Rather, we consider its contraction with the contravariant Levi-Civita symbol (which exists independently of any additional structure like a metric), A1 ...4 f =1 ...4 A1 ...4 . (3.49) 78

This is a scalar density of weight w = +1. As a consequence, its integral (3.36) is well-dened and coordinate independent, without reference to any metric. Thus totally anti-symmetric (0, 4)-forms provide natural 4-dimensional volume elements (and likewise for totally anti-symmetric (0, p) tensors and p-dimensional volume elements). 3.5 A Coordinate-Independent Interpretation of Tensors

There is a more invariant and coordinate-independent way of looking at tensors than we have developed so far. The purpose of this section is to explain this point of view even though it is not indispensable for an understanding of the remainder of the course. Consider rst of all the derivative df of a function (scalar eld) f = f (x). This is clearly a coordinate-independent object, not only because we didnt have to specify a coordinate system to write df but also because df = f (x) f (y(x)) dy , dx = x y (3.50)

which follows from the fact that f (a covector) and dx (the coordinate dierentials) transform inversely to each other under coordinate transformations. This suggests that it is useful to regard the quantities f as the coecients of the coordinate independent object df in a particular coordinate system, namely when df is expanded in the basis {dx }. We can do the same thing for any covector A . If A is a covector (i.e. transforms like one under coordinate transformations), then A := A (x)dx is coordinate-independent, and it is useful to think of the A as the coecients of the covector A when expanded in a coordinate basis, A = A dx . Linear combinations of dx built in this way from covectors are known as 1-forms. From this point of view, we interpret the {A } simply as the (coordinate dependent) components of the (coordinate independent) 1-form A when expressed with respect to the (coordinate dependent) dierentials {dx }, considered as a basis of the space of covectors. We can do the same thing for a general covariant tensor T . Namely, if T1 q is a (0, q)-tensor, then T := T1 q dx1 . . . dxq (3.51) is coordinate independent. In the particular case of the metric tensor we have already known and used this. In that case, T is what we called ds2 , g ds2 = g dx dx , (3.52)

which we know to be invariant under coordinate transformations (either by denition or by construction). 79

If T1 p is totally anti-symmetric, the resulting object is also referred to as a p-form. As we have already seen above, such p-forms provide natural and invariant p-dimensional volume elements. In particular, applying this to the Levi-Civita tensor discussed in section 3.4, we reproduce the statement (3.34) that (3.48) 1 dx dx dx dx = gd4 x 4! (3.53)

is a space-time volume element that is invariant under coordinate transformations. Can we do something similar for vectors and other contravariant (or mixed) tensors? The answer is yes. Just as covectors transform inversely to coordinate dierentials, vectors V transform inversely to partial derivatives . Thus V := V (x) x (3.54)

is coordinate-independent - a coordinate-independent linear rst-order dierential operator. One can thus always think of a vector eld as a 1st order dierential operator and this is a very fruitful point of view. Acting on a function (scalar) f , V produces the derivative of f along V , V f = V f . (3.55)

This is also a coordinate independent object, a scalar, arising from the contraction of a vector and a covector. And this is as it should be because, after all, both a function and a vector eld can be specied on a space-time without having to introduce coordinates (e.g. by simply drawing the vector eld and the prole of the function). Therefore also the change of the function along a vector eld should be coordinate independent and, as we have seen, it is. Also this can, in principle, be extended to higher rank tensors, but at this point it would be very useful to introduce the notion (or at least the notation) of tensor products, 1 ... something I will not do. Fact of the matter is, however, that any (p, q)-tensor T 1 ...p q can be thought of as the collection of components of a coordinate independent object T when expanded in a particular coordinate basis in terms of the dx and (/x ). Any choice of coordinate system {x } gives rise to such a basis {dx }, and such bases are known as coordinate bases or natural bases. In the classical (and somewhat oldfashioned) tensor calculus one always works in such a basis, and directly with the components of tensors with respect to such a basis. This is very convenient and natural, but this is now clearly not the only choice. 3.6 Vielbeins and Orthonormal Frames

The above point of view suggests a reformulation and generalisation that is extremely natural and useful (but that I will nevertheless hardly ever make use of in these notes). 80

Namley, let {em (x)} be such that it is an invertible matrix for every point x. Then another possible choice of basis for the space of covectors are the linear combinations em := em dx . (3.56)

A general such basis is called a vielbein, which is German for multileg, quite appropriate actually, as one should visualise this as a bunch of linearly independent (co-)vectors at every point of space-time. In two, three, and four dimensions these are also known more specically as zweibeins, dreibeins and vierbeins respectively. In four dimensions, the Greek word tetrads is also commonly used. The em are sometimes also referred to as frame elds, mostly in the context of orthonormal frames (see below). In general, this new basis is not a coordinate basis, i.e. there does not exist a coordinate system {y m } such that em = dy m . If such a coordinate system does exist, then one has em = dy m em = em y m x = em , (3.57)

and locally also the converse is true. In particular, if em em = 0 em is not a coordinate basis . (3.58)

For many purposes, bases other than coordinate bases can also be extremely useful and natural, in particular the orthonormal bases we will introduce below. The inverse relation to (3.56) is dx = e em , m where e (x) is (pointwise) the inverse matrix of em (x), m
m em e = n n e em = . m

(3.59)

(3.60)

With respect to this basis, one can expand a covector A as A = A dx = A e em Am em , m so that the components of A with respect to the new basis {em } are Am = A e . m (3.62) (3.61)

Likewise, the vielbeins allow us to pass from a natural (or coordinate) basis for vector elds, the { }, to another basis Em = e , m 81 (3.63)

allowing us to write the coordinate independent vector eld V = V (x) = V m Em with V m = em V . Note that, unlike the , the Em do not commute in general, i.e. [Em , En ] = 0 . (3.66) (3.65) (3.64)

In fact, a dual characterization of a coordinate basis is that the corresponding Em do commute. This is clearly a necessary condition and, as above, locally it is also sucient to ensure that there is a coordinate system y m such that Em = /y m . We can apply the same reasoning to any other tensor eld, e.g. to the metric tensor itself. We can write the invariant line element as ds2 = g dx dx = g e en em en gmn em en , m so that the components of the metric with respect to the new basis are gmn = g e en . m (3.68) (3.67)

Given a metric, there is a preferred class of bases {ea } which are such that the corresponding matrices ea (x) diagonalise (and normalise) the metric at every point x, i.e. which are such that gab = ab or gab = ab g (x)e (x)eb (x) = ab . a (3.69)

Such a basis ea , with respect to which the components of the metric are the Minkowski metric ab , is known as an orthonormal basis or orthonormal frame. In the more mathematical literature, the ea are also referred to as soldering forms because they identify (solder, glue) an abstract space of (co-)vectors at each point x, labelled by a, b, . . . with the concrete space of (co-)vectors tangent to the space-time at the point x, labelled e.g. by the indices , , . . .. For a general metric, a basis which achieves this cannot be a coordinate basis (because this would mean that the metric is equivalent to the Minkowski metric by a coordinate transformation). But clearly there is no obstacle to nding a more general basis which will do this: for every point x we can nd a matrix ea (x) which achieves (3.69) As the metric varies smoothly with x, we can also choose the matrices ea (x) to vary smoothly with x, and hence we can put them together to dene the smooth matrix-valued function ea (x) for all x. [I am ignoring some global (topological) issues here. We will not need to worry about them here.] 82

The reason why I referred to a class of bases above is that, clearly, such an orthonormal basis is not unique. At every point x it is determined up to a Lorentz transformation ea (x) a (x)eb (x) b

ab (x)cd (x)ac = bd .

(3.70)

Thus a given metric does not determine a unique orthonormal basis, but only an orthonormal basis up to Lorentz transformations ea (x) ab (x)eb (x) . Conversely, however, an orthonormal basis uniquely determines a metric via ds2 = ab ea (x)eb (x) . (3.72) (3.71)

If one wants the components of the metric in a given coordinate system {x }, one expands the orthonormal basis ea in terms of the natural basis dx as above as ea (x) = ea (x)dx , to nd, as above, g (x) = ea (x)eb (x)ab . (3.74) Thus instead of the metric one can choose orthonormal vielbeins as the basic variables of General Relativity. In that case one has to demand not only general covariance but also invariance under local Lorentz transformations (acting on the orthonormal indices a, b, . . .). [One could also allow for general vielbeins, in which case one would have to replace Lorentz transformations by the larger group of general linear transformations.]
Examples:

(3.73)

Here are a few examples to illustrate that orthonormal frames are not something mysterious but can usually be read o very easily from the metric in a coordinate basis. 1. The Two-Sphere Metric (1.92) The standard metric on a sphere of radius R is ds2 = R2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . Now dene e1 = Rd i.e. e1 = R , e1 = 0 , e2 = 0 , e2 = R sin . Then the metric can be written as ds2 = e1 e1 + e2 e2 = ab ea eb , 83 (3.78) (3.77) , e2 = R sin d , (3.76) (3.75)

so the ea are an orthonormal basis. They are obviously not a coordinate basis because (3.58) (3.79) e2 = R cos = e2 = 0 . 2. The Schwarzschild Metric (1.96) The metric is ds2 = (1 2m/r)dt2 + (1 2m/r)1 dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . With (e0 , e1 , e2 , e3 ) = (1 2m 1/2 2m 1/2 ) dt, (1 ) dr, rd, r sin d r r (3.81) (3.80)

the metric can be written as ds2 = ab ea eb , so the ea are an orthonormal basis for the Schwarzschild metric. 3. The Kaluza-Klein Metric (section 25) Here is an example of a non-diagonal metric. The ve-dimensional Kaluza-Klein metric is ds2 = g dx dx + (dx5 + A dx )2 . (3.83) KK Let ea , a = 0, 1, 2, 3, be vielbeins (tetrads) for the four-dimensional space-time metric g . Then an orthonormal frame eA for the Kaluze-Klein metric is ea = ea dx
Remarks:

(3.82)

e5 = dx5 + A dx .

(3.84)

1. The ea can in some sense be regarded as the square-root of the metric. In particular denoting the determinant of the matrix ea by e(x) := det(ea (x)) , (3.69) implies g(x) := det(g (x)) = e(x)2 |e(x)| = g(x) . (3.86) (3.85)

2. Coordinate indices can, as usual, be raised and lowered with the space-time metric g and its inverse, and Minkowski (tangent space) indices with the Minkowski metric ab and its inverse. Note that this is consistent with the notation for ea and its inverse e because a e = g ab eb . a 84 (3.87)

One also has other fairly evident relations like g = ab e eb , a (3.88)

etc. The reason why I have called the basis of vector elds in a general frame Em rather than em is that em and Em are of course not related just by lowering or raising the indices of the metric, Em = gmn en . The former are linear combinations of the dx , the latter linear combinations of the , so they are very dierent objects. One could now go ahead and develop the entire machinery of tensor calculus (covariant derivatives, curvature, . . . ) that we are about to develop in the following sections in terms of vielbeins as the basic variables instead of the metric. This is rather straightforward. For example, given the expression for the Christoel symbols in terms of the metric, and for the metric in terms of the vielbeins, one can express the Christoel symbols (and hence covariant derivatives and curvatures) in terms of vielbeins. But the resulting expressions are rather unenlightning and not of much use in practice. The real power of the vielbein formalism emerges when one combines it with the formalism of dierential forms. And in practice the most useful and ecient alternative to working in components in a coordinate basis is working with dierential forms in an orthonormal basis.2

I do most of my calculations in the latter framework, but this is (for the time being) not something I will develop further here in these notes. See e.g. W. Thirring, Classical Mathematical Physics for a presentation of general relativity entirely in the coordinate-independent formalism of dierential forms.

85

Tensor Analysis

Tensors transform in a nice and simple way under general coordinate transformations. Thus these appear to be the right objects to construct equations from that satisfy the Principle of General Covariance. However, the laws of physics are dierential equations, so we need to know how to dierentiate tensors. The problem is that the ordinary partial derivative does not map tensors to tensors, the partial derivative of a (p, q)-tensor is not a tensor unless p = q = 0. This is easy to see: take for example a vector V . Under a coordinate transformation, its partial derivative transforms as V

= =

x y x y

y V x x x 2 y y V + V . x y x x

(4.1)

The appearance of the second term shows that the partial derivative of a vector is not a tensor. As the second term is zero for linear transformations, you see that partial derivatives transform in a tensorial way e.g. under Lorentz transformations, so that partial derivatives are all one usually needs in special relativity. We also see that the lack of covariance of the partial derivative is very similar to the lack of covariance of the equation x = 0, and this suggests that the problem can be cured in the same way - by introducing Christoel symbols. This is indeed the case. 4.1 The Covariant Derivative for Vector Fields

Let us dene the covariant derivative V of a vector eld V by V = V + V . (4.2)

It follows from the non-tensorial behaviour (1.115) of the Christoel symbols under coordinate transformations that V , as dened above, is indeed a (1, 1) tensor. Moreover, in a locally inertial coordinate system this reduces to the ordinary partial derivative, and we have thus, as desired, arrived at an appropriate tensorial generalisation of the partial derivative operator. We could have also arrived at the above denition in a somewhat more systematic way. Namely, let { a } be an inertial coordinate system. In an inertial coordinate system we can just use the ordinary partial derivative b V a . We now dene the new (improved, covariant) derivative V in any other coordinate system {x } by demanding that it 86

transforms as a (1,1)-tensor, i.e. we dene V := x b b V a . a x (4.3)

By a straightforward calculation one nds that V = V + V , where is our old friend = x 2 a . a x x (4.4)

(4.5)

We can thus adopt (4.4) as our denition of the covariant derivative in a general metric space or space-time (with the Christoel symbols calculated from the metric in the usual way). That V , dened in this way, is indeed a (1, 1) tensor, now follows directly from the way we arrived at the denition of the covariant derivative. Indeed, imagine transform ing from inertial coordinates to another coordinate system {y }. Then (4.3) is replaced by y b V := b V a . (4.6) a y Comparing this with (4.3), we see that the two are related by V as required. A word on notation: Frequently, the covariant derivative V is also denoted by a semicolon, V = V ; . Just as for functions, one can also dene the covariant directional derivative of a vector eld V along another vector eld X by X V X V . 4.2 Invariant Interpretation of the Covariant Derivative (4.8)

y x V , := x y

(4.7)

The appearance of the Christoel-term in the denition of the covariant derivative may at rst sight appear a bit unusual (even though it also appears when one just transforms Cartesian partial derivatives to polar coordinates etc.). There is a more invariant way of explaining the appearance of this term, related to the more coordinate-independent way of looking at tensors explained above. Namely, since the V (x) are really just the coecients of the vector eld V (x) = V (x) when expanded in the basis , a meanigful denition of the derivative of a vector eld must take into account not only

87

the change in the coecients but also the fact that the basis changes from point to point - and this is precisely what the Christoel symbols do. Writing V = (V )

= ( V ) + V ( ) ,

(4.9)

we see that we reproduce the denition of the covariant derivative if we set = . Indeed we then have V ( V ) = ( V + V ) , which agrees with the above denition. It is instructive to check in some examples that the Christoel symbols indeed describe the change of the tangent vectors . For instance on the plane, in polar coordinates, one has r r = = 0 , (4.12) rr which is correct because r indeed does not change when one moves in the radial direction. r does change, however, when one moves in the angular direction given by . In fact, it changes its direction proportional to but this change is stronger for small values of r than for larger ones (draw a picture!). This is precisely captured by the non-zero Christoel symbol , r r = = r 4.3 1 . r (4.13) (4.11) (4.10)

Extension of the Covariant Derivative to Other Tensor Fields

Our basic postulates for the covariant derivative are the following: 1. Linearity and Tensoriality is a linear operator that maps (p, q)-tensors to (p, q + 1)-tensors 2. Generalisation of the Partial Derivative On scalars , the covariant derivative reduces to the ordinary partial derivative (since is already a covector), = . 3. Leibniz Rule Acting on the direct product of tensors, satises a generalised Leibniz rule, (A 11 ...p B 11...rs ) = (A 11 ...p )B 11...rs + A 11 ...p B 11...rs q q q ... ... ... 88
... ... ...

(4.14)

(4.15)

We will now see that, demanding the above properties, in particular the Leibniz rule, there is a unique extension of the covariant derivative on vector elds to a dierential operator on general tensor elds, mapping (p, q)- to (p, q + 1)-tensors. To dene the covariant derivative for covectors U , we note that U V is a scalar for any vector V so that (U V ) = (U V ) = ( U )V + U ( V ) (since the partial derivative satises the Leibniz rule), and we demand (U V ) = ( U )V + U V . As we know V , these two equations determine U uniquely to be U = U U . (4.18) (4.17) (4.16)

That this is indeed a (0, 2)-tensor can either be checked directly or, alternatively, is a consequence of the quotient theorem. The extension to other (p, q)-tensors is now immediate. If the (p, q)-tensor is the direct product of p vectors and q covectors, then we already know its covariant derivative (using the Leibniz rule again). We simply adopt the same resulting formula for an arbitrary (p, q)-tensor. The result is that the covariant derivative of a general (p, q)-tensor is the sum of the partial derivative, a Christoel symbol with a positive sign for each of the p upper indices, and a Christoel with a negative sign for each of the q lower indices. In equations T
1 p 1 q

= T +

1 p 1 q 1 T 12qp

p + . . . + T

1 p1 1 q

p 1 p 1 T 2 q

terms
1 p 1 q1

. . . q T
q

(4.19)

terms

Having dened the covariant derivative for arbitrary tensors, we are also ready to dene it for tensor densities. For this we recall that if T is a (p, q; w) tensor density, then gw/2 T is a (p, q)-tensor. Thus (gw/2 T ) is a (p, q + 1)-tensor. To map this back to a tensor density of weight w, we multiply this by gw/2 , arriving at the denition T := g+w/2 (gw/2 T ) . Working this out explictly, one nds T = w ( g)T + tensor T , 2g 89 (4.21) (4.20)

where tensor just means the usual covariant derivative for (p, q)-tensors dened above. For example, for a scalar density one has = w ( g) . 2g (4.22)

In particular, since the determinant g is a scalar density of weight +2, it follows that g = 0 , (4.23)

which obviously simplies integrations by parts in integrals dened with the measure 4 gd x. 4.4 Main Properties of the Covariant Derivative

The main properties of the covariant derivative, in addition to those that were part of our postulates (like linearity and the Leibniz rule) are the following: 1. Commutes with Contraction This means that if A is a (p, q)-tensor and B is the (p 1, q 1)-tensor obtained by contraction over two particular indices, then the covariant derivative of B is the same as the covariant derivative of A followed by contraction over these two indices. This comes about because of a cancellation between the corresponding two Christoel symbols with opposite signs. Consider e.g. a (1,1)-tensor A and its contraction A . The latter is a scalar and hence its covariant derivative is just the partial derivative. This can also be obtained by taking rst the covariant derivative of A, A = A + A A , (4.24) and then contracting: A = A + A A = A . (4.25)

The most transparent way of stating this property is that the Kronecker delta is covariantly constant, i.e. that (4.26) = 0 . To see this, we use the Leibniz rule to calculate A... = (A... ) ... ... = ( A... ) ...

= ( A... ) + A... ... ... (4.27)

90

which is precisely the statement that covariant dierentiation and contraction commute. To establish that the Kronecker delta is covariantly constant, we follow the rules to nd = + = = 0 . (4.28) 2. The Metric is Covariantly Constant: g = 0 This is one of the key properties of the covariant derivative we have dened. I will give two arguments to establish this: (a) Since g is a tensor, we can choose any coordinate system we like to establish if this tensor is zero or not at a given point x. Choose an inertial coordinate system at x. Then the partial derivatives of the metric and the Christoel symbols are zero there. Therefore the covariant derivative of the metric is zero. Since g is a tensor, this is then true in every coordinate system. (b) The other argument is by direct calculation. Recalling the identity g = + , we calculate g = g g g = + = 0 . 3. Commutes with Raising and Lowering of Indices This is really a direct consequence of the covariant constancy of the metric. For example, if V is the covector obtained by lowering an index of the vector V , V = g V , then V = (g V ) = g V . (4.31) 4. Covariant Derivatives Commute on Scalars This is of course a familiar property of the ordinary partial derivative, but it is also true for the second covariant derivatives of a scalar and is a consequence of the symmetry of the Christoel symbols in the second and third indices and is also knowns as the no torsion property of the covariant derivative. Namely, we have = (4.30) (4.29)

= + = 0 . (4.32)

Note that the second covariant derivatives on higher rank tensors do not commute - we will come back to this in our discussion of the curvature tensor later on. 91

4.5

Tensor Analysis: Some Special Cases

In this section I will, without proof, give some useful special cases of covariant derivatives - covariant curl and divergence etc. - you should make sure that you can derive all of these yourself without any problems. 1. The Covariant Curl of a Covector One has U U = U U , (4.33)

because the symmetric Christoel symbols drop out in this antisymmetric linear combination. Thus the Maxwell eld strength F = A A is a tensor under general coordinate transformations, no metric or covariant derivative is needed to make it a tensor in a general space time. 2. The Covariant Curl of an Antisymmetric Tensor Let A be completely antisymmetric. Then, as for the curl of covectors, the metric and Christoel symbols drop out of the expression for the curl, i.e. one has [ A ] = [ A ] . (4.34)

Here the square brackets on the indices denote complete antisymmetrisation. In particular, the Bianchi identity for the Maxwell eld strength tensor is independent of the metric also in a general metric space time. 3. The Covariant Divergence of a Vector By the covariant divergence of a vector eld one means the scalar V = V + V . Now a useful identity for the contracted Christoel symbol is = g1/2 (g+1/2 ) . I will give a proof of this identity at the end of this subsection. Thus the covariant divergence can be written compactly as V = g1/2 (g+1/2 V ) , (4.37) (4.36) (4.35)

and one only needs to calculate g and its derivative, not the Christoel symbols themselves, to calculate the covariant divergence of a vector eld. 4. The Covariant Laplacian of a Scalar

92

How should the Laplacian be dened? Well, the obvious guess (something that is covariant and reduces to the ordinary Laplacian for the Minkowski metric) is 2 = g , which can alternatively be written as 2 = g = = = g (4.38) etc. Note that, even though the covariant derivative on scalars reduces to the ordinary partial derivative, so that one can write 2 = g , (4.39)

it makes no sense to write this as : since does not commute with the metric in general, the notation is at best ambiguous as it is not clear whether this should represent g or g or something altogether dierent. This ambiguity does not arise for the Minkowski metric, but of course it is present in general. A compact yet explicit expression for the Laplacian follows from the expression for the covariant divergence of a vector: 2 := g = =

g1/2 (g1/2 g ) .

(g )

(4.40)

This formula is also useful (and provides the quickest way of arriving at the result) if one just wants to write the ordinary at space Laplacian on R3 in, say, polar or cylindrical coordinates. To illustrate this, let us calculate the Laplacian for the standard metric on Rn+1 in polar coordinates. The standard procedure would be to rst determine the coordinate transformation xi = xi (r, angles), then calculate /xi , and nally assemble all the bits and pieces to calculate = i (/xi )2 . This is a pain. To calculate the Laplacian, we do not need to know the coordinate transformation, all we need is the metric. In polar coordinates, this metric takes the form ds2 (Rn+1 ) = dr 2 + r 2 d2 , n (4.41)

where d2 is the standard line-element on the unit n-sphere S n . The determinant n of this metric is g r 2n (times a function of the coordinates (angles) on the sphere). Thus, for n = 1 one has ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 and therefore
2 2 2 = r 1 (rg ) = r 1 r (rr ) + r 2 = r + r 1 r + r 2 .

(4.42)

In general, denoting the angular part of the Laplacian, i.e. the Laplacian of S n , by S n , one nds analogously
2 = r + nr 1 r + r 2 S n .

(4.43)

I hope you agree that this method is superior to the standard procedure. 93

5. The Covariant Form of Gauss Theorem Let V be a vector eld, V its divergence and recall that integrals in curved space are dened with respect to the integration measure g1/2 d4 x. Thus one has g1/2 d4 x V = d4 x (g1/2 V ) . (4.44)

Now the second term is an ordinary total derivative and thus, if V vanishes suciently rapidly at innity, one has g1/2 d4 x V = 0 . 6. The Covariant Divergence of an Antisymmetric Tensor For a (p, 0)-tensor T one has T = T + T + T + . . . (4.45)

= g1/2 (g1/2 T ) + T + . . . .

(4.46)

In particular, if A is completely antisymmetric, the Christoel terms disappear and one is left with A = g1/2 (g1/2 A ) . (4.47) 7. The Lie derivative of the Metric In section 2.5 we had encountered the expression (2.62) for the variation of the metric under an innitesimal coordinate transformation x = V , V g = V g + ( V )g + ( V )g . (4.48)

While we saw that this expression could be understood and deduced from the requirement that the variation of the metric is itself a tensorial object that transforms like the metric, the tensorial nature of the above expression is far from manifest. However, it has a very nice and simple expression in terms of covariant derivatives of V , namely V g = V + V (4.49)

(as is easily veried). This expression will be rederived (and placed into the general context of Lie derivatives and Killing vectors) in section 6. You will have noticed that many equations simplify considerably for completely antisymmetric tensors. In particular, their curl can be dened in a tensorial way without reference to any metric. This observation is at the heart of the coordinate independent calculus of dierential forms. In this context, the curl is known as the exterior derivative. 94

Likewise, Lie derivatives of tensors (section 6 and item 7 above) are automatically tensorial objects (and one can, but need not, make their tensorial nature manifest by writing these derivatives in terms of covariant derivatives). Here is an elementary proof of the identity (4.36), and a useful more general formula for the variation of the determinant of the metric, namely g = gg g . (4.50)

This proof is based on the standard cofactor or minor expansion of the determinant of a matrix (an alternative standard proof can, as also outlined below, be based on the identity det G = exp tr log G and its derivative or variation). The cofactor expansion formula for the determinant is g=

(1)+ g |m | ,

(4.51)

where |m | is the determinant of the minor of g , i.e. of the matrix one obtains by removing the th row and th column from g . It follows that g = (1)+ |m | . g Another consequence of (4.51) is (1)+ g |m | = 0 = , (4.53) (4.52)

since this is, in particular, the determinant of a matrix with g = g , i.e. of a matrix with two equal rows. Together, these two results can be written as (1)+ g |m | = g . (4.54)

Multiplying (4.52) by g and using (4.54), one nds g or the simple identity g = g g (4.55)

g = g g . g

(4.56)

Thus, for a general variation of the determinant under variation of the components we nd (4.50), g g = gg g . (4.57) g = g 95

This can also be written in matrix form, with G denoting the matrix with components (G) = g as log det G = tr G1 G . (4.58) In this form, the result can also be derived from variation of the remarkably useful identity det G = e tr log G (4.59) This identity, in turn, can be derived in an elementary way for diagonalisable G by noting that it holds trivially for diagonal matrices, and therefore, by the conjugation invariance of det and tr, also for diagonalisable matrices (like the metric). In particular, it follows from (4.50) that if the variation is the partial derivative one has g = or g1 g = g g . On the other hand, the contracted Christoel symbol is 1 = g g , 2 which establishes the identity (4.36). 4.6 Covariant Differentiation Along a Curve (4.62) (4.61) g g = gg g . g (4.60)

So far, we have dened covariant dierentiation for tensors dened everywhere in space time. Frequently, however, one encounters tensors that are only dened on curves - like the momentum of a particle which is only dened along its world line. In this section we will see how to dene covariant dierentiation along a curve. Thus consider a curve x ( ) (where could be, but need not be, proper time) and the tangent vector eld X (x( )) = x ( ). Now dene the covariant derivative along the curve, covariantising d/d , by d = x d = X = x . (4.63)

Frequently one also uses the (suggestive, but ugly) notation = D/D For example, for a vector one has V = x V + x V d = V (x( )) + (x( ))x ( )V (x( )) . d or D/d . (4.64)

(4.65)

For this to make sense, V needs to be dened only along the curve and not necessarily everywhere in space time. 96

This notion of covariant derivative along a curve permits us, in particular, to dene the (covariant) acceleration a of a curve x ( ) as the covariant derivative of the velocity u = x , a = x = x + x x = u u . (4.66) Thus we can characterise (anely parametrised) geodesics as those curves whose acceleration is zero, a reasonable and natural statement regarding the movement of freely falling particles. If they are not anely parametrised, as in (2.25), then instead of u u = 0 one has u u = u . (4.67) 4.7 Parallel Transport and Geodesics

We now come to the important notion of parallel transport of a tensor along a curve. Note that, in a general (curved) metric space time, it does not make sense to ask if two vectors dened at points x and y are parallel to each other or not. However, given a metric and a curve connecting these two points, one can compare the two by dragging one along the curve to the other using the covariant derivative. We say that a tensor T is parallel transported along the curve x ( ) if T = 0 . Here are some immediate consequences of this denition: 1. In a locally inertial coordinate system along the curve, this condition reduces to dT /d = 0, i.e. to the statement that the tensor does not change along the curve. Thus the above is indeed an appropriate tensorial generalisation of the intuitive notion of parallel transport to a general metric space-time. 2. The parallel transport condition is a rst order dierential equation along the curve and thus denes T ( ) given an initial value T (0 ). 3. Taking T to be the tangent vector X = x to the curve itself, the condition for parallel transport becomes X = 0 x + x x = 0 , (4.69) (4.68)

i.e. precisely the geodesic equation. We have already seen that geodesics are precisely the curves with zero acceleration. We can now equivalently characterise them by the property that their tangent vectors are parallel transported (do not change) along the curve. For this reason geodesics are also known as autoparallels.

97

4. Since the metric is covariantly constant, it is in particular parallel along any curve. Thus, in particular, if V is parallel transported, also its length remains constant along the curve, V = 0 (g V V ) = 0 . (4.70) In particular, we rediscover the fact claimed in (2.17) that the quantity g x x = X is constant along a geodesic. g X 5. Now let x ( ) be a geodesic and V parallel along this geodesic. Then, as one might intuitively expect, also the angle between V and the tangent vector to the curve X remains constant. This is a consequence of the fact that both the norm of V and the norm of X are constant along the curve and that d (g X V ) = (g X V ) = g (X )V + g X V = 0 d (4.71)

6. The physical meaning of parallel transport of a vector along a curve is that it corresponds to a physically invariant direction as determined e.g. by a Foucault pendulum or a perfect gyroscope. 4.8 Uniqueness of the Levi-Civita Connection (Christoffel symbols)

Recall that the transformation behaviour of the Christoel symbols, equation (1.115), was the key ingredient in the proof that the geodesic equation transforms like a vector under general coordinate transformations. Likewise, to show that the covariant derivative of a tensor is again a tensor all one needs to know is that the Christoel symbols transform in this way. Thus any other object could also be used to dene a co variant derivative (generalizing the partial derivative and mapping tensors to tensors) provided that it transforms in the same way as the Christoel symbols, i.e. provided that one has 2 x y x x + y = . (4.72) x y y x y y But this implies that the dierence C = transforms as a tensor. Thus, any such is of the form = + C (4.74) (4.73)

where C is a (1,2)-tensor. Therefore the question arises if the Christoel symbols we have been using are somehow singled out or preferred. In some sense, the answer is an immediate yes because it is this particular connection that enters in determining the paths of freely falling particles (the geodesics which extremise proper time). 98

Moreover, the covariant derivative as we have dened it has two important properties, namely that 1. the metric is covariantly constant, g = 0, and 2. the torsion is zero, i.e. the second covariant derivatives of a scalar commute. In fact, it turns out that these two conditions uniquely determine the to be the Christoel symbols. The second condition implies that the are symmetric in the two lower indices, [ , ] = 0 = . (4.75) The rst condition now allows one to express the in terms of the derivatives of the metric, leading uniquely to the familiar expression for the Christoel symbols : First of all, by denition / construction one has (e.g. from demanding the Leibniz rule for ) g = g g g g . (4.76) Requiring that this be zero implies in particular that 0 = g + g g

= g + g g + + = 2( )

(4.77)

(where the cancellations are entirely due to the assumed symmetry of the coecients in the last two indices). Thus = . This unique metric-compatible and torsion-free connection is also known as the Levi-Civita connection. It is the connection canonically associated to a space-time (manifold) equipped with a metric tensor. 4.9 Generalisations: Torsion and Non-Metricity

It is of course possible to relax either of the conditions (1) or (2), or both of them and, in particular, connections with torsion (relaxation of condition 2) are popular in certain circles and/or arise naturally in certain generalised (gauge) theories of gravity and in string theory. To discuss this a bit more systematically, we consider a general connection = + C (4.78)

with the canonical Levi-Civita connection, and C a (1, 2)-tensor. We will also use the corresponding (0, 3)-tensor C = g C . (4.79)

99

 Associated with we have the covariant derivative . Since will in general not be symmetric in its lower indices, in this section we need to be particularly careful with (and choose a convention for) the ordering of the lower indices in the covariant derivative. We will choose the convention that the last index always refers to the direction along which one is dierentiating, i.e. V = V + V (4.80)

etc. The reason for this choice is that one should think of the collection of objects (and ) as the coecients of a matrix-valued 1-form (cf. section 3.5) = dx , the matrices acting by rotation on vectors (and more general tensors), as in section 4.2. We now dene the torsion tensor T by [ , ] = T , and the non-metricity tensor Q by g = Q . In terms of the C these tensors can be written as T = C C = 2C[] Q = C + C = 2C() . (4.83) (4.82) T = g T , (4.81)

Thus the torsion is zero i C (and hence ) is symmetric in its lower indices, and the connection is compatible with the metric i C is anti-symmetric in its rst two indices. In particular, if the torsion is zero and the connection is metric-compatible, one has C = C and C = C C = 0 , (4.84) as one can see by the gymnastics C = C = C = C = C = C = C . (4.85)

Conversely, since the absence of torsion and non-metricity characterises the Levi-Civita connection, it should be possible to express the deviation C from the Levi-Civita connection entirely in terms of torsion and non-metricity. This is indeed the case. By repeating the calculation (4.77) in this more general context, one nds 2C() = Q + Q Q T T . Combining this with 2C[] = T , one obtains
1 C = 2 (T T T ) + 1 (Q + Q Q ) 2 + Q , T

(4.86)

(4.87)

100

with T = 1 (T T T ) = T 2 and
1 Q = 2 (Q + Q Q ) = Q .

(4.88) (4.89)

Thus we can now split a general connection more informatively into the 3 pieces = + T + Q .
Remarks:

(4.90)

1. The tensor T is known as the contorsion tensor (frquently misspelled as con tortion tensor). I am not aware of a commonly used name for Q , and will not try to invent one. The contorsion tensor is the linear combination of components of the torsion tensor that appear as the connection coecents of a general metric-compatible connection with torsion, Q = 0 = + T . (4.91)

In general it can have both symmetric and anti-symmetric components,

1 T() = 2 (T + T ) = T()

T = 1T , [] 2

(4.92)

but it cannot be symmetric (if the contorsion were symmetric, the torsion, and hence the contorsion, would be zero). If its symmetric part vanishes, then T is completely anti-symmetric, T = 0 () T = T[] . (4.93)

2. In general, for a connection , the notions of autoparallels (section 4.7), X = 0 x + x x = 0 , (4.94)

(i.e. curves characterised by the fact that their tangent vectors are parallel transported along the curve - this depends on a choice of connection) no longer coincides with the notion of geodesics (which are obtained by extremising proper time or distance, and which always lead to the Levi-Civita connection). However, this dierence disappears if C happens to be antisymmetric in its lower indices (e.g. for a metric-compatible connection with totally antisymmetric contorsion tensor), as one then has x + x x = x + x x . (4.95)

101

5
5.1

Physics in a Gravitational Field

The Principle of Minimal Coupling

The fact that the covariant derivative maps tensors to tensors and reduces to the ordinary partial derivative in a locally inertial coordinate system suggests the following algorithm for obtaining equations that satisfy the Principle of General Covariance: 1. Write down the Lorentz invariant equations of Special Relativity (e.g. those of relativistic mechanics, Maxwell theory, relativistic hydrodynamics, . . . ). 2. Wherever the Minkowski metric (or ab ) appears, replace it by g . 3. Wherever a partial derivative (or a ) appears, replace it by the covariant derivative . 4. In particular, for the proper-time derivative along a curve this entails replacing d/d by . 5. Wherever an integral d4 x appears, replace it by gd4 x

By construction, these equations are tensorial (generally covariant) and true in the absence of gravity and hence satisfy the Principle of General Covariance. Hence they will be true in the presence of gravitational elds (at least on scales small compared to that of the gravitational elds - if one considers higher derivatives of the metric tensor then there are other equations that one can write down, involving e.g. the curvature tensor, that are tensorial but reduce to the same equations in the absence of gravity). 5.2 Particle Mechanics in a Gravitational Field Revisited

We can see the power of the formalism we have developed so far by rederiving the laws of particle mechanics in a general gravitational eld. In Special Relativity, the motion of a particle with mass m moving under the inuence of some external force is governed by the equation dX f SR: = , (5.1) d m where f is the force four-vector and X = x . Thus, using the principle of minimal coupling, the equation in a general gravitational eld is f , (5.2) m Of course, the left hand side is just the covarinat acceleration, leading to the familiar geodesic equation for f = 0, but we see that it follows much faster from demanding general covariance (the principle of minimal coupling) than from our previous somewhat more convoluted considerations based e.g. on the equivalence principle. GR: X = 102

5.3

Klein-Gordon Scalar Field in a Gravitational Field

Here is where the formalism we have developed really pays o. We will see once again that, using the minimal coupling rule, we can immediately rewrite the equations for a scalar eld (here) and the Maxwell equations (below) in a form in which they are valid in an arbitrary gravitational eld. The action for a (real) free massive scalar eld in Special Relativity is SR: S[] =
1 d4 x 2 1 m2 2 2

(5.3)

To covariantise this, we replace d4 x gd4 x, g , and we could replace (but this makes no dierence on scalars). Therefore, the covariant action in a general gravitational eld is GR: S[, g ] =
1 gd4 x 2 g 1 m2 2 2

(5.4)

Here I have also indicated the dependence of the action on the metric g . This is not (yet) a dynamical eld, though, just the gravitational background eld. The equations of motion for one derives from this are S[, g ] = 0 2g m 2 = 0 (5.5)

where 2g = g , the Laplacian associated to the metric g . This is precisely what one would have obtained by applying the minimal coupling description to the Minkowski Klein-Gordon equation (2 m2 ) = 0. [If the relative sign of 2 and m2 in this equation looks unfamiliar to you, then this is probably due to the fact that in a course where you rst encountered the Klein-Gordon equation the opposite (particle physicists) sign convention for the Minkowski metric was used . . . ] A comment on how to derive this: if one thinks of the in the action as covariant derivatives, , then the calculation is identical to that in Minkowski space provided that one remembers that g = 0. If one sticks with the ordinary partial derivatives, then upon the usual integration by parts one picks up a term ( gg ) which then evidently leads to the Laplacian in the form (4.40). The energy-momentum tensor of a Klein-Gordon scalar eld in Minkowski space is SR: T = + L = 1 + m2 2 2 normalised so as to give for T00 the positive energy density
1 T00 = 2 (2 + ()2 + m2 2 ) .

(5.6)

(5.7)

This energy-momentum tensor is conserved for a solution to the equations of motion, 2 m 2 = 0 103 T = 0 . (5.8)

The corresponding energy-momentum tensor in a gravitational eld is then evidently GR: T = + g L = 1 g g + m2 2 2 (5.9)

and it is covariantly conserved for a solution to the equations of motion in a gravitational background, 2g m2 = 0 T = 0 . (5.10) Note that we cannot expect to have an ordinary conservation law because there is no translation invariance in a general gravitational background. We will come back to this issue below and in section 6. In particular, we cannot even derive the energy-momentum tensor (5.9) via Noethers theorem (applied to translations). We can, however, obtain it in a quite dierent (and perhaps at this point rather mysterious) way, namely by varying the action S[, g ] not with respect to but with respect to the metric! Indeed, recalling the formula (4.50) for the derivative / variation of the determinant of the metric from section 4.5, g = g g g = g g g (5.11)

(the second equality following from (g g ) = 0), one nds that under g g + g the action varies by
1 S[, g ] = 2

gd4 x T g

(5.12)

or

2 S[, g ] . T = g g

(5.13)

More should (and will) be said about this in due course . . . All of these considerations generalise in a straightforward way to (self-)interacting scalar elds, described by a potential V (). In particular, the action is S[, g ] = 4 1 gd x 2 g V () . (5.14)

and the energy-momentum tensor in that case has the form (5.9) with m2 /2 unsurprisingly also replaced by V (),
1 T = 2 g g g V () .

(5.15)

5.4

Maxwell Theory in a Gravitational Field

Given the vector potential A , the Maxwell eld strength tensor in Special Relativity is SR: F = A A . 104 (5.16)

Therefore in a general metric space time (gravitational eld) we have GR: F = A A = A A . (5.17)

Actually, this is a bit misleading. The eld strength tensor (two-form) in any, Abelian or non-Abelian, gauge theory is always given in terms of the gauge-covariant exterior derivative of the vector potential (connection), and as such has nothing whatsoever to do with the metric on space-time. So you should not really regard the rst equality in the above equation as the denition of F , but you should regard the second equality as a proof that F , always dened by F = A A , is a tensor. The mistake of adopting A A as the denition of F in a curved space time has led some poor souls to believe, and even claim in published papers, that in a space time with torsion, for which the second equality does not hold, the Maxwell eld strength tensor is modied by the torsion. This is nonsense.

In Special Relativity, the Maxwell equations read SR: F = J [ F] = 0 . Thus in a general gravitational eld (curved space time) these equations become GR: F = J [ F] = 0 , where now of course all indices are raised and lowered with the metric g , F = g g F . (5.20) (5.19) (5.18)

Regarding the use of the covariant derivative in the second equation, the same caveat as above applies. Using the results derived above, we can rewrite these two equations as GR: ( gF ) = gJ [ F] = 0 . (5.21)

It is clear from the rst of these equations that the Maxwell equations imply that the current is covariantly conserved: since ( gF ) = 0 by anti-symmetry of F , it follows that ( gJ ) = 0 J = 0 . (5.23) (5.22)

From the covariant version F = J this follows in the seemingly more roundabout way from the identity (7.22) for the commutator of covariant derivatives that we will 105

establish later, in the context of our discussion of the Riemann curvature tensor in section 7. The electromagnetic force acting on a particle of charge e is given in Special Relativity by SR: f = eF x . (5.24) Thus in General Relativity it becomes GR: f = eg F x . (5.25)

The Lorentz-invariant action of (vacuum) Maxwell theory is SR: GR:

1 S[A , g ] = 4 1 S[A ] = 4

d4 x F F 4 gd x g g F F

(5.26) (5.27)

gd4 x F F 1 4

4 (and to add sources, one adds gd x A J ). By varying this action with respect to the A one obtains the vacuum Maxwell equations F = 0, S[A , g ] = 0 A F = 0 . (5.28)

Instead of just adding a source-term by hand, a more coherent approach (which also provides the sources with their own dynamics) is to consider a matter action (minimally) coupled to the Maxwell eld, SM [] SM [, A ] . (5.29)

The combined Maxwell + matter action will then give rise to the Maxwell equations with a source provided that one denes the current J as the variation of the matter action with respect to the gauge eld, J SM [, A ] . A (5.30)

By the same rationale, we should dene the source term for the gravitational eld by the variation of the gravitationally minimally coupled matter action with respect to the metric. But the source term for the gravitational eld equation should be the energymomentum tensor. We have already seen that this works out correctly in the case of a scalar eld. Let us now see what we get here. Recall that in the case of Maxwell theory in Minkoswki space-time the canonical Noether energy-momentum tensor (associated to the translation invariance of the Maxwell action) L 1 = (5.31) A + L = F A 4 F F ( A ) 106

is (of course) conserved but neither symmetric nor gauge-invariant. This can be rectied by adding an identically conserved correction-term and/or by considering Lorentz transformations as well, not just translations, and taking into account the tensorial (nonscalar) nature of the vector potential under Lorentz-transformations (see the discussion in section 10.4 and the references given there for details). Either way one then nally arrives at the covariant (improved, symmetric and gauge-invariant) energy-momentum tensor of Maxwell theory, namely SR: T = F F + L = F F 1 F F , 4 (5.32)

normalised so as to give for T00 the positive denite energy density

1 T00 = 2 (E 2 + B 2 ) .

(5.33)

Therefore according to the minimal couplling description, the energy-momentum tensor in a gravitational eld is GR: T = F F 1 g F F , 4 (5.34)

where all indices are raised with the inverse metric g . The (non-)conservation equation SR: T = J F , (5.35)

(deriving this requires using both sets of Maxwell equations) becomes the covariant (non-)conservation law GR: T = J F . (5.36) This becomes a covariant conservation law provided that T is contructed from, and thus includes the contributions from, the complete matter action (i.e. Maxwell + sources + interaction terms). Once again we observe the remarkable fact that this energy-momentum tensor can be obtained by varying the action with respect to the metric, 2 S[A , g ] T = . g g (5.37)

This procedure automatically, and in general, gives rise to a symmetric and gauge invariant tensor by construction, without the need for correction terms, clearly an appealing feature. We will see later (section 10.3) that it is also automatically covariantly conserved on-shell by virtue of the general covariance of the action. In contrast to this, the naive covariantisation of the canonical (Noether) energy-momentum tensor (5.31), following the minimal coupling prescription,
1 = F A 4 g F F ,

(5.38)

is neither conserved ( = 0) nor covariantly conserved ( = 0) in a nonMinkowski background, the point being that in order to establish that = 0 in 107

Minkowski space, one uses the fact that partial derivatives commute. Thus, analogously, to establish that = 0, say, one needs to be able to commute the covariant derivatives and . But, as we will discuss at length in section 7, the characteristic and dening feature of a non-trivial curved space-time is that these covariant derivatives do not commute when acting on tensors other than scalars (their commutator dening the curvature tensor of the space-time). Thus, when it comes to dening the energy-momentum tensor for Maxwell theory, the covariant denition based on the variation of the matter action with respect to the metric wins hands down over the canonical denition based on Noethers theorem for translations. We will return to these matters in somewhat more generality in section 10, in particular section 10.4, when discussing the Lagrangian /variational formulation of general relativity. 5.5 On the Energy-Momentum Tensor for Weyl-invariant Actions

Another general feature of the energy-momentum tensor that is readily understood by adopting the denition 2 Smatter T = . (5.39) g g is the relation between Weyl invariance and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. We consider the situation where the minimally coupled matter action happens to be invariant under Weyl rescalings, i.e. under rescalings of the metric g (x) e 2(x) g (x) by a positive denite function, or innitesimally g (x) = 2(x)g (x) . (5.41) (5.40)

Examples of such actions are e.g. the action of a massless scalar eld (5.4) in D = 2 (space-time) dimensions S[, g ] = 1 2 d2 x gg (5.42)

and that of Maxwell theory (5.27) in D = 4 dimensions,

1 S[A , g ] = 4

d4 x

gg g F F .

(5.43)

Indeed, in that case the metric dependence of the action is precisely such that the combination of of the determinant g and the inverse metric that appears is invariant under Weyl rescalings, g e 2 g

gg gg D=2 D=4 gg g gg g 108

(5.44)

This is reected in the fact that the corresponding energy-momentum tensor is traceless precisely in these dimensions: from (5.9) and (5.34) one nds T = 1 g (g ) 2 T = F F 1 g F F 4 T = 1 (d 2)g 2
1 T = 4 (d 4)F F .

(5.45)

The relation between these two observations / assertions is provided by noting that if the matter action is invariant under Weyl rescalings one has
1 0 = Smatter = 2

D gd x T (x) g (x) (5.46) gdD x T (x)(x) .

D gd x T (x)g (x)(x) =

Since this is to be zero for all functions (x), this proves Invariance under Weyl Rescalings 5.6 T = 0 . (5.47)

Scalar Field in (1+1) Minkowski and Rindler Space-Time

As a concrete, and the simplest non-trivial, example, and an illustration of the above remarks regarding Weyl invariance, let us consider a massless scalar eld in (1+1)dimensions, in either the usual Minkowski coordinates, or in the Rindler coordinates discussed in sections 1.3 and 2.7 (we will in particular make use of the results in section 2.7). In inertial coordinates in (1+1)-dimensional Minkowski space-time, ds2 = dt2 + dx2 , the action and equation of motion of a massless scalar eld are
1 SM [] = 2

dtdx

2 2 2 = (t + x ) = 0 .

(5.48)

Thus a natural basis of solutions to this equation is provided by the plane waves fk exp(it + ikx), with k2 = 2 , i.e. k = , > 0, and their complex conjugates. For a given there are thus two linearly-independent positive frequency solutions, f (t, x) = 1 e i(t x) (4)1/2 1 e i(t + x) g (t, x) = (4)1/2

(5.49)

(the normalisation factors are inserted for QFT-pedantry reasons only and irrelevant for the following). Thus the basis of solutions splits into right-movers or right-moving modes f and left-movers g . It is thus convenient to introduce the corresponding null coordinates uM = t x, vM = t + x as in (2.99), in terms of which the solutions can be written as 1 f = f (uM ) = e iuM (4)1/2 (5.50) 1 ivM . g = g (vM ) = e (4)1/2 109

That the solutions split in this way could have also been deduced from the form of the wave operator in these lightcone (null) coordinates, namely 2 = 4uM vM , and the ensuing equation of motion, 2 = 0 = f (uM ) + g(vM ) . (5.51)

Now let us consider the same issue in Rindler coordinates. In terms of the coordinates (, ) (2.98), the metric takes the form (2.97) ds2 = e 2a (d 2 + d 2 ) . (5.52)

Note that, as mentioned in section 2.7, the metric in these coordinates is conformally at. Thus, by the reasoning above, in section 5.5, in particular the discussion around equation (5.44), we know that the action and equation of motion for a scalar eld in Rindler coordinates will look just like those in Minkowski coordinates, with the replacement (t, x) (, ), SR [] = 1 2 and 2g = 0
2 2 ( + ) = 0 .

1 gdd g = 2

dd ,

(5.53)

(5.54)

Thus by the same reasoning as above, the solutions can be split into left- and rightmovers and are conveniently written in terms of the Rindler lightcone coordinates (uR , vR ) = (2.100), 2g = 0 uR vR = 0 = f (uR ) + g(vR ) . (5.55)

The interest in these (fairly simple) considerations lies in the fact that the exponential relation (2.102) between the Minkowski and Rindler null coordinates uM = a1 e auR , vM = +a1 e +avR , (5.56)

reecting the exponential red-shift of a Rindler relative to an inertial observer (and vice-versa) implies that the notions of positive frequency with respect to Minkowski and Rindler time are inequivalent, e.g. in the sense that f (uM ), restricted to the right Rindler-wedge uM < 0, say, cannot be written as a superposition of Rindler right-moving positive frequency waves alone,

f (uM ) =
0

d (, )f (uR ) .

(5.57)

Of course, the f (uR ) and their complex conjugates f (uR ) provide a basis of solutions for the right-moving modes (in the right Rindler-wedge), so that one can certainly expand the Minkowski plane waves as

f (uM ) =
0

d (, )f (uR ) + (, )f (uR )

(5.58)

110

but necessarily with some of the (, ) = 0. If you know a little bit of quantum eld theory, you will be able to anticipate that this means that the notions of creation and annihilation operators are inequivalent, and that therefore what is the vacuum, say, for an inertial observer, will not be seen as the vacuum by the accelerating observer (and vice-versa). In the spirit of the equivalence principle (before studying gravity, let us study accelerations in at space), this Unruh Eect is a fascinating and rewarding rst step towards understanding (or appreciating the diculties encountered by) quantum eld theory in curved space-times, i.e. in nontrivial gravitational elds. For more on this see the references given in section 14.5. 5.7 Conserved Quantities from Covariantly Conserved Currents

In Special Relativity a conserved current J is characterised by the vanishing of its divergence, i.e. by J = 0. It leads to a conserved charge Q by integrating J over a spacelike hypersurface, say the one described by t = t0 . This is usually written as something like Q=
t=t0

J dS ,

(5.59)

where dS is the induced volume element on the hypersurface. That Q is conserved, i.e. independent of t0 , is a consequence of Q(t1 ) Q(t0 ) = d4 x J = 0 ,
V

(5.60)

where V is the four-volume R3 [t0 , t1 ]. This holds provided that J vanishes at spatial innity. Now in General Relativity, the conservation law will be replaced by the covariant conservation law J = 0, and one may wonder if this also leads to some conserved charges in the ordinary sense. The answer is yes because, recalling the formula for the covariant divergence of a vector, J = g1/2 (g1/2 J ) , (5.61) we see that J = 0 (g1/2 J ) = 0 , (5.62) so that g1/2 J is a conserved current in the ordinary sense. We then obtain conserved quantities in the ordinary sense by integrating J over a spacelike hypersurface . Using the generalised Gauss theorem appropriate for metric space-times, one can see that Q is invariant under deformations of . In order to write down more precise equations for the charges in this case, we would have to understand how a metric on space-time induces a metric (and hence volume element) on a spacelike hypersurface. This would require developing a certain amount 111

of formalism, useful for certain purposes in Cosmology and for developing a canonical formalism for General Relativity. But as this lies somewhat outside of the things we will do in this course, I will skip this. Suce it to say here that the rst step would be the introduction of a normalised normal vector n to the hypersurface , n n = 1 and to consider the object h = g + n n . As h n = 0 while h X = g X for any vector X normal to n , h induces a metric and volume element on . The factor g1/2 apearing in the current conservation law can be understood physically. To see what it means, split J into its space-time direction u , with u u = 1, and its magnitude as J = u . (5.63) This denes the average four-velocity of the conserved quantity represented by J and its density measured by an observer moving at that average velocity (rest mass density, charge density, number density, . . . ). Since u is a vector, in order for J to be a vector, has to be a scalar. Therefore this density is dened as per unit proper volume. The factor of g1/2 transforms this into density per coordinate volume and this quantity is conserved (in a comoving coordinate system where J 0 = , J i = 0). We will come back to this in the context of cosmology later on in this course, but for now just think of the following picture (Figure 20): take a balloon, draw lots of dots on it at random, representing particles or galaxies. Next choose some coordinate system on the balloon and draw the coordinate grid on it. Now inate or deate the balloon. This represents a time dependent metric, roughly of the form ds2 = r 2 (t)(d 2 + sin2 d2 ). You see that the number of dots per coordinate volume element does not change, whereas the number of dots per unit proper volume will. 5.8 Conserved Quantities from Covariantly Conserved Tensors?

In Special Relativity, if T is the energy-momentum tensor of a physical system, it satises an equation of the form T = G , (5.64)

where G represents the density of the external forces acting on the system. In particular, if there are no external forces, the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor is zero. For example, in the case of Maxwell theory and a current corresponding to a charged particle we have G = J F = F J = eF x , which is indeed the relevant external (Lorentz) force density. When there are no external forces, i.e. when one has taken into account the complete matter action, the total energy-momentum tensor is conserved. In that case, 112 (5.65)

T = J () denes four conserved currents, more or less (modulo Belinfante improvement terms, see e.g. the discussion in section 10.4 and the references given there) the currents associated to translation invariance of the action via Noethers theorem. One is thus in the setting of conserved currents of the previous section, and one can dene conserved quantities like total energy and momentum, P , and angular momentum J , by integrals of T 0 or x T 0 x T 0 (the latter being conserved if T is symmetric) over spacelike hypersurfaces. The situation in general relativity is somewhat dierent (exactly how dierent it is perceived to be is a matter of personal preconceptions or desires). In particular, in general relativity, and assuming that T is the complete matter energy-momentum tensor (otherwise we certainly cannot expect to derive any conservation law), we will have a conservation law of the form T = g1/2 (g1/2 T ) + T = 0 . (5.66)

We see that, due to the second term, this does not dene four conserved currents in the ordinary or covariant sense (and we will return to the interpretation of this equation, and the related issue of energy of the gravitational eld, in section 10.5). Nevertheless, in analogy with special relativity, one might like to attempt to dene conserved quantities like total energy and momentum, P , and angular momentum J , by integrals of T 0 or x T 0 x T 0 over spacelike hypersurfaces. However, these quantities are rather obviously not covariant, and nor are they conserved. This should perhaps not be too surprising because, after all, for a Poincar-invariant eld e theory in Minkowski space these quantities are preserved as a consequence of Poincar e invariance, i.e. because of the symmetries (isometries) of the Minkowski metric (as well as of the action). A generic metric has no isometries whatsoever (the explicit examples of metrics in these notes not withstanding, all of which exhibit at least some symmetries). As it has no symmetries, we have no reason to expect to nd associated conserved quantities in general. However, if there are symmetries then one should indeed be able to dene conserved quantities (think of Noethers theorem), one for each symmetry generator. In order to implement this we need to understand how to dene and detect isometries of the metric. For this we need the concepts of Lie derivatives and Killing vectors. Alternatively, one might try to construct a covariant current-like object (with a corresponding conservation law and the ensuing possibility to dene conserved charges) by contracting the energy-momentum tensor not with the coordinates but with a vector eld V , along the lines of (5.67) JV = T V . 113

At least this is now clearly a vector. But is it conserved? Calculating its covariant divergence, and using the fact that T is symmetric and conserved, one nds
JV = 1 T ( V + V ) . 2

(5.68)

Thus we would have a conserved current (and associated conserved charge by the previous section) if the vector eld V were such that it satises V + V = 0. The link between this observation and the one in the preceding paragraph regarding symmetries is that this is precisely the condition characterising (innitesimal) symmetries of metric: First of all, this is the condition we already found and encontered in (2.63), as reformulated in (4.49), for the inntesimal coordinate transformation x = V to generate a symmetry of the metric, thus leading to a conserved charge for geodesics. More generally, as we will discuss in detail in section 6 below, vector elds satisfying the equation V + V = 0 are indeed in one-to-one correspondence with innitesimal generators of continuous symmetries of a metric (isometries), giving a pleasing and coherent overall picture of symmetries and conservation laws in a gravitational eld.

114

6
6.1

The Lie Derivative, Symmetries and Killing Vectors

Symmetries of a Metric (Isometries): Preliminary Remarks

Before trying to gure out how to detect symmetries of a metric, or so-called isometries, let us decide what we mean by symmetries of a metric. For example, we would say that the Minkowski metric has the Poincar group as a group of symmetries, because the e corresponding coordinate transformations leave the metric invariant. Likewise, we would say that the standard metrics on the two- or three-sphere have rotational symmetries because they are invariant under rotations of the sphere. We can look at this in one of two ways: either as an active transformation, in which we rotate the sphere and note that nothing changes, or as a passive transformation, in which we do not move the sphere, all the points remain xed, and we just rotate the coordinate system. So this is tantamount to a relabelling of the points. From the latter (passive) point of view, the symmetry is again understood as an invariance of the metric under a particular family of coordinate transformations. Thus consider a metric g (x) in a coordinate system {x } and a change of coordinates x y (x ) (for the purposes of this and the following section it will be convenient not to label the two coordinate systems by dierent sets of indices). Of course, under such a coordinate transformation we get a new metric g , with
g (y(x)) =

x x g (x) . y y

(6.1)

Since here we do not distinguish coordinate indices associated to dierent coordinate systems, we now momentarily put primes on the objects themselves in order to keep track of what we are talking about. However, this by itself has nothing to do with possible symmetries of the metric. Thinking actively, in order to detect symmetries, we should e.g. compare the geometry, given by the line-element ds2 = g dx dx , at two dierent points x and y related by y (x). Thus we are led to consider the dierence g (y)dy dy g (x)dx dx . (6.2)

Using the invariance of the line-element under coordinate transformations, i.e. the usual tensorial transformation behaviour of the components of the metric, we see that we can also write this as the dierence
(g (y) g (y))dy dy .

(6.3)

Thus we deduce that what we mean by a symmetry, i.e. invariance of the metric under a coordinate transformation, is the statement
g (y) = g (y) .

(6.4)

115

From the passive point of view, in which a coordinate transformation represents a relabelling of the points of the space, this equation compares the new metric at a point P (with coordinates y ) with the old metric at the point P which has the same values of the old coordinates as the point P has in the new coordinate system, y (P ) = x (P ). The above equality then states that the new metric at the point P has the same functional dependence on the new coordinates as the old metric on the old coordinates at the point P . Thus a neighbourhood of P in the new coordinates looks identical to a neighbourhood of P in the old coordinates, and they can be mapped into each other isometrically, i.e. such that all the metric properties, like distances, are preserved. Thus either actively or passively one is led to the above condition. Note that to detect a continuous symmetry in this way, we only need to consider innitesimal coordinate transformations. In that case, the above amounts to the statement that metrically the space time looks the same when one moves innitesimally in the direction given by the coordinate transformation. 6.2 The Lie Derivative for Scalars

We now want to translate the above discussion into a condition for an innitesimal coordinate transformation x y (x) = x + V (x) (6.5)

to generate a symmetry of the metric. Here you can and should think of V as a vector eld because, even though coordinates themselves of course do not transform like vectors, their innitesimal variations x do, z = z (x) z = and we think of x as V . In fact, we will do something slightly more general than just trying to detect symmetries of the metric. After all, we can also speak of functions or vector elds with symmetries, and this can be extended to arbitrary tensor elds (although that may be harder to visualize). So, for a general tensor eld T we will want to compare T (y(x)) with T (y(x)) - this is of course equivalent to, and only technically a bit easier than, comparing T (x) with T (x). As usual, we start the discussion with scalars. In that case, we want to compare (y(x)) with (y(x)) = (x). We nd (y(x)) (y(x)) = (x + V ) (x) = V + O(2 ) . We now dene the Lie derivative of along the vector eld V to be LV := lim (y(x)) (y(x)) . 0 116 (6.8) (6.7)

z x x

(6.6)

Evaluating this, we nd LV = V . (6.9) Thus for a scalar, the Lie derivative is just the ordinary directional derivative, and this is as it should be since saying that a function has a certain symmetry amounts to the assertion that its derivative in a particular direction vanishes. 6.3 The Lie Derivative for Vector Fields

We now follow the same procedure for a vector eld W . We will need the matrix (y /x ) and its inverse for the above innitesimal coordinate transformation. We have y = + V , (6.10) x and x (6.11) = V + O(2 ) . y Thus we have W (y(x)) = y W (x) x = W (x) + W (x) V (x) ,

(6.12)

and W (y(x)) = W (x) + V W (x) + O(2 ) . Hence, dening the Lie derivative LV W of W by V by LV W := lim we nd LV W = V W W V . There are several important things to note about this expression: 1. The result looks non-covariant, i.e. non-tensorial. But as a dierence of two vectors at the same point (recall the limit 0) the result should again be a vector. This is indeed the case. One way to make this manifest is to rewrite (6.15) in terms of covariant derivatives, as LV W = V W W V = V W W V . (6.16) This shows that LW W is again a vector eld. Note, however, that the Lie derivative, in contrast to the covariant derivative, is dened without reference to any metric. 117 (6.15) W (y(x)) W (y(x)) , 0 (6.14) (6.13)

2. There is an alternative, and perhaps more intuitive, derivation of the above expression (6.15) for the Lie derivative of a vector eld along a vector eld, which makes both its tensorial character and its interpretation manifest (and which also generalises to other tensor elds; in fact we had already applied it to the metric in section 2.5 to deduce (2.62)). Namely, let us assume that we are initially in a coordinate system {y } adapted to V in the sense that V = /y a for some particular a, i.e. V = (so that a we are locally choosing the ow-lines of V as one of the coordinate lines). In this coordinate system we would naturally dene the change of a vector eld W along V as the partial derivative of W along y a , LV W :=

W . a y

(6.17)

We now consider an arbitrary coordinate transformation x = x (y ), and require that LV W transforms as a vector under coordinate transformations. This will then give us the expression for LV W in an arbitrary coordinate system: W = a y =
!

x y a x

y W x (6.18)

y (LV W ) . x

Disentangling this, using V = x /y a and x 2 y x y V y = = , a x x a x x y y x x one recovers the denition (6.15). 3. Note that (6.15) is antisymmetric in V and W . Hence it denes a commutator [V, W ] on the space of vector elds, [V, W ] := LV W = LW V . This is actually a Lie bracket, i.e. it satises the Jacobi identity [V, [W, X]] + [X, [V, W ]] + [W, [X, V ]] = 0 . (6.21) (6.20)

(6.19)

This can also be rephrased as the statement that the Lie derivative is also a derivation of the Lie bracket, i.e. that one has LV [W, X] = [LV W, X] + [W, LV X] . (6.22)

4. I want to reiterate at this point that it is extremely useful to think of vector elds as rst order linear dierential operators, via V V = V . In this case, the 118

Lie bracket [V, W ] is simply the ordinary commutator of dierential operators, [V, W ] = [V , W ] = V ( W ) + V W W ( V ) W V = (V W W V ) = (LV W ) = [V, W ] . (6.23)

From this point of view, the Jacobi identity is obvious. 5. Having equipped the space of vector elds with a Lie algebra structure, in fact with the structure of an innite-dimensional Lie algebra, it is fair to ask the Lie algebra of what group?. Well, we have seen above that we can think of vector elds as innitesimal generators of coordinate transformations. Hence, formally at least, the Lie algebra of vector elds is the Lie algebra of the group of coordinate transformations (passive point of view) or dieomorphisms (active point of view). 6.4 The Lie Derivative for other Tensor Fields

To extend the denition of the Lie derivative to other tensors, we can proceed in one of two ways. We can either extend the above procedure to other tensor elds by dening LV T := lim T (y(x)) T (y(x)) . 0 (6.24)

Or we can extend it to other tensors by proceeding as in the case of the covariant derivative, i.e. by demanding the Leibniz rule. In either case, the result can be rewritten in manifestly tensorial form in terms of covariant derivatives. For example, for a covector one nds LV A = V A + ( V )A = V A + ( V )A . (6.25)

The general result is that the Lie derivative of a (p, q)-tensor T is, like the covariant derivative, the sum of three kinds of terms: the directional covariant derivative of T along V , p terms with a minus sign, involving the covariant derivative of V contracted with each of the upper indices, and q terms with a plus sign, involving the convariant derivative of V contracted with each of the lower indices (note that the plus and minus signs are interchanged with respect to the covariant derivative). Thus, e.g., the Lie derivative of a (1,2)-tensor is LV T = V T T V + T V + T V . (6.26)

The fact that the Lie derivative provides a representation of the Lie algebra of vector elds by rst-order dierential operators on the space of (p, q)-tensors is expressed by the identity [LV , LW ] = L[V,W ] . (6.27) 119

6.5

The Lie Derivative of the Metric and Killing Vectors

The above general formula becomes particularly simple for the metric tensor g . The rst term is not there (because the metric is covariantly constant), so the Lie derivative is the sum of two terms (with plus signs) involving the covariant derivative of V , LV g = g V + g V . Lowering the index of V with the metric, this can be written more succinctly as LV g = V + V . (6.29) (6.28)

We are now ready to return to our discussion of isometries (symmetries of the metric). Evidently, an innitesimal coordinate transformation is a symmetry of the metric if LV g = 0, V generates an isometry V + V = 0 . (6.30) Vector elds V satisfying this equation are called Killing vectors - not because they kill the metric but after the 19th century mathematician W. Killing. An alternative way of writing the Killing equation, which is not manifestly covariant but which makes it manifest that only derivatives of the metric in the V -direction (and thus only the corresponding Christoel symbols) enter, is V + V = 0 V g + V g + V g = 0 . (6.31)

This is precisely the condition (2.63) we had encountered rst in our discussion of rst integrals of motion for the geodesic equation, and which we had already rewritten in terms of covariant derivatives, as in (6.29) above, in (4.49).
Remarks:

1. Since they are associated with symmetries of space time, and since symmetries are always of fundamental importance in physics, Killing vectors will play an important role in the following. Our most immediate concern will be with the conserved quantities associated with Killing vectors. We will return to a more detailed discussion of Killing vectors and symmetric space times in the context of Cosmology later on. For now, let us just note that by virtue of (6.27) Killing vectors form a Lie algebra, i.e. if V and W are Killing vectors, then also [V, W ] is a Killing vector, LV g = LW g = 0 L[V,W ] g = 0 . (6.32) Indeed one has L[V,W ]g = LV LW g LW LV g = 0 . This algebra is (a subalgebra of) the Lie algebra of the isometry group. 120 (6.33)

2. For example, the collection of all Killing vectors of the Minkowski metric generates the Lie algebra of the Poincar group. Indeed, for the Minkoski space-time in e inertial (Cartesian) coordinates, i.e. with the constant standard metric , the Killing condition simply becomes V + V = 0 , which is solved by V = x + (6.35)
where the are constant parameters and the constant matrices satisfy = . These are precisely the innitesimal Lorentz transformations and translations of the Poincar algebra. e

(6.34)

3. Another simple example is provided by the two-sphere: as mentioned before, in some obvious sense the standard metric on the two-sphere is rotationally invariant. In particular, with our new terminology we would expect the vector eld , i.e. the vector eld with components V = 1, V = 0 to be Killing. Let us check this. With the metric d 2 + sin2 d2 , the corresponding covector V , obtained by lowering the indices of the vector eld V , are V = 0 , V = sin2 . (6.36)

The Killing condition breaks up into three equations, and we verify V = V V

V + V = V V + V V V = V + V = 0 . = 2 sin cos 2 cot sin2 = 0 (6.37)

= sin2 = 0

Alternatively, using the non-covariant form (6.31) of the Killing equation, one nds, since V = 1, V = 0 are constant, that the Killing equation reduces to g = 0 , (6.38)

which is obviously satised. This is clearly a simpler and more ecient argument. By solving the Killing equations on S 2 , in addition to V(3) one nds two other linearly independent Killing vectors V(1) and V(2) , namely V(1) = sin + cot cos V(2) = cos cot sin V(3) = . 121 (6.39)

Note that V(3) evidently relates these two other Killing vectors by [V(3) , V(1) ] = V(2) Since one also has [V(1) , V(2) ] = V(3) , the V(a) form the Lie algebra [V(a) , V(b) ] = abc V(c) . (6.42) (6.41) , [V(3) , V(2) ] = V(1) . (6.40)

This is the Lie algebra of innitesimal rotations, i.e. of the rotation group SO(3), which is the isometry group of the standard metric on S 2 . 4. In general, if the components of the metric are all independent of a particular coordinate, say y, then by the above argument V = y is a Killing vector, y g = 0 , V = y is a Killing Vector (6.43)

Such a coordinate system, in which one of the coordinate lines agrees with the integral curves of the Killing vector, is said to be adapted to the Killing vector (or isometry) in question. As we did in section 2.5, one can also take the above equations as the starting point for what one means by a symmetry of the metric (isometry) and then simply transform it to an arbitrary coordinate system by requiring that it transforms as a (0, 2)-tensor. Then one arrives at the Killing condition in the form (6.31). 6.6 Killing Vectors and Conserved Quantities

We are used to the fact that symmetries lead to conserved quantities (Noethers theorem). For example, in classical mechanics, the angular momentum of a particle moving in a rotationally symmetric gravitational eld is conserved. In the present context, the concept of symmetries of a gravitational eld is replaced by symmetries of the metric, and we therefore expect conserved charges associated with the presence of Killing vectors. Here are the two most important classes of examples of this phenomenon: 1. Killing Vectors, Geodesics and Conserved Quantities Let K be a Killing vector eld, and x ( ) be a geodesic. Then the quantity K x is constant along the geodesic. Indeed, d (K x ) = ( K )x + K x d = K x x + 0 =
1 2 ( K

+ K )x x = 0 .

(6.44)

Note that this is precisely the conserved quantity QV (2.64) with V K deduced from Noethers theorem and the variational principle for geodesics in section 2.5. 122

2. Conserved Currents from the Energy-Momentum Tensor Let K be a Killing vector eld, and T the covariantly conserved symmetric energy-momentum tensor, T = 0. Then J = T K is a covariantly conserved current. Indeed, J = ( T )K + T K

= 0 + 1 T ( K + K ) = 0 . 2

(6.45)

Hence, as we now have a conserved current, we can associate with it a conserved charge in the way discussed above. The argument evidently does not rely on T being an energy-momentum tensor but only on the properties T = T and T = 0. Another situation of interest occurs when one has a theory invariant under Weyl rescalings and thus a traceless energy-momentum tensor (section 5.5). In that case one can associate conserved currents not only to Killing vectors elds but also to conformal Killing vectors C , satisfying C + C = 2(x)g (6.46)

for some function (x). Such conformal Killing vectors generate coordinate transformations that leave the metric invariant up to an overall (Weyl) rescaling. If the theory is invariant under such Weyl rescalings, then the energy-momntum tensor is traceless and there should also be a corresponding conserved current. Indeed, we have 2 Let C be a conformal Killing vector eld, and T a covariantly conserved symmetric and traceless energy-momentum tensor, T = T g = 0. Then J = T C is a covariantly conserved current. Indeed, J = ( T )C + T C

= 0 + 1 T ( C + C ) = (x)T g = 0 . 2

(6.47)

There is also a counterpart of statement 1 (conserved charges for geodesics) in the case of conformal Killing vectors, namely 1 Let C be a conformal Killing vector eld, and x ( ) be a null geodesic. Then the quantity C x is constant along the geodesic. Indeed, repeating the calculation leading to statement 1, for a null geodesic one has d 1 (C x ) = 2 ( C + C )x x = (x)g x x = 0 . d (6.48)

123

7
7.1

Curvature I: The Riemann Curvature Tensor

Curvature: Preliminary Remarks

We now come to one of the most important concepts of General Relativity and Riemannian Geometry, that of curvature and how to describe it in tensorial terms. Among other things, this will nally allow us to decide unambiguously if a given metric is just the (at) Minkowski metric in disguise or the metric of a genuinely curved space. It will also lead us fairly directly to the Einstein equations, i.e. to the eld equations for the gravitational eld. Recall that the equations that describe the behaviour of particles and elds in a gravitational eld involve the metric and the Christoel symbols determined by the metric. Thus the equations for the gravitational eld should be generally covariant (tensorial) dierential equations for the metric. But at rst, here we seem to face a dilemma. How can we write down covariant dierential equations for the metric when the covariant derivative of the metric is identically zero? Having come to this point, Einstein himself reached an impasse and required the help of his mathematician friend Marcel Grossmann whom he had asked to investigate if there were any tensors that could be built from the second derivatives of the metric. Grossmann soon found that this problem had indeed been addressed and solved in the mathematics literature, in particular by Riemann (generalising work of Gauss on curved surfaces), Ricci and Levi-Civita. It was shown by them that there are indeed non-trivial tensors that can be constructed from (ordinary) derivatives of the metric. These can then be used to write down covariant dierential equations for the metric. The most important among these are the Riemann curvature tensor and its various contractions. In fact, it is known that these are the only tensors that can be constructed from the metric and its rst and second derivatives, and they will therefore play a central role in all that follows. 7.2 The Riemann Curvature Tensor from the Commutator of Covariant Derivatives

Technically the most straightforward way of introducing the Riemann curvature tensor is via the commutator of covariant derivatives. As this is not geometrically the most intuitive way of introducing the concept of curvature, we will then, once we have dened it and studied its most important algebraic properties, study to which extent the curvature tensor reects the geometric properties of space time. As mentioned before, second covariant derivatives do not commute on (p, q)-tensors unless p = q = 0. However, the fact that they do commute on scalars has the pleasant 124

consequence that e.g. the commutator of covariant derivatives acting on a vector eld V does not involve any derivatives of V . In fact, I will rst show, without actually calculating the commutator, that [ , ]V = [ , ]V (7.1)

for any scalar eld . This implies that [ , ]V cannot depend on derivatives of V because if it did it would also have to depend on derivatives of . Hence, the commutator can be expressed purely algebraically in terms of V . As the dependence on V is clearly linear, there must therefore be an object R such that [ , ]V = R V . (7.2)

This can of course also be veried by a direct calculation, and we will come back to this below. For now let us just note that, since the left hand side of this equation is clearly a tensor for any V , the quotient theorem implies that R has to be a tensor. It is the famous Riemann-Christoel Curvature Tensor. Let us rst verify (7.1). We have V = ( )V + ( )( V ) + ( )( V ) + V . (7.3)

Thus, upon taking the commutator the second and third terms drop out and we are left with [ , ]V = ([ , ])V + [ , ]V = [ , ]V , (7.4) which is what we wanted to establish. By explicitly calculating the commutator, one can conrm the structure displayed in (7.2). This explicit calculation shows that the Riemann tensor (for short) is given by R = +
Remarks:

(7.5)

1. Note how useful the quotient theorem is in this case. It would be quite unpleasant to have to verify the tensorial nature of this expression by explicitly checking its behaviour under coordinate transformations. 2. Note also that this tensor is clearly zero for the Minkowski metric written in Cartesian coordinates. Hence it is also zero for the Minkowski metric written in any other coordinate system. We will prove the converse, that vanishing of the Riemann curvature tensor implies that the metric is equivalent to the Minkowski metric, below. 125

3. In the above we have dened the Riemann tensor by the relation (7.2) and then deduced the explicit expression (7.5). While this is, pragmatically speaking, a useful way of proceeding, it may be more logical to initially dene the Riemann tensor in a dierent way, e.g. directly by (7.5). In that case, (7.2) is a result rather than a denition, known as the Ricci identity. It is straightforward to extend the above to an action of the commutator [ , ] on arbitrary tensors. For covectors we have, since we can raise and lower the indices with the metric with impunity, [ , ]V = g [ , ]V = g R V = R V = R V . (7.6)

We will see later that the Riemann tensor is antisymmetric in its rst two indices. Hence we can also write [ , ]V = R V . (7.7) The extension to arbitrary (p, q)-tensors now follows the usual pattern, with one Riemann curvature tensor, contracted as for vectors, appearing for each of the p upper indices, and one Riemann curvature tensor, contracted as for covectors, for each of the q lower indices. Thus, e.g. for a (2, 0)-tensor T one has [ , ]T = R T + R T and for a (1,1)-tensor A one has [ , ]A = R A R A . (7.9) (7.8)

I will give two other versions of the fundamental formula (7.2) which are occasionally useful and used. 1. Instead of looking at the commutator [ , ] of two derivatives in the coordinate directions x and x , we can look at the commutator [X , Y ] of two directional covariant derivatives. Evidently, in calculating this commutator one will pick up new terms involving X Y Y X . Comparing with (6.16), we see that this is just [X, Y ] . The correct formula for the curvature tensor in this case is ([X , Y ] [X,Y ] )V = R X Y V . (7.10)

Note that, in this sense, the curvature measures the failure of the covariant derivative to provide a representation of the Lie algebra of vector elds. 126

2. Secondly, one can consider a net of curves x (s1 , s2 ) parmetrizing, say, a twodimensional surface, and look at the commutators of the covariant derivatives along the s1 - and s2 -curves. The formula one obtains in this case (it can be obtained from (7.10) by noting that X and Y commute in this case) is (s1 s2 s2 s1 ) V = R 7.3 dx dx V . ds1 ds2 (7.11)

Symmetries and Algebraic Properties of the Riemann Tensor

A priori, the Riemann tensor has 256 = 44 components in 4 dimensions. However, because of a large number of symmetries, the actual number of independent components is much smaller. In general, to read o all the symmetries from the formula (7.5) is dicult. One way to simplify things is to look at the Riemann curvature tensor at the origin x0 of a Riemann normal coordinate system (or some other inertial coordinate system). In that case, all the rst derivatives of the metric disappear and only the rst two terms of (7.5) contribute. One nds R (x0 ) = g ( )(x0 ) = ( )(x0 ) =
1 2 (g ,

+g , g , g , )(x0 ) .

(7.12)

In principle, this expression is suciently simple to allow one to read o all the symmetries of the Riemann tensor. However, it is more insightful to derive these symmetries in a dierent way, one which will also make clear why the Riemann tensor has these symmetries. 1. R = R This is obviously true from the denition or by construction. 2. R = R This is a consequence of the fact that the metric is covariantly constant. In fact, we can calculate 0 = [ , ]g

= R g + R g

= (R + R ) . 3. R[] = 0 R + R + R = 0

(7.13)

127

This Bianchi identity is a consequence of the fact that there is no torsion. In fact, applying [ , ] to the covector , a scalar, one has [ ] = 0 R [] = 0 . (7.14)

As this has to be true for all scalars , this implies R[] = 0 (to see this you could e.g. choose the (locally dened) coordinate functions (x) = x with = ). 4. R = R This identity, stating that the Riemann tensor is symmetric in its two pairs of indices, is not an independent symmetry but can be deduced from the three other symmetries by some not particularly interesting algebraic manipulations. We can now count how many independent components the Riemann tensor really has. (1) implies that the second pair of indices can only take N = (4 3)/2 = 6 independent values. (2) implies the same for the rst pair of indices. (4) thus says that the Riemann curvature tensor behaves like a symmetric (66) matrix and therefore has (67)/2 = 21 components. We now come to the remaining condition (3): if two of the indices in (3) are equal, (3) is equivalent to (4) and (4) we have already taken into account. With all indices unequal, (3) then provides one and only one more additional constraint. We conclude that the total number of independent components is 20.
Remarks:

1. Note that this agrees precisely with our previous counting in section 2.9 of how many of the second derivatives of the metric cannot be set to zero by a coordinate transformation: the second derivative of the metric has 100 independent components, to be compared with the 4 (4 5 6)/(2 3) = 80 components of the third derivatives of the coordinates. This also leaves 20 components. We thus see very explicitly that the Riemann curvature tensor contains all the coordinate independent information about the geometry up to second derivatives of the metric. In fact, it can be shown that in a Riemann normal coordinate system one has
1 g (x) = + 0 + 3 R (x0 )(x x0 ) (x x0 ) + O((x x0 )3 ) .

(7.15)

2. Just for the record, I note here that in general dimension D = d + 1 the Riemann tensor has D 2 (D 2 1)/12 independent components. This number arises as D 2 (D 2 1) 12 N = = D N (N + 1) 4 2 D(D 1) 2

(7.16)

128

and describes (as above) the number of independent components of a symmetric (N N )-matrix, now subject to D conditions which arise from all the possibilities 4 of choosing 4 out of D possible distinct values for the indices in (3). Just as for D = 4, this number of components of the Riemann tensor coincides with the number of second derivatives of the metric minus the number of independent components of the third derivatives of the coordinates determined in (2.133), D(D + 1)(D + 2) D 2 (D 2 1) D(D + 1) D(D + 1) D = . 2 2 23 12 (7.17)

For D = 2 this formula predicts one independent component, and this is as it should be. Rather obviously the only independent non-vanishing component of the Riemann tensor in this case is R1212 . Finally, a word of warning: there are a large number of sign conventions involved in the denition of the Riemann tensor (and its contractions we will discuss below), so whenever reading a book or article, in particular when you want to use results or equations presented there, make sure what conventions are being used and either adopt those or translate the results into some other convention. As a check: the conventions used here are such that R as well as the curvature scalar (to be introduced below) are positive for the standard metric on the two-sphere. 7.4 The Ricci Tensor and the Ricci Scalar

The Riemann tensor, as we have seen, is a four-index tensor. For many purposes this is not the most useful object. But we can create new tensors by contractions of the Riemann tensor. Due to the symmetries of the Riemann tensor, there is essentially only one possibility, namely the Ricci tensor R := R = g R . (7.18)

It arises naturally from the denition (7.2) of the Riemann tensor in terms of commutators of covarinat derivatives, when one considers a contracted commutator, [ , ]V = R V [ , ]V = R V R V . (7.19)

It follows from the symmetries of the Riemann tensor that R is symmetric. Indeed R = g R = g R = R = R . (7.20)

Thus, for D = 4, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components, for D = 3 it has 6, while for D = 2 there is only 1 because there is only one independent component of the Riemann curvature tensor to start o with.

129

Contracting (7.8), one consequence of the symmetry of the Ricci tensor is the useful general result [ , ]T = R (T T ) = 0 (7.21) for any tensor T . If T = A is antisymmetric, A = A , it is not necessary to take the commutator, so one also has A = A
1 ( A ) = 2 [ , ]A = 0 .

(7.22)

Note that this can also be deduced (without knowing anything about curvature in general or the Ricci tensor in particular) from the general expression (4.47) for the divergence of an anti-symmetric tensor, A = g1/2 (g1/2 A ) A = g1/2 (g1/2 A ) = 0 . (7.23)

There is one more contraction of the Riemann tensor we can perform, namely on the Ricci tensor itself, to obtain what is called the Ricci scalar or curvature scalar R := g R .
Remarks:

(7.24)

1. One might have thought that in four dimensions there is another way of constructing a scalar, by contracting the Riemann tensor with the Levi-Civita tensor, but R = 0 (7.25) because of the Bianchi identity. 2. Note that for D = 2 the Riemann curvature tensor has as many independent components as the Ricci scalar, namely one, and that in three dimensions the Ricci tensor has as many components as the Riemann tensor, whereas in four dimensions there are strictly less components of the Ricci tensor than of the Riemann tensor. This has profound implications for the dynamics of gravity in these dimensions. In fact, we will see that it is only in dimensions D > 3 that gravity becomes truly dynamical, where empty space can be curved, where gravitational waves can exist etc. 7.5 An Example: The Curvature Tensor of the Two-Sphere

To see how all of this can be done in practice, let us work out the example of the two-sphere of unit radius. We already know the Christoel symbols, = cot , = sin cos , 130 (7.26)

and we know that the Riemann curvature tensor has only one independent component. Let us therefore work out R . From the denition we nd R = + . The second and third terms are manifestly zero, and we are left with R = ( sin cos ) + sin cos cot = sin2 . Thus we have R = R = sin2 R = 1 . Therefore the Ricci tensor R has the components R = 1 R = 0 R = sin2 . These equations can succinctly be written as R = g , (7.31) (7.30) (7.29) (7.28) (7.27)

showing that the standard metric on the two-sphere is what we will later call an Einstein metric. The Ricci scalar is R = g R + g R 1 = 1+ sin2 sin2 = 2 .

(7.32)

In particular, we have here our rst concrete example of a space with non-trivial, in fact positive, curvature. Question: what is the curvature scalar of a sphere of radius a? Rather than redoing the calculation in that case, let us observe rst of all that the Christoel symbols are invariant under constant rescalings of the metric because they are schematically of the form g1 g. Therefore the Riemann curvature tensor, which only involves derivatives and products of Christoel symbols, is also invariant. Hence the Ricci tensor, which is just a contraction of the Riemann tensor, is also invariant. However, to construct the Ricci scalar, one needs the inverse metric. This introduces an explicit a-dependence and the result is that the curvature scalar of a sphere of radius a is R = 2/a2 . In particular, the curvature scalar of a large sphere is smaller than that of a small sphere. This result could also have been obtained on purely dimensional grounds. The curvature scalar is constructed from second derivatives of the metric. Hence it has lengthdimension (-2). Therefore for a sphere of radius a, R has to be proportional to 1/a2 . Comparing with the known result for a = 1 determines R = 2/a2 , as before. 131

7.6

More on Curvature in 2 (spacelike) Dimensions

We can generalise the previous example somewhat, in this way connecting our considerations with the classical realm of the dierential geometry of surfaces, in particular with the Gauss Curvature and with the Liouville Equation. It is a simple exercise to derive the relation between the one independent component, say R1212 , of the Riemann tensor, and the scalar curvature. First of all, the Ricci tensor is (7.33) R = R = R11 + R22 so that the scalar cruvature is R = g R = g11 R2121 + g12 R1112 + g21 R2221 + g22 R1212 . (7.34)

Using the fact that in 2 dimensions the components of the inverse metric are explicitly given by g22 g12 1 g = (7.35) g11 g22 g12 g21 g21 g11 and the (anti-)symmetry properties (1) and (2) of the Riemann tensor, one nds R= 2 R1212 . g11 g22 g12 g21 (7.36)

The factor of 2 in this equation is a consequence of our (and the conventional) denition of the Riemann curvature tensor, and is responsible for the fact that the scalar curvature of the unit 2-sphere is R = +2. In two dimensions, it is more convenient and natural to absorb this factor of 2 into the denition of the (scalar) curvature, and what one then gets is the classical Gauss Curvature 1 K := R 2 of a two-dimensional surface. When we specialise the above to the class of conformally at metrics with line element ds2 = e 2h(x, y) (dx2 + dy 2 ) g = exp 2h(x, y) (7.38) (7.37)

one nds the simple (and easy to memorise) results Rx = h yxy and K = e 2h h (7.40)
2 2 where = x + y is the 2-dimensional Laplacian with respect to the at Euclidean metric dx2 + dy 2 . Thus a surface with constant curvature K = k is given by a solution to the non-linear dierential equation

(7.39)

h + ke 2h = 0 . 132

(7.41)

This is the (in-)famous Liouville equation, which plays a fundamental role in many branches of mathematics (and mathematical physics). In terms of the intrinsic Laplacian g associated to the metric g , the Gaussian cuvature and the Liouville equation can also simply be written as K = g h , g h + k = 0 , (7.42)

since, due to the peculiarities of 2 dimensions, gg in independent of h, i.e. is conformally invariant (as we already observed in a dierent context in section 5.5, cf. (5.44)), gg = e 2h e 2h = 1 1 g = ( gg ) = ( ) = e 2h . g g

(7.43)

I will not attempt to say anything about the general (local) solution of this equation (which roughly speaking depends on an arbitrary meromorphic function of the complex coordinate z = x + iy), but close this section with some special (and particularly prominent) solutions of this equation. 1. It is easy to see that e 2h(x, y) = y 2 h(x, y) = ln y (7.44)

solves the Liouville equation with k = 1. The corresponding space of constant negative curvature is the Poincar upper-half plane model of the hyperbolic gee ometry, dx2 + dy 2 ds2 = ( (x, y) R2 , y > 0 ) . (7.45) y2 By the coordinate transformation y = ez this is mapped to the equivalent metric ds2 = dz 2 + e 2z dx2 on the entire (x, z)-plane. 2. Another solution (for any k) is the rotationally invariant function e 2h(x, y) = 4(1 + k(x2 + y 2 ))2 h = ln(1 + k(x2 + y 2 )) + const. (7.47) (7.46)

(a) For k = 0 one nds the at (zero curvature) Euclidean metric on R2 . (b) For k = +1, one obtains the metric ds2 = 4 dx2 + dy 2 . (1 + x2 + y 2 )2 (7.48)

This is the constant positive curvature metric on the Riemann sphere one gets by stereographic projection of the standard metric on the two-sphere S 2 to the (x, y)-plane. 133

(c) For k = 1, one nds ds2 = 4 dx2 + dy 2 (1 (x2 + y 2 ))2 ( {x, y} R2 , x2 + y 2 < 1 ) . (7.49)

This is the Poincar disc model of the hyperbolic geometry, dened in the e interior of the unit disc in R2 . The two metrics (7.45) and (7.49) are isometric, i.e. related by a (not completely evident) coordinate transformation. It is worth remarking that the Poincar upper-half plane model of a space with constant e negative curvature readily generalises to arbitrary dimension and signature. Thus ds2 = dx2 + dy 2 y2 , dx2 = ab dxa dxb or dx2 = ab dxa dxb (7.50)

is the metric of a D = (d+1)-dimensional space(-time) with constant negative curvature. The Lorentzian metric will reappear later (sections 18.5 and 19) as a solution to the Einstein equations with a negative cosmological constant, and is in this context known as anti-de Sitter metric (in Poincar coordinates, which cover only a part of the complete e space-time). 7.7 Bianchi Identities

So far, we have discussed algebraic properties of the Riemann tensor. But the Riemann tensor also satises some dierential identities which, in particular in their contracted form, will be of fundamental importance in the following. The rst identity is easy to derive. As a (dierential) operator the covariant derivative clearly satises the Jacobi identity [[ , [ , ] ]] = 0 (7.51)

If you do not believe this, just write out the twelve relevant terms explicitly to see that this identity is true: [[ , [ , ] ]] + + + + + = 0 . (7.52) Hence, recalling the denition of the curvature tensor in terms of commutators of covariant derivatives, we obtain Jacobi Identity Bianchi identity: 134 R[ ;] = 0 [ R] = 0 . (7.53)

Because of the antisymmetry of the Riemann tensor in the rst two indices, this can also be written more explicitly as R + R + R = 0 . By contracting this with g we obtain R R + R = 0 . (7.55) (7.54)

To also turn the last term into a Ricci tensor we contract once more, with g to obtain the contracted Bianchi identity R R + R = 0 , or (R 1 g R) = 0 . 2 The tensor appearing in this equation is the so-called Einstein tensor G ,
1 G = R 2 g R .

(7.56)

(7.57)

(7.58)

It is the unique divergence-free tensor that can be built from the metric and its rst and second derivatives (apart from g itself, of course), and this is why it will play the central role in the Einstein equations for the gravitational eld. 7.8 Another Look at the Principle of General Covariance

In the section on the principle of minimal coupling, I mentioned that this algorithm or the principle of general covariance do not necessarily x the equations uniquely. In other words, there could be more than one generally covariant equation which reduces to a given equation in Minkowski space. Having the curvature tensor at our disposal now, we can construct examples of this kind. As a rst example, consider a massive particle with spin, characterised by a spin tensor S . We could imagine the possibility that in a gravitiational eld there is a coupling between the spin and the curvature, so that the particle does not follow a geodesic, but rather obeys an equation of the (Mathisson-Papapetrou) type x + x x + aR x S = 0 . (7.59)

This equation is clearly tensorial (generally covariant) and reduces to the equation for a straight line in Minkowski space, but diers from the geodesic equation (which has the same properties) for a = 0. But, since the Riemann tensor is second order in derivatives, a has to be a dimensionful quantity (of length dimension 1) for this equation to make sense. Thus the rationale for usually not considering such additional terms is that they 135

are irrelevant at scales large compared to some characteristic size of the particle, say its Compton wave length. We will mostly be dealing with weak gravitational elds and other low-energy phenomena and under those circumstances the minimal coupling rule can be trusted. However, it is not ruled out that under extreme conditions (very strong or strongly uctuating gravitational elds) such terms are actually present and relevant. For another example, consider the wave equation for a (massless, say) scalar eld . In Minkowski space, this is the Klein-Gordon equation which has the obvious curved space analogue (4.39) 2 = 0 (7.60) obtained by the minimal coupling description. However, one could equally well postulate the equation (2 + aR) = 0 , (7.61) where a is a (dimensionless) constant and R is the scalar curvature. This equation is generally covariant, and reduces to the ordinary Klein-Gordon equation in Minkowski space, so this is an acceptable curved-space extension of the wave equation for a scalar eld. Moreover, since here a is dimensionless, we cannot argue as above that this ambiguity is irrelevant for weak elds. Indeed, one frequently postulates a specic nonzero value for a which makes the wave equation conformally invariant (invariant under position-dependent rescalings of the metric) for massless elds. This is an ambiguity we have to live with. 7.9 Generalisations

We have dened the Riemann tensor via the commutator of covariant derivatives (7.2) [ , ]V = R V (7.62)

associated to the Levi-Civita connection (Christoel symbols), or, equivalently, by the relation (7.5), R = + . (7.63) In order to show explicitly (rather than by appealing to (7.62)) that this transforms as a tensor, all that one needs is the characteristic non-tensorial transformation behaviour of the Christoel symbols . But, as discussed in sections 4.8 and 4.9, an arbitrary connection that can be used to dene a tensorial covariant derivative has the same non-tensorial transformation behaviour. Therefore R R () = + (7.64)

136

 denes a tensor for any connection, namely the curvature tensor of the connection . It is related to the commutator of covariant derivatives by [ , ]V = R V + ( ) V = R V + T V , (7.65)

where T is the torsion tensor. As before, one can also dene the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar by R R () = R , R R() = g R . (7.66)

However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the symmetry properties and Bianchi identities satised by these generalised curvature tensors will in general dier from those of the Riemann-Christoel tensor. This should be clear from the way we derived the symmetries of the Riemann tensor in section 7.3, where we related the symmetries to the properties (metricity, no torsion) that characterise the canonical Levi-Civita connection (Christoel symbols). For example, in general the Ricci tensor will not be symmetric, the Bianchi identity R[] = 0 will be replaced by an identity relating R[] to the 3 torsion (and its covariant derivative), etc.

For more on this and related topics, see e.g. section 1 of T. Ortin, Gravity and Strings.

137

Curvature II: Geometry and Curvature

In this section, we will discuss three properties of the Riemann curvature tensor that illustrate its geometric signicance and thus, a posteriori, justify equating the commutator of covariant derivatives with the intuitive concept of curvature. These properties are the path-dependence of parallel transport in the presence of curvature, the fact that the space-time metric is equivalent to the (in an obvious sense at) Minkowski metric if and only if the Riemann curvature tensor vanishes, and the geodesic deviation equation describing the eect of curvature on the trajectories of families of freely falling particles. 8.1 Intrinsic Geometry, Curvature and Parallel Transport

The Riemann curvature tensor and its relatives, introduced above, measure the intrinsic geometry and curvature of a space or space-time. This means that they can be calculated by making experiments and measurements on the space itself. Such experiments might involve things like checking if the interior angles of a triangle add up to or not. An even better method, the subject of this section, is to check the properties of parallel transport. The tell-tale sign (or smoking gun) of the presence of curvature is the fact that parallel transport is path dependent, i.e. that parallel transporting a vector V from a point A to a point B along two dierent paths will in general produce two dierent vectors at B. Another way of saying this is that parallel transporting a vector around a closed loop at A will in general produce a new vector at A which diers from the initial vector. This is easy to see in the case of the two-sphere (see Figure 8). Since all the great circles on a two-sphere are geodesics, in particular the segments N-C, N-E, and E-C in the gure, we know that in order to parallel transport a vector along such a line we just need to make sure that its length and the angle between the vector and the geodesic line are constant. Thus imagine a vector 1 at the north pole N, pointing downwards along the line N-C-S. First parallel transport this along N-C to the point C. There we will obtain the vector 2, pointing downwards along C-S. Alternatively imagine parallel transporting the vector 1 rst to the point E. Since the vector has to remain at a constant (right) angle to the line N-E, at the point E parallel transport will produce the vector 3 pointing westwards along E-C. Now parallel transporting this vector along E-C to C will produce the vector 4 at C. This vector clearly diers from the vector 2 that was obtained by parallel transporting along N-C instead of N-E-C.

138

N 1

4 C

E 3

Figure 8: Figure illustrating the path dependence of parallel transport on a curved space: Vector 1 at N can be parallel transported along the geodesic N-S to C, giving rise to Vector 2. Alternatively, it can rst be transported along the geodesic N-E (Vector 3) and then along E-C to give the Vector 4. Clearly these two are dierent. The angle between them reects the curvature of the two-sphere. To illustrate the claim about closed loops above, imagine parallel transporting vector 1 along the closed loop N-E-C-N from N to N. In order to complete this loop, we still have to parallel transport vector 4 back up to N. Clearly this will give a vector, not indicated in the gure, dierent from (and pointing roughly at a right angle to) the vector 1 we started o with. This intrinsic geometry and curvature described above should be contrasted with the extrinsic geometry which depends on how the space may be embedded in some larger space. For example, a cylinder can be obtained by rolling up R2 . It clearly inherits the at metric from R2 and if you calculate its curvature tensor you will nd that it is zero. Thus, the intrinsic curvature of the cylinder is zero, and the fact that it looks curved to an outside observer is not something that can be detected by somebody living on the cylinder. For example, parallel transport is rather obviously path independent. As we have no intention of embedding space-time into something higher dimensional, we will only be concerned with intrinsic geometry in the following. However, if you would for example be interested in the properties of spacelike hypersurfaces in space-time, then aspects of both intrinsic and extrinsic geometry of that hypersurface would be relevant. The precise statement regarding the relation between the path dependence of parallel 139

transport and the presence of curvature is the following. If one parallel transports a covector V (I use a covector instead of a vector only to save myself a few minus signs here and there) along a closed innitesimal loop x ( ) with, say, x(0 ) = x(1 ) = x0 , then one has 1 V (1 ) V (0 ) = 2 ( x dx )R (x0 )V (0 ) . (8.1) Thus an arbitrary vector V will not change under parallel transport around an arbitrary small loop at x0 only if the curvature tensor at x0 is zero. This can of course be extended to nite loops, but the important point is that in order to detect curvature at a given point one only requires parallel transport along innitesimal loops. Before turning to a proof of this result, I just want to note that intuitively it can be understood directly from the denition of the curvature tensor (7.2). Imagine that the innitesimal loop is actually a tiny parallelogram made up of the coordinate lines x1 and x2 . Parallel transport along x1 is governed by the equation 1 V = 0, that along x2 by 2 V = 0. The fact that parallel transporting rst along x1 and then along x2 can be dierent from doing it the other way around is precisely the statement that 1 and 2 do not commute, i.e. that some of the components R12 of the curvature tensor are non-zero. To establish (8.1) we rst reformulate the condition of parallel transport, V = 0

d V = x V d

(8.2)

with the initial condition at = 0 as the integral equation V ( ) = V (0 ) +

0

d (x( ))x ( )V ( ) .

(8.3)

As usual, such an equation can be solved by iteration (leading to a time-ordered exponential). Keeping only the rst two non-trivial terms in the iteration, one has

V ( ) = V (0 ) +
0

d (x( ))x ( )V (0 )

+
0

d (x( ))x ( ) (x( ))x ( )V (0 ) (8.4)

+...

For suciently small (innitesimal) loops, we can expand the Christoel symbols as (x( )) = (x0 ) + (x( ) x0 ) ( )(x0 ) + . . . (8.5)

The linear term in the expansion of V ( ) arises from the zeroth order contribution (x0 ) in the rst order (single integral) term in (8.4), [V (1 ) V (0 )](1) = (x0 )V (0 )( 140
1 0

d x ( )) .

(8.6)

Now the important observation is that, for a closed loop, the integral in brackets is zero,
1 0

d x ( ) = x (1 ) x (0 ) = 0 .

(8.7)

Thus the change in V ( ), when transported along a small loop, is at least of second order. Such second order terms arise in two dierent ways, from the rst order term in the expansion of (x) in the rst order term in (8.4), and from the zeroth order (x ) in the quadratic (double integral) term in (8.4), terms 0 [V (1 ) V (0 )](2) = ( )(x0 )V (0 )( + ( )(x0 )V (0 )
1 0

d (x( ) x0 ) x ( )) d
0

1 0

d x ( )x ( ) (8.8)

The -integral can be performed explicitly,

1

d
0

d x ( )x ( ) =

1 0

d x ( )(x( ) x0 ) =

1 0

d x ( )x ( ) (8.9)

and therefore we nd V (1 ) V (0 ) ( + )(x0 )V (0 )(

1 0

d x ( )x ( ))

(8.10)

The nal observation we need is that the remaining integral is anti-symmetric in the indices , , which follows immediately from
1 0

d (x ( )x ( ) + x ( )x ( ) =

1 0

d (x ( )x ( )) = 0 . d

(8.11)

It now follows from (8.10) and the denition of the Riemann tensor that V (1 ) V (0 ) = 1 ( 2 8.2 x dx )R (x0 )V (0 ) . (8.12)

Vanishing Riemann Tensor and Existence of Flat Coordinates

We are now nally in a position to prove the converse to the statement that the Minkowski metric has vanishing Riemann tensor. Namely, we will see that when the Riemann tensor of a metric vanishes, there are coordinates in which the metric is the standard Minkowski metric. Since the opposite of curved is at, this then allows one to unambiguously refer to the Minkowski metric as the at metric, and to Minkowski space as at space(-time). So let us assume that we are given a metric with vanishing Riemann tensor. Then, by the above, parallel transport is path independent and we can, in particular, extend a vector V (x0 ) to a vector eld everywhere in space-time: to dene V (x1 ) we choose any 141

path from x0 to x1 and use parallel transport along that path. In particular, the vector eld V , dened in this way, will be covariantly constant or parallel, V = 0. We can also do this for four linearly independent vectors Va at x0 and obtain four covariantly constant (parallel) vector elds which are linearly independent at every point. An alternative way of saying or seeing this is the following: The integrability condition for the equation V = 0 is V = 0 [ , ]V = R V = 0 . (8.13)

This means that the (4 4) matrices M (, ) with coecients M (, ) = R have a zero eigenvalue. If this integrability condition is satised, a solution to V can be found. If one wants four linearly independent parallel vector elds, then the matrices M (, ) must have four zero eigenvalues, i.e. they are zero and therefore R = 0. If this condition is satised, all the integrability conditions are satised and there will be four linearly independent covariantly constant vector elds - the same conclusion as above. We will now use this result in the proof, but for covectors instead of vectors. Clearly this makes no dierence: if V is a parallel vector eld, then g V is a parallel covector eld. Fix some point x0 . At x0 , there will be an invertible matrix ea such that g (x0 )ea eb = ab . Now we solve the equations
a a a E = 0 E = E

(8.14)

(8.15)

a with the initial condition E (x0 ) = ea . This gives rise to four linearly independent a. parallel covectors E

Now it follows from (8.15) that

a a E = E .

(8.16)

Therefore locally there are four scalars a such that

a E =

a . x

(8.17)

These are already the at coordinates we have been looking for. To see this, consider a b a the expression g E E . This is clearly constant because the metric and the E are covariantly constant, a b a b (g E E ) = (g E E ) = 0 . (8.18) But at x0 , this is just the at metric and thus
a b a b (g E E )(x) = (g E E )(x0 ) = ab .

(8.19)

142

Summing this up, we have seen that, starting from the assumption that the Riemann curvature tensor of a metric g is zero, we have proven the existence of coordinates a in which the metric takes the Minkowski form, g = 8.3 a b ab . x x (8.20)

The Geodesic Deviation Equation

In a certain sense the main eect of curvature (or gravity) is that initially parallel trajectories of freely falling non-interacting particles (dust, pebbles,. . . ) do not remain parallel, i.e. that gravity has the tendency to focus (or defocus) matter. This statement nd its mathematically precise formulation in the geodesic deviation equation. Let us, as we will need this later anyway, recall rst the situation in the Newtonian theory. One particle moving under the inuence of a gravitational eld is governed by the equation d2 i x = i (x) , (8.21) dt2 where is the potential. Now consider a family of particles, or just two nearby particles, one at xi (t) and the other at xi (t) + xi (t). The other particle will of course obey the equation d2 (xi + xi ) = i (x + x) . (8.22) dt2 From these two equations one can deduce an equation for x itself, namely
d2 xi dt2

= i j (x)xj .

(8.23)

It is the counterpart of this equation that we will be seeking in the context of General Relativity. The starting point is of course the geodesic equation for x and for its nearby partner x + x , d2 d d (8.24) d 2 x + (x) d x d x = 0 , and
d2 d 2 (x d d + x ) + (x + x) d (x + x ) d (x + x ) = 0 .

(8.25)

As above, from these one can deduce an equation for x, namely

d2 x d 2 d d d d + 2 (x) d x d x + (x)x d x d x = 0 .

(8.26)

Now this does not look particularly covariant. Thus instead of in terms of d/d we would like to rewrite this in terms of the covariant operator , with x = d dx x + d x . d (8.27)

143

Calculating ( )2 x , replacing x appearing in that expression by x x (because satises the geodesic equation) and using (8.26), one nds the nice covariant geodesic x deviation equation ( )2 x = R x x x . (8.28) Note that for at space(-time), this equation reduces to d2 x = 0 , d 2 which has the solution x = A + B . (8.30) In particular, one recovers Euclids parallel axiom that two straight lines intersect at most once and that when they are initially parallel they never intersect. This shows very clearly that intrinsic curvature leads to non-Euclidean geometry in which e.g. the parallel axiom is not necessarily satisifed. It is also possible to give a manifestly covariant, and thus perhaps slightly more satisfactory, derivation of the above gedesic deviation equation. The starting point is a geodesic vector eld u , u u = 0, and a deviation vector eld x = characterised by the condition [u, ] = u u = 0 . (8.31) The rationale for this condition is that, if x (, s) is a family of geodesics labelled by s, one has the identications u = x (, s) , = x (, s) . s (8.32) (8.29)

Since second partial derivatives commute, this implies the relation (, s) = u (, s) , s (8.33)

(implicit in the identication x = (d/d )x employed in the above derivation). The condition (8.31) is nothing other than the covariant way of writing (8.33). Given this set-up, we now want to calculate ( )2 = u (u ) . Using (8.31) twice, one nds u (u ) = u ( u ) (8.34)

= (u ) u + u u

= ( u ) u + u [ , ]u + u u . (8.35)

Rewriting the last term as u u = (u u ) ( u ) u 144 (8.36)

one sees that the rst term of the last line of (8.35) cancels and, using the denition of the curvature tensor, one is left with u (u ) = R u u + (u u ) . (8.37)

So far, we have only used the condition [u, ] = 0 (8.31). Thus, for a general family of curves (the integral curves of u ), the deviation vector feels a force which is due to both the curvature of space-time and the acceleration a = u u of the family of curves. For geodesics, the latter is absent and one nds the geodesic deviation equation (8.28) in the form u (u ) = R u u . (8.38) 8.4 The Raychaudhuri Equation

Manipulations similar to those leading from (8.35) to (8.38) allow one to derive an equation for the rate of change of the divergence u of a family of geodesics along the geodesics. This simple result, known as the Raychaudhuri equation, has important implications and ramications in general relativity, in particular in the context of the socalled singularity theorems of Penrose, Hawking and others, none of which will, however, be explored here. To set the stage, let V be an, at rst, arbitrary vector eld. From the denition of the curvature tensor, ( )V = R V , (8.39) one deduces, after contracting the indices and , ( )V = R V . Multiplying by V , one nds V V V V = R V V . Rewriting the rst term as V V = (V V ) ( V )( V ) this identity can be written as V ( V ) + ( V )( V ) (V V ) + R V V = 0 . (8.43) (8.42) (8.41) (8.40)

Now apply this identity to a geodesic vector eld V u , u u = 0. Then the third term disappears and one has u ( u ) + ( u )( u ) + R u u = 0 . 145 (8.44)

Here the rst term is the rate of change of the divergence = u along u , u ( u ) = and we can therefore write the above result as d = ( u )( u ) R u u . d (8.47) d , d (8.45)

(8.46)

To gain some more insight into the geometric signicance of this equation, consider the case that u is timelike and normalised as u u = 1 (so that is proper time) and introduce the tensor h = g + u u . (8.48) It has the characteristic property that it is orthogonal to u , u h = h u = 0 . (8.49)

It can therefore be interpreted as the spatial projection of the metric in the directions orthogonal to the timelike vector eld u . This can be seen more explicitly in terms of the projectors p = + u u (8.50)

p p = p . On directions tangential to u they act as p u = 0 , whereas on vectors orthogonal to u , u = 0 (spacelike vectors), one has p = .

(8.51)

(8.52)

Thus, acting on an arbitrary vector eld V , p V is the projection of this vector into the plane orthogonal to u . In the same way one can project an arbitrary tensor. For example, the projection of the metric is g g p p = g + u u = h , (8.53)

as anticipated above. In particular, while for the space-time metric one obviously has g g = 4, the trace of h is g h = g g + g u u = 4 1 = 3 = h h . Now let us introduce the tensor B = u . 146 (8.55) (8.54)

This tensor satises

1 u B = 1 (u u ) = 2 (1) = 0 2

(8.56) (8.57)

and B u = u u = 0 and is thus a spatial tensor in the sense above. We now decompose B into its antisymmetric, symmetric-traceless and trace part, B = + + 1 h , 3 with = =
1 2 (B B ) 1 1 2 (B + B ) 3 h h B = g B = u

(8.58)

(8.59)

The quantities , and are known as the rotation tensor, shear tensor, and expansion of the congruence (family) of geodesics dened by u . In particular, the geodesics will converge (diverge) if > 0 ( < 0). In terms of these quantities we can write the Raychaudhuri equation (8.47) as d 1 = 3 2 + R u u . d
Remarks:

(8.60)

1. An important special case of this equation arises when the rotation is zero, = 0. This happens for example when u = F is the gradient co-vector of some function F . In this case u is orthogonal to the level-surfaces of F . In this case one has d (8.61) = 1 2 R u u . 3 d The rst two terms on the right hand side are manifestly non-positive (recall that is a spatial tensor and hence 0). Thus, if one assumes that the geometry is such that R u u 0 (8.62) (by the Einstein equations to be discussed in the next section, this translates into a positivity condition on the energy-momentum tensor known as the strong energy condition), one nds d = 1 2 R u u 0 . 3 d (8.63)

This means that the divergence (convergence) of geodesics will decrease (increase) in time. The interpretation of this result is that gravity is an attractive force (for matter satisfying the strong energy condition) whose eect is to focus geodesics. 147

2. According to (8.63), d/d is not only negative but actually bounded from above by d (8.64) 1 2 . 3 d Rewriting this equation as d 1 1 , (8.65) d 3 one deduces immediately that 1 1 + . ( ) (0) 3 (8.66)

This has the rather dramatic implication that, if (0) < 0 (i.e. the geodesics are initially converging), then ( ) within nite proper time 3/|(0)|. 3. If one thinks of the geodesics as trajectories of physical particles, this is obviously a rather catastrophic sitaution in which these particles will be innitely squashed. In general, however, the divergence of only indicates that the family of geodesics develops what is known as a caustic where dierent geodesics meet. Nevertheless, the above result plays a crucial role in establishing the occurrence of true singularities in general relativity if supplemented e.g. by conditions which ensure that such harmless caustics cannot appear. 8.5 Curvature and Killing Vectors

In (pseudo-)Riemannian geometry the rich interplay between symmetries and geometry is reected in relations between the curvature tensor and Killing vectors of a metric. Using the dening relation of the Riemann curvature tensor, ( )V = R V and its cyclic symmetry, R + R + R = 0 , (8.68) (8.67)

it is possible to deduce (with a bit of cyclic permutations etc.) that for a Killing vector K , K + K = 0, one has the following basic identity relating Killing vectors and the curvature tensor, K = R K . (8.69) This has a rather remarkable consequence (which we will explore in more detail in section 16.1) that a Killing vector eld K (x) is completely determined everywhere by the values of K (x0 ) and K (x0 ) at a single point x0 . Here we will briey sketch some other consequences of this identity.

148

1. It should be obvious and obviously true that for any Killing vector of a metric the scalar curvature of the metric inherits the corresponding symmetries of the metric, i.e. does not change along the orbits of that Killing vector, K + K = 0 K R = 0 . (8.70)

While true, the proof of this is a bit roundabout: One can start with the contracted Bianchi identity G = 0, and contract it with K to nd 0 = ( G )K = ( R )K 1 K R . 2 (8.71)

Using the Killing equations, i.e. the anti-symmetry of K , and the symmetry of the Ricci tensor, one can write this as K R = 2 (K R ) . Contracting (8.69) over and , one learns that K = K R . Thus, nally K R = 2 ( K ) = [ , ] K = 0 by (7.21) . (8.74) (8.73) (8.72)

Alternatively (and more quickly but somewhat less covariantly) one could have simply locally introduced an adapted coordinate system (6.43) in which K = y and y g = 0, to immediately deduce that then necessarily also y R = 0. However, the above identities like (8.73) are useful in their own right (as we will see below). 2. Because the Einstein tensor G (7.58) is symmetric and conserved (the contracted Bianchi identity (7.57)), to any Killing vector one can associate (cf. the discussion in section 6.6) the conserved current
J1 = G K = R K 1 R K = R K 1 RK . 2 2

(8.75)

However, because K is Killing, one has K = 0 identically, as well as K R = 0 (as shown above), and hence one has a conserved current
Ja = R K 1 a RK 2

Ja = 0 ,

(8.76)

for any value of the real parameter a. Among this 1-parameter family of conserved currents, the choice Ja=0 J (K) = R K (8.77) 149

is singled out by the fact that, by (8.73), it is not only conserved but can actually be written as the divergence of an anti-symmetric tensor, J (K) = A , A = A = K (8.78)

(which also shows directly, by (7.22), that J (K) = 0). Thus the corresponding conserved charge, written as a hypersurface integral, can actually be written as a surface integral of components of A . These dene the so-called Komar charges associated to symmetries of the metric. They will make a brief appearance in section 23.4. As an aside, note that while in the above we started o with Killing vectors, a similar story is actually true for any vector eld. Namely, for any vector eld dene the current J () = ([ ] ) = 1 ( ) . (8.79) 2 Note that this reduces to (8.78) for = K a Killing vector. Moreover, by (7.22) this current is conserved, J () = 0 . (8.80) When = K is a Killing vector, the current can alternatively be written in terms of the Ricci tensor as in (8.77). For a general one has, instead,
1 J () = 2 ( ) = 1 ( + ) 2 1 = [ , ] + ( ) 2 ( + ) 1 = R + 2 (g g g g ) ( + ) ,

(8.81)

where we made use of (7.19). Note that this indeed reduces to (8.77) for a Killing vector, for which the second term on the right-hand side is absent. The existence of these identically conserved currents and the corresponding surface charge densities [ ] reects the fact that in general relativity all vector elds can be considered as the generators of symmetries (in the sense of coordinate transformations). Indeed, the currents J () can be shown to be precisely the corresponding Noether currents arising from the Lagrangian formulation of general relativity to be discussed in section 10. We will establish this result in section 10.3. Nevertheless, the currents and charges associated with Killing vectors turn out to play a privileged role, and we will in particular relate the Komar charge for a timelike Killing vector to the ADM mass of an isolated (asymptotically) stationary system in section 23.4.

150

9
9.1

The Einstein Equations

Heuristics

We expect the gravitational eld equations to be non-linear second order partial differential equations for the metric. If we knew more about the weak eld equations of gravity (which should thus be valid near the origin of an inertial coordinate system) we could use the Einstein equivalence principle (or the principle of general covariance) to deduce the equations for strong elds. However, we do not know a lot about gravity beyond the Newtonian limit of weak timeindependent elds and low velocities, simply because gravity is so weak. Hence, we cannot nd the gravitational eld equations in a completely systematic way and some guesswork will be required. Nevertheless we will see that with some very natural assumptions (and the benet of hindsight) we will arrive at an essentially unique set of equations. Further theoretical (and aesthetical) conrmation for these equations will then come from the fact that they turn out to be the Euler-Lagrange equations of the absolutely simplest action principle for the metric imaginable. Recall that, way back, in section 1.1, we had briey discussed the possibility of a scalar relativistic theorry of gravity described by an equation of the form (1.2) = 4GN 2 = 4GN . (9.1)

We had noted there that one way to render this equation (tensorially) consistent is to think of both the left and the right hand side as (00)-components of some tensor, which we expressed in (1.5) as {Some tensor generalising } 4GN T . (9.2)

While this appeared to be an exotic proposal back in section 1.1, we now understand that this is exactly what is required, and we have a fairly precise idea of what this tensor on the left-hand side should be. Indeed, recall from our discussion of the Newtonian limit of the geodesic equation that the weak static eld produced by a non-relativistic mass density is g00 = (1 + 2) , With the identication T00 = , the Newtonian eld equation = 4GN can now also be written as g00 = 8GN T00 . 151 (9.5) (9.4) (9.3)

This suggests that the weak-eld equations for a general energy-momentum tensor take the form E = 8GN T , (9.6) where E is constructed from the metric and its rst and second derivatives. But by the Einstein equivalence principle, if this equation is valid for weak elds (i.e. near the origin of an inertial coordinate system) then also the equations which govern gravitational elds of arbitrary strength must be of this form, with E a tensor constructed from the metric and its rst and second derivatives. Another way of anticipating what form the eld equations for gravity may take is via an analogy, a comparison of the geodesic deviation equations in Newtons theory and in General Relativity. Recall that in Newtons theory we have d2 i x = K ij xj dt2 K ij = i j , whereas in General Relativity we have ( )2 x = K x K Now Newtons eld equation is Tr K = 4GN , while in General Relativity we have Tr K = R x x . (9.10) (9.9)

(9.7)

= R x x .

(9.8)

This suggests that somehow in the gravitational eld equations of General Relativity, should be replaced by the Ricci tensor R . Note that, at least roughly, the tensorial structure of this identication is compatible with the relation between and g00 in the Newtonian limit, the relation between and the 0-0 component T00 of the energy momentum tensor, and the fact that for small velocities R x x R00 . We will now turn to a somewhat more precise argument along these lines which will enable us to determine E . 9.2 A More Systematic Approach

Let us take stock of what we know about E . 1. E is a tensor 152

2. E has the dimensions of a second derivative. If we assume that no new dimensionful constants enter in E then it has to be a linear combination of terms which are either second derivatives of the metric or quadratic in the rst derivatives of the metric. (Later on, we will see that there is the possibility of a zero derivative term, but this requires a new dimensionful constant, the cosmological constant . Higher derivative terms could in principle appear but would only be relevant at very high energies.) 3. E is symmetric since T is symmetric. 4. Since T is covariantly conserved, the same has to be true for E , T = 0 E = 0 . (9.11)

5. Finally, for a weak stationary gravitational eld and non-relativistic matter we should nd E00 = g00 . (9.12) Now it turns out that these conditions (1)-(5) determine E uniquely! First of all, (1) and (2) tell us that E has to be a linear combination E = aR + bg R , (9.13)

where R is the Ricci tensor and R the Ricci scalar. Then condition (3) is automatically satised. To implement (4), we rewrite the above as a linear combination of the Einstein tensor (7.58) and g R, E = aG + cg R a(R 1 g R) + cg R 2 and recall the contracted Bianchi identity (7.56,7.57), G = 0 . (9.15) (9.14)

It follows that (4) is satised i c R = c R = 0. We therefore have to require either R = 0 or c = 0. That the rst possibility is ruled out (inconsistent) can be seen by taking the trace of (9.6), E = (4c a)R = 8GN T . (9.16)

Thus, R is proportional to T and since this quantity need certainly not be constant for a general matter conguration, we are led to the conclusion that c = 0. Thus we nd E = aG . (9.17) We can now use condition (5) to determine the constant a. 153

9.3

The Newtonian Weak-Field Limit

By the above considerations we have determined the eld equations to be of the form aG = 8GN T , (9.18)

with a some, as yet undetermined, constant. We will now consider the Newtonian weak-eld limit of this equation. We need to nd that G00 is proportional to g00 and we can then use the condition (5) to x the value of a. The following manipulations are somewhat analogous to those we performed when considering the Newtonian limit of the geodesic equation. The main dierence is that now we are dealing with second derivatives of the metric rather than with just its rst derivatives entering in the geodesic equation. First of all, for a non-relativistic system we have |Tij | T00 and hence |Gij | |G00 |. Therefore we conclude 1 |Tij | T00 Rij 2 gij R . (9.19) Next, for a weak eld we have g = + h with h small (in a suitable sense) and, in particular, R R = Rk R00 , (9.20) k which, together with (9.19), translates into
3 R 2 R R00 .

(9.21) (9.22)

or R 2R00 . In the weak eld limit, R00 in turn is given by R00 = Rk = ik Ri0k0 . 0k0 (9.23)

Moreover, in this limit only the linear (second derivative) part of R will contribute, not the terms quadratic in rst derivatives. Thus we can use the expression (7.12) for the curvature tensor. Additionally, in the static case we can ignore all time derivatives. Then only one term (the third) of (7.12) contributes and we nd
1 Ri0k0 = 2 g00 ,ik ,

(9.24) (9.25)

and therefore
1 R00 = 2 g00 .

Putting everything together, we get

1 1 G00 = (R00 2 g00 R) = (R00 2 00 R)

= (R00 + 1 R) = (R00 + R00 ) = g00 2

(9.26)

(see also section 23.3 for a somewhat more streamlined and covariant derivation of this result). Thus we obtain the correct functional form of E00 and comparison with condition (5) determines a = +1 and therefore E = G . 154

9.4

The Einstein Equations

We have nally arrived at the Einstein equations for the gravitational eld (metric) of a matter-energy conguration described by the energy-momentum tensor T . It is

R 1 g R = 8GN T 2
Remarks:

(9.27)

1. With c not set equal to one, and with the convention that T00 is normalised such that it gives the energy-density rather than the mass-density, one nds that the factor 8GN on the right hand side should be replaced by 8GN 8GN . c4 (9.28)

A note on dimensions: Newtons constant has dimensions (M mass, L length, T time) [GN ] = M1 L3 T2 so that [GN ] = M1 L3 T2 [GN /c4 ] = L1 M1 T2 . (9.29)

Moreover, an energy density = c2 , a mass density, has dimensions [] = [c2 ] = ML3 L2 T2 = ML1 T2 . Thus [GN /c4 ] = L2 = [R ] , (9.31) as it should be. Frequently, an alternative (and equally reasonable) convention is used in which T00 is a mass density, so that then Ttt = c2 T00 is the energy density. In that case, the factor on the right-hand side of the Einstein equations is 8GN /c2 . 2. Another common way of writing the Einstein equations is obtained by taking the trace of (9.27), which yields R 2R = 8GN T , and substituting this back into (9.27) to obtain
1 R = 8GN (T 2 g T ) .

(9.30)

(9.32)

(9.33)

In particular, for the vacuum, T = 0, the Einstein equations are equivalent to R = 0 . (9.34)

A space-time metric satisfying this equation is, for obvious reasons, said to be Ricci-at. 155

3. Even the vacuum Einstein equations still constitute a complicated set of nonlinear coupled partial dierential equations whose general solution is not, and probably will never be, known. Usually one makes some assumptions, in particular regarding the symmetries of the metric, which simplify the equations to the extent that they can be analysed explicitly, either analytically, or at least qualitatively or numerically. 4. The streamlined derivation of the Einstein equations given here may give the misleading impression that also for Einstein this was a straighforward aair. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do we have the benet of hindsight. We also have a much more systematic and advanced understanding of Riemannian geometry and tensor calculus than was available to Einstein at the time (e.g. of the contracted Bianchi identities and their importance for energy-momentum (non-)conservation (see above) and for general covariance (to be briey discussed in section 9.5 below).4 5. As we saw before, in two and three dimensions, vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies the vanishing of the Riemann tensor. Thus in these cases, the spacetimes are necessarily at away from where there is matter, i.e. at points at which T (x) = 0. Thus there are no true gravitational elds and no gravitational waves. In four dimensions, however, the situation is completely dierent. As we saw, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components whereas the Riemann tensor has 20. Thus there are 10 components of the Riemann tensor which can curve the vacuum, as e.g. in the eld around the sun, and a lot of interesting physics is already contained in the vacuum Einstein equations. 9.5 Significance of the Bianchi Identities

Because the Ricci tensor is symmetric, the Einstein equations consitute a set of ten algebraically independent second order dierential equations for the metric g . At rst, this looks exactly right as a set of equations for the ten components of the metric. But at second sight, this cannot be right. After all, the Einstein equations are generally covariant, so that they can at best determine the metric up to coordinate transformations. Therefore we should only expect six independent generally covariant equations for the metric. Here we should recall the contracted Bianchi identities. They tell us that G = 0 , (9.35)
For an illuminating brief account of the torturous and convoluted route and crucial nal stages that led Einstein (and Grossmann) to the correct eld equations, see N. Straumann, Einsteins Zrich u Notebook and his Journey to General Relativity, arXiv:1106.0900v1 [physics.hist-ph].
4

156

and hence, even though the ten Einstein equations are algebraically independent, there are four dierential relations among them, so this is just right. It is no coincidence, by the way, that the Bianchi identities come to the rescue of general covariance. We will see later that the Bianchi identities can in fact be understood as a consequence of the general covariance of the Einstein equations (and of the corresopnding action principle). The general covariance of the Einstein equations is reected in the fact that only six of the ten equations are truly dynamical equations, namely (for the vacuum equations for simplicity) Gij = 0 , (9.36) where i, j = 1, 2, 3. The other four, namely G0 = 0 , (9.37)

are constraints that have to be satised by the initial data gij and, say, dgij /dt on some initial spacelike hypersurface (Cauchy surface). These constraints are analogues of the Gauss law constraint of Maxwell theory (which is a consequence of the U (1) gauge invariance of the theory), but signicantly more complicated. Over the years, a lot of eort has gone into developing a formalism and framework for the initial value and canonical (phase space) description of General Relativity. The most well known and useful of these is the so-called ADM (Arnowitt, Deser, Misner 1959 - 1962) formalism.5 The canonical formalism has been developed in particular with an eye towards canonical quantisation of gravity. 9.6 The Cosmological Constant

As mentioned before, there is one more term that can be added to the Einstein equations provided that one relaxes the condition (2) that only terms quadratic in derivatives should appear. This term takes the form g . This is compatible with the condition (4) (the conservation law) provided that is a constant, the cosmological constant. it is a dimensionful parameter with dimension [] = L2 one over length squared. The Einstein equations with a cosmological constant now read
1 R 2 g R + g = 8GN T .

(9.38)

To be compatible with condition (5) ((1), (3) and (4) are obviously satised), has to be quite small (and observationally it is very small indeed).
Remarks:
This body of research is summarised in the 1962 article R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. Misner, The Dynamics of General Relativity, available on the arXiv as arXiv:gr-qc/0405109.
5

157

1. The vacuum Einstein equations with a cosmological constant read R 1 g R = g . 2 Taking traces, this implies (and is equivalent to) R = g , (9.40) (9.39)

which is the counterpart of the Ricci-atness condition for vacuum solutions of the Einstein equations without a cosmological constant. 2. In general, solutions to the equation R = cg for some constant c (and either Riemannian or Lorentzian signature) are known as Einstein manifolds in the mathematics literature. 3. gives a contribution to the energy-momentum tensor that, in Minkowski space, would be proportional to the Minkowski metric and Lorentz-invariant, thus compatible with the symmetries of the vacuum, and is often said to play the role of a vacuum energy density (more precisely vacuum energy should perhaps be considered as one possible contribution to the cosmological constant). 4. Comparing with the energy-momentum tensor of, say, a perfect uid (see section 18.2), T = ( + p)u u + pg , (9.41) we see that corresponds to the energy density and pressure values = p = . 8GN (9.42)

so that, depending on the sign of , either the energy density or the pressure is negative. 5. The cosmological constant was originally introduced by Einstein because he was unable to nd static cosmological solutions without it. We will review this Einstein Static Universe in section 20.2. After Hubbles discovery of the expansion of the universe, a static universe fell out of fashion and the cosmological constant was no longer required. 6. However, things are not as simple as that. Just because it is not required does not mean that it is not there. In fact, one of the biggest puzzles in theoretical physics today is why the cosmological constant is so small. According to standard quantum eld theory lore, the vacuum energy density should be many many orders of magnitude larger than astrophysical observations allow. Now usually in quantum eld theory one does not worry too much about the vacuum energy as one can normal-order it away. However, as we know, gravity is unlike any other theory in

158

that not only energy-dierences but absolute energies matter (and cannot just be dropped). The question why the observed cosmological constant is so small (and recent astrophysical observations appear to favour a tiny non-zero value) is known as the Cosmological Constant Problem. See section 19.7 for a brief discussion of this profound issue and some references. 7. We will consider the possibility that = 0 only in the sections on Cosmology (in all other applications, can indeed be neglected). 9.7 The Weyl Tensor and the Propagation of Gravity

The Einstein equations G = 8GN T (9.43) can, taken at face value, be regarded as ten algebraic equations for certain traces of the Riemann tensor R . But R has, as we know, twenty independent components, so how are the other ten determined? The obvious answer, already given above, is of course that we solve the Einstein equations for the metric g and then calculate the Riemann curvature tensor of that metric. However, this answer leaves something to be desired because it does not really provide an explanation of how the information about these other components is encoded in the Einstein equations. It is interesting to understand this because it is precisely these components of the Riemann tensor wich represent the eects of gravity in vacuum, i.e. where T = 0, like tidal forces and gravitational waves. The more insightful answer is that the information is encoded in the Bianchi identities which serve as propagation equations for the trace-free parts of the Riemann tensor away from the regions where T = 0. Let us see how this works. First of all, we need to decompose the Riemann tensor into its trace parts R and R (determined directly by the Einstein equations) and its traceless part C , the Weyl tensor. In any D 4 dimensions, the Weyl tensor is dened by C = R 1 (g R + R g g R R g ) D2 1 + R(g g g g ) . (D 1)(D 2)

(9.44)

This denition is such that C has all the symmetries of the Riemann tensor (this is manifest) and that all of its traces are zero, i.e. C = 0 . 159 (9.45)

In the vacuum, R = 0, and therefore T (x) = 0 R (x) = C (x) , (9.46)

and, as anticipated, the Weyl tensor encodes the information about the gravitational eld in vacuum. The question thus is how C is determined everywhere in spacetime by an energy-momentum tensor which may be localised in some nite region of space-time. Contracting the Bianchi identity, which we write as [ R] = 0 , (9.47)

over and and making use of the symmetries of the Riemann tensor, one obtains R = R R . (9.48)

Expressing the Riemann tensor in terms of its contractions and the Weyl tensor, and using the Einstein equations to replace the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar by the energymomentum tensor, one now obtains a propagation equation for the Weyl tensor of the form C = J , (9.49) where J depends only on the energy-momentum tensor and its derivatives. Determining J in this way is straightforward and one nds J = 8GN D3 1 T g T g T T D2 D1 . (9.50)

The equation (9.49) is reminiscent of the Maxwell equation F = J , (9.51)

and this is the starting point for a very fruitful analogy between the two subjects. Indeed it turns out that in many other respects as well C behaves very much like an electro-magnetic eld: one can dene electric and magnetic components E and B, these satisfy |E| = |B| for a gravitational wave, etc. Finally, the Weyl tensor is also useful in other contexts as it is conformally invariant, i.e. C is invariant under conformal rescalings of the metric g (x) e f (x) g (x) . (9.52)

In particular, the Weyl tensor is zero if the metric is conformally at, i.e. related by a conformal transformation to the at metric, and conversely vanishing of the Weyl tensor is also a sucient condition for a metric to be conformal to the at metric.

160

10
10.1

The Einstein Equations from a Variational Principle

The Einstein-Hilbert Action

To increase our condence that the Einstein equations we have derived above are in fact reasonable and almost certainly correct, we can adopt a more modern point of view. We can ask if the Einstein equations follow from an action principle or, alternatively, what would be a natural action principle for the metric. After all, for example in the construction of the Standard Model, one also does not start with the equations of motion but one writes down the simplest possible Lagrangian with the desired eld content and symmetries. We will start with the gravitational part, i.e. the Einstein tensor G of the Einstein equations, and deal with the matter part, the energy-momentum tensor T , later. By general covariance, an action for the metric g will have to take the form S= 4 gd x (g ) , (10.1)

where is a scalar constructed from the metric. So what is going to be? Clearly, the simplest choice is the Ricci scalar R, and this is also the unique choice if one is looking for a scalar constructed from not higher than second derivatives of the metric. Therefore we postulate the beautifully simple and elegant action

SEH =

gd4 x R

(10.2)

known as the Einstein-Hilbert action. It was presented by Hilbert practically on the same day that Einstein presented his nal form (9.27) of the gravitational eld equations. Discussions regarding who did what rst and who deserves credit for what have been a favourite occupation of historians of science ever since. But Hilberts work would certainly not have been possible without Einsteins realisation that gravity should be regarded not as a force but as a property of space-time and that Riemannian geometry provides the correct framework for embodying the equivalence principle. We will now prove that the Euler-Lagrange equations following from the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian indeed give rise to the Einstein tensor and the vacuum Einstein equations. It is truly remarkable, that such a simple Lagrangian is capable of explaining practically all known gravitational, astrophysical and cosmological phenomena (contrast this with the complexity of the Lagrangian of the Standard Model or any of its generalisations). Since the Ricci scalar is R = g R , it is simpler to consider variations g of the

161

inverse metric instead of g . Thus, as a rst step we write SEH = = gd4 x g R (10.3)

d4 x (( g)g R + g(g )R + gg R ) .

Now we make use of the identity (5.11)

1 g1/2 = 2 g1/2 g g = 1 g1/2 g g . 2

(10.4)

to deduce SEH = =
1 gd4 x [( 2 g R + R )g + g R ] 1 gd4 x (R 2 g R)g +

gd4 x g R .

(10.5)

The rst term all by itself would already give the Einstein tensor. Thus we need to show that the second term is a total derivative. I do not know of any particularly elegant argument to establish this (in a coordinate basis - written in terms of dierential forms this would be completely obvious), so this will require a little bit of work, but it is not dicult. Postponing the proof of this statement to the end of this section, we have established that the variation of the Einstein-Hilbert action gives the gravitational part (left hand side) of the Einstein equations,
Remarks:

gd4 x R =

1 gd4 x (R 2 g R)g .

(10.6)

1. We can also write this as 1 SEH = R 1 g R . 2 g g (10.7)

2. It follows form the explicit expression for the scalar curvature in terms of the Christoel symbols and the metric, obtained by contracting (7.5), R = g ( + ) , (10.8)

that the Einstein-Hilbert action contains terms that are quadratic in rst derivatives of the metric, as well as terms that depend linearly on the second derivatives. The latter are uncommon from the usual Lagrangian point of view but required by general covariance (there is no scalar that can be constructed solely from the metric and its rst derivatives). However, the fact that g R is a total derivative reects the fact that these second derivatives are spurious in the sense that they 162

can be eliminated by an integration by parts or boundary term, at the expense, however, of general covariance. In fact, by straightforward manipulation of (10.8), using identities such as g = g g g = ( g + g ) (10.9)

and ( g) = g , one nds that the Lagrangian density gR can be written as gR = 2 g g ( ) + g B (10.10) where the boundary term is B = g g . (10.11)

Thus, instead of the generally covariant Einstein-Hilbert action one can use the non-covariant but quadratic action SEH (originally due to Einstein). 3. If one wants to include the cosmological constant , then the action gets modied to 4 SEH, = gd x (R 2) . (10.13) Indeed, the only eect of including is to replace R R 2 in the Einstein equations, so that G = R 1 g R G = R 1 g (R 2) = G + g , 2 2 which gives rise to the modied Einstein equation (9.38). 4. Of course, once one is working at the level of the action, it is easy to come up with covariant generalisations of the Einstein-Hilbert action, such as S= gd4 x (R + c1 R2 + c2 R R + c3 R2R + . . .) , (10.15) (10.14) gd4 x g ( ) (10.12)

but these invariably involve higher-derivative terms and are therefore irrelevant for low-energy physics and thus the world we live in. Such terms could be relevant for the early universe, however, and are also typically predicted by quantum theories of gravity like string theory.

163

We conclude this section with the proof that g R is a total derivative. First of all, we need the explicit expression for the Ricci tensor in terms of the Christoel symbols, which can be obtained by contraction of (7.5), R = + . (10.16)

Now we need to calculate the variation of R . We will not require the explicit expression in terms of the variations of the metric, but only in terms of the variations induced by the variations of the metric. This simplies things considerably. Obviously, R will then be a sum of six terms, R = + + . (10.17) Now the crucial observation is that is a tensor. This follows from the arguments given in section 4.8, but I will repeat it here in the present context. Of course, we know that the Christoel symbols themselves are not tensors, because of the inhomogeneous (second derivative) term appearing in the transformation rule under coordinate transformations. But this term is independent of the metric. Thus the metric variation of the Christoel symbols indeed transforms as a tensor. This can also be conrmed by explicit calculation. Just for the record, I will give an expression for which is easy to remember as it takes exactly the same form as the denition of the Christoel symbol, only with the metric replaced by the metric variation and the partial derivatives by covariant derivatives, i.e.
1 = 2 g ( g + g g ) .

(10.18)

It turns out, none too surprisingly, that R can be written rather compactly in terms of covariant derivatives of , namely as R = . (10.19)

As a rst check on this, note that the rst term on the right hand side is manifestly symmetric and that the second term is also symmetric because of (4.36) and (5.61). To establish (10.19), one simply has to use the denition of the covariant derivative. The rst term is = + , (10.20)

which takes care of the rst, fourth, fth and sixth terms of (10.17). The remaining terms are (10.21) + = , which establishes (10.19). Now what we really need is g R , g R = (g ) (g ) . 164 (10.22)

Using the explicit expression for given above, we see that we can also write this rather neatly and compactly as g R = ( g 2)g (10.23)

= (g g g g ) g .

Since both of these terms are covariant divergences of vector elds, g R = J

J = g g , we can use Gauss theorem to conclude that gd4 x g R = gd4 x J = 0 ,

(10.24)

(10.25)

(since J is constructed from the variations of the metric which, by assumption, vanish at innity) as we wanted to show. 10.2 The Matter Action and the Covariant Energy-Momentum Tensor

In order to obtain the non-vacuum Einstein equations, we need to decide what the matter Lagrangian should be. Now there is an obvious choice for this. If we have matter, then in addition to the Einstein equations we also want the equations of motion for the matter elds. Therefore we should add to the Einstein-Hilbert action the standard minimally coupled matter action SM [, g ] = gd4 x LM ((x), (x), . . . ; g (x), g (x), . . .) , (10.26)

representing any kind of (scalar, vector, tensor, . . . ) matter eld, obtained by suitable covariantisation of the corresponding matter action in Minkowski space via the principle of minimal coupling (section 5). Thus e.g. the matter action for a Klein-Gordon eld would be (5.4), SM [, g ] =
1 gd4 x 2 g 1 m2 2 2

(10.27)

and that for Maxwell theory would be (5.27),

1 S[A , g ] = 4

gd4 x g g F F .

(10.28)

Of course, the variation of the matter action with respect to the matter elds will give rise to the covariant equations of motion of the matter elds. But if we want to add the matter action to the Einstein-Hilbert action and treat the metric as an additional dynamical variable, then we have to ask what the variation of the matter action with 165

respect to the metric is. The short answer is: the energy-momentum tensor. Indeed, even though there are other denitions of the energy-momentum tensor you may know (dened via Noethers theorem applied to translations in at space, for example), this is the modern, and by far the most useful, denition of the energy-momentum tensor, namely as the response of the matter action to a variation of the metric. Indeed we had already seen in sections 5.3 and 5.4 that this denition (with a judicious factor of 2), 4 1 metric SM [, g ] = 2 gd x T g , (10.29) or 2 SM [, g ] , T := g g (10.30)

reproduces the known results in the case of a scalar eld or Maxwell theory. One of the many advantages of this denition is that it automatically gives a symmetric and gauge invariant tensor (no improvement terms or similar gymnastics required) which is also automatically covariantly conserved (on-shell, i.e. for matter elds satisfying their Euler-Lagrange equations of motion). We will establish this latter fact below - it is simply a consequence of the general covariance of SM . Therefore, the complete gravity-matter action for General Relativity is S[g , ] = with 1 SEH [g ] + SM [, g ] 16GN G = 8GN T . (10.31)

S[g , ] =0 g

(10.32)

Remarks:

1. As we saw above, a cosmological constant term can be included by adding a constant term to the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. But one can equally well add a constant term to the matter Lagrangian instead (and this clearly reveals its interpretation as a vacuum energy of the matter elds). 2. If one were to try to deduce the gravitational eld equations by starting from a variational principle, i.e. by constructing the simplest generally covariant action for the metric and the matter elds (and this would be the modern approach to the problem, had Einstein not already solved it for us a 100 years ago), then one would also invariably be led to the above action. The relative numerical factor 16GN between the two terms would of course then not be xed a priori, because this approach will not (and cannot possible be expexted to) determine Newtons constant. The prefactor could once again be determined by looking at the Newtonian limit of the resulting equations of motion.

166

3. Typically, the above action principle will lead to a very complicated coupled system of equations for the metric and the matter elds because the metric also appears in the energy-momentum tensor and in the equations of motion for the matter elds. 4. The energy-momentum tensor as dened by (10.29) or (10.30) is frequently called the metric energy-momentum (or stress-energy) tensor, or also the Hilbert or Rosenfeld energy-momentum tensor. It is sometimes also referred to as the gravitational energy-momentum tensor, but that is confusing as it does not describe the energy-momentum of the gravitational eld itself, a more mysterious and elusive quantity we will briey look at and for in section 10.5. I prefer the attribute covariant, to distinguish it from what is usually called the canonical energy-momentum tensor, based on Noethers theorem (applied to translations in Minkowski space). The relation between these will be discussed in section 10.4. 5. When the minimally coupled matter Lagrangian depends only on the metric and not on the rst derivatives of the metric (i.e. not on the Christoel symbols), LM (x) = LM ((x), (x), g (x)) , (10.33)

as in the case of scalar or Maxwell gauge elds, then more explicitly the covariant energy-momentum tensor can be written as (and calculated from) 2 ( gLM (x)) LM (x) T (x) = = 2 + g (x)LM (x) (10.34) g g (x) g (x) or T (x) = 2 LM (x) + g (x)LM (x) g (x) (10.35)

Here the sign change is due to the fact that g is not the same as g g g , but rather minus this expression, g = g g g , as can be seen by varying g g = , 0 = (g g ) = (g )g + g g g = g g g . (10.37) (10.36)

6. When the minimally coupled matter action depends also on the rst derivatives of the metric, through the covariant derivative of some (non-scalar) eld , say, by the usual rules of variational calculus there will be additional contributions to the energy-momentum tensor, arising from an integration by parts of gd4 x 2 LM (x) ( )(x) (x)

167

where ( ) = ( ) denotes the variation of the covariant derivative induced by the metric-variation (10.18) of the Christoel symbols. The precise form of the resulting contribution to the energy-momentum tensor depends on the tensorial type of , and it is unedifying to attempt to write down a general formula for this. 10.3 Consequences of the Variational Principle

The variational (i.e. action or Lagrangian based) formulation of general relativity has a number of signicant conceptual and technical advantages, and we will explore some of them in this section. I mentioned before, in section 9.5, that it is no accident that the Bianchi identities come to the rescue of the general covariance of the Einstein equations in the sense that they reduce the number of independent equations from ten to six. We will now see that indeed the Bianchi identities are a consequence of the general covariance of the Einstein-Hilbert action. Virtually the same calculation will show that the covariant (metric, Hilbert) energy-momentum tensor, as dened above, is automatically conserved (on shell) by virtue of the general covariance of the matter action. Simple variants of these arguments will also provide us with the Noether currents associated with the general covariance of the Einstein-Hilbert action. Analogous considerations, but now applied to the minimally coupled generally covariant matter action, will provide us with some insight into the relation between the (Belinfante improved) canonical and covariant energy-momentum tensors in section 10.4. 1. Contracted Bianchi Identities Let us start with the Einstein-Hilbert action. We already know that SEH = gd4 x G g (10.38)

for any metric variation (modulo total derivative terms). We also know that the Einstein-Hilbert action is invariant under coordinate transformations. In particular, therefore, the above variation should be identically zero (or a total derivative) for variations of the metric induced by an innitesimal coordinate transformation. But we know from the discussion of the Lie derivative that such a variation is of the form g = L g = + , (10.39)

168

or g = L g = ( + ) , (10.40) where the vector eld is the innitesimal generator of the coordinate transformation. Let us consider vector elds for which any total derivative terms vanish on the boundary (we will come back to the more general cacse below). Then SEH should be identically zero. Calculating this we nd 0 = SEH = = 2 gd4 x G ( + ) gd4 x ( G ) .

4 gd x G = 2

(10.41)

Since this has to hold for all (vanishing on the boundary), we deduce SEH = 0 G = 0 , (10.42)

and, as promised and anticipated, the contracted Bianchi identities are strictly related to general covariance bcause they are a consequence of the general covariance of the Einstein-Hilbert action. 2. Identically Conserved Noether Currents The fact that one obtains kinematical identities rather than non-trivially conserved currents (non-trivial in the sense that their conservation requires the validity of some dynamical equations of motion) is a characteristic feature of Noethers theorem applied to local (gauge) symmetries. We can also see this when we consider general vector elds (not constrained by the requirement that they give rise to vanishing boundary terms for the given integration domain). In that case, SEH will not be identically zero but will be a total derivative. On the one hand, for any density gF , F a scalar, one has, by the by now familiar identity for the variation of g, 1 ( gF ) = ( g)F + g F = 2 gg (L g )F + gL F = g( )F + g F = ( g F ) . In particular, therefore, for the Einstein-Hilbert action one has SEH = gd4 x ( R) . (10.44) (10.43)

On the other hand, by explicitly performing this variation, the bulk term is identically zero by the contracted Bianchi identity, but we obtain one total derivative term from (10.23), g R = [(g g g g ) L g ] (10.45)

= [(g g g g ) ( + )] , 169

and a second total derivative term (2G ) = (2R + R) (10.46)

from the integration by parts performed in the course of the calculation in (10.41). The term involving the scalar curvature is identical to, and cancels against, the scalar curvature term arising from (10.44). One is thus left with the statement that for any vector eld and any integration domain one has gd4 x [2R + (g g g g ) ( + )] = 0 . (10.47)

Thus for any one has the conserved Noether current

1 J () = R + 2 (g g g g ) ( + ) .

(10.48)

This is precisely the identically conserved current (8.79), (8.81) J () = ([ ] ) J () = 0 (10.49)

already mentioned in section 8.5. We thus learn that the generalised Komar currents of that section are indeed, as anticipated there, precisely the identically conserved Noether currents associated to the general covariance of the EinsteinHilbert action. Note that, as mentioned above, it is a general feature of Noether currents associated to local (gauge) symmetries that they are in fact identically conserved: the current J () (or its conterpart for some local symmetry of another theory) cannot possibly be conserved for all possible (x) unless it is actually identically conserved.6 In particular, this implies that the conserved charges associated with these currents can always be expressed as surface integrals. 3. On-Shell Covariant Conservation of the Energy-Momentum Tensor Now let us play the same game with the matter action SM (10.26). Once again, the variation SM , expressed in terms of the Lie derivatives L g and = L of the matter elds should be identically zero, by general covariance of the matter action (for the time being we only consider which are such that any boundary
See e.g. B. Julia, S. Silva, Currents and Superpotentials in classical gauge invariant theories I: Local results with applications to Perfect Fluids and General Relativity, arXiv:gr-qc/9804029 for a rather explicit elementary argument, and R. Wald, On identically closed forms locally constructed from a eld, J. Math. Phys. 31 (1990) 2378, R. Wald, Black Hole Entropy is Noether Charge, arXiv: gr-qc/9307038, V. Iyer and R. Wald, Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy, arXiv:gr-qc/9403028 and references therein for related considerations and further developments.
6

170

terms vanish). Proceeding as before, and using the denition (10.29) of the energymomentum tensor, we nd 0 = SM LM 4 ) = gd x ( 1 T g + 2 4 4 LM = gd x ( T ) + gd x .

(10.50)

Now once again this has to hold for all , and as the second term is identically zero on-shell, i.e. for satisfying the matter Euler-Lagrange equations of motion LM / = 0, we deduce that SM = 0 T = 0 on-shell . (10.51)

This should be contrasted with the contracted Bianchi identities which are valid o-shell. 10.4 Canonical vs Covariant Energy-Momentum Tensor

We now look at some of the implications of general covariance of the matter action when taking into account boundary terms. This turns out so be surprisingly rewarding - surprising because of the lack of obvious signicance (not to be confused with obvious lack of signicance, their signicance is explained and illustrated e.g. in the references given in footnote 6) of the identically conserved Noether currents obtained from the gravitational Einstein-Hilbert action in this case. As we will see, this will lead us to a relation between the covariant energy-momentum tensor (as dened here, via the metric-variation of the action) and the canonical energymomentum tensor (deduced from the translation-invariance of Poincar-invariant eld e theories in Minkowski space via Noethers theorem). In order to keep things notationally manageable (and, admitttedly, in order to be able to side-step a few technical ne-points), we will at rst just consider the usual minimally coupled action for a scalar eld. I will then discuss the general case (without, however, going through the entire calculation). We thus have the matter action SM = gd4 x LM (, ; g ) . (10.52)

On general grounds we know that, under the transformation = L the action transforms as 4 4 gd x LM = gd x ( LM ) . (10.53)

171

On the other hand, explicitly performing the variation, one nds g LM LM LM 4 + ( ) SM = gd x LM + g + g g ( ) Using the formula (6.25) for the Lie derivative of a covector, one sees that = L = + ( ) = ( ) = L =

(10.54)

(10.55)

(this is one of the simplications brought about by considering only scalars). Then, performing the usual integration by parts, keeping track of the boundary term, and combining (10.53) and (10.54), one nds where = LM gd4 x T + 4 LM gd x = gd4 x ( ) , (10.56)

LM ( )

(10.57)

is the usual canonical Noether energy-momentum tensor. Since this has to hold for all , we deduce LM T + (10.58) ( ) = ( ) , or LM ) . (10.59) (T ) = ( If this is to be valid for arbitrary , the coecients of and have to vanish separately (at the origin of an intertial coordinate system this would be the coecients of the obviously functionally independent functions and ). This has the following implications: 1. First of all, we learn that (in the case of scalar elds) the canonical and covariant energy-momentum tensors agree (o-shell), T = . (10.60)

This is of course something that we already checked explicitly in section 5.3, but it is reassuring to see this drop out of the general formalism as well. 2. We also learn that the latter (and hence the former) is conserved if the equations of motion of the matter elds are satised, LM =0 = T = 0 . (10.61)

This could have also alternatively been deduced from integrating (10.58) over a domain (with the chosen to vanish on the boundary), and integrating by parts - this is just a repetition of the argument that previously led us to (10.51). 172

3. We can also see directly from (10.58) that for a Killing vector, the Noether current (10.62) JN () = is on-shell conserved, ( ) = 0 and LM =0
JN () = 0 .

(10.63)

These are the conserved currents previously discussed in section 6.6. In general, i.e. when one does not restrict to scalar elds, the above chain of reasoning leads to the (on-shell) identication of the covariant energy-momentum tensor with a suitable covariantisation of the Belinfante symmetric improvement of the canonical Noether energy-momentum tensor.7 The general features of the Belinfante improvement of the canonical energy-momentum tensor for Poincar-invariant eld theories in Minkowski space are the following: e The canonical (Noether) energy-momentum tensor, constructed from the conserved currents associated to translation invariance of the action, is (we continue to generically call the elds , suppressing their Lorentz indices) = It is on-shell conserved, i.e. LM + LM . ( ) (10.64)

= 0

(10.65)

if the elds satisfy their Euler-Lagrange equations of motion. In general (with the exception of spin zero scalar elds), = is not symmetric, = (10.66) As a consequence, the would-be angular momentum current L = x x is not on-shell conserved, L = = 0 .
7

(10.67)

(10.68)

The literature on the Noether theorem and general covariance is littered with confused or at best confusing articles. Recent reasonably clear and to the point discussions of these and / or closely related issues can be found in R. Gamboa Saravi, On the energy-momentum tensor, arXiv:math-ph/0306020, and M. Holman, Generalized Noether Theorems for Field Theories Formulated in Minkowski Spacetime, arXiv:1009.1803 [gr-qc].

173

 By Lorentz invariance, the total (orbital + spin) angular momentum should be conserved, and the above (orbital) angular momentum current fails to be conserved because it does not take into account the spin, i.e. the fact that the are nontrivial Lorentz tensors (an irrelevant fact as far as the translational symmetries are concerned). This can be rectied by constructing the conserved total angular momentum current directly from Noethers theorem applied to Lorentz transformations = L of the elds and coordinates. This gives rise to an additional contribution to the conserved current, schematically of the form
J = Jorbit +

L L , ( )

Jorbit = L .

[]

(10.69)

From the conservation of this current one can then deduce an improved (onshell symmetric and conserved) energy-momentum tensor.8 This improved tensor turns out to dier from the canonical energy-momentum tensor by an identically conserved term, the Belinfante improvement term, = + , with = and = J (x x ) = 0 . (10.72) Note that the spin-contribution to the total angular momentum has in this way been transformed into an orbital contribution with respect to the new energy momentum tensor . This improved canonical energy-momentum tensor turns out to agree on-shell with () the covariant Minkowski energy-momentum tensor T ,
() = T

(10.70)

= 0 ,

(10.71)

on-shell

(10.73)

(the o-shell agreement between the canonical and covariant tensors in (10.60) is again a special feature of scalar elds), dened by temporarily minimally coupling the theory to a background metric g , performing the variation (10.30) with respect to the metric, and then seeting g = again,
() T =
8

2 SM [, g ] g g

g =

= 2

SM g

.
g =

(10.74)

This procedure is explained in many places. For a detailed explanation, geared also towards applications to general relativity, see section 2 of T. Ortin, Gravity and Strings; for a succinct description, and an extension of the usual procedure to Lagrangians depending also on second derivatives of the elds, see section II of D. Bak, D. Cangemi, R. Jackiw, Energy-Momentum Conservation in General Relativity, arXiv:hep-th/9310025.

174

 The energy-momentum tensor T dened in this way is automatically o-shell symmetric, on-shell conserved (and, in particular, automatically takes into account the orbital and spin contributions to the total conserved angular momentum of a Poincar-invariant eld theory). e It is typically (some consistency issues I will not go into here may arise for elds with spin > 1) possible to directly promote the Minkowskian improved (symmetric and on shell conserved) canonical energy-momentum tensor to a symmetric and on-shell covariantly conserved energy-momentum tensor in a curved background (by minimal coupling), and this is how we proceeded in the case of Maxwell theory in section 5.4. However, the rationale underlying the entire Belinfante symmetrisation procedure is not particularly compelling or natural in the case of non-trivial curved space-times (because of its origins in the Poincar invariance of the Minkowksian eld theory), and e one encounters the following features (or, rather, bugs): The covariantisation of the canonical Noether energy-momentum tensor, say something like LM = + LM . (10.75) ( ) is typically not covariantly on-shell conserved all by itself, = 0 on-shell (10.76)

()

(because of curvature terms, i.e. because one would have to be able to commute covariant derivatives on the elds in order to establish that the tensor is covariantly conserved, and this is typically not possible for eld of spin higher than zero). Likewise the covariantisation of the improvement term, in particular with with = , (10.77)

is not identically conserved, = 1 [ , ] = 1 R = 0 . 2 2 (10.78)

Thus there seems to be no good reason in the rst place to add this term to the non-conserved . Nevertheless, it turns out that the sum of these two contributions, = + , (10.79) is indeed on-shell conserved and symmetric, = and = 0 , (10.80)

which, however, from this perspective, must be considered to be somewhat of a miracle or uke. 175

 This can be demystied somewhat by deriving this result from Noethers theorem applied to coordinate transformations (generalising the calculation done for scalar elds at the beginning of this section by taking into account the non-trivial transformation behaviour of higher-rank tensor elds under coordinate transformations - see e.g. the references given in footnote 7). Ultimately, however, what this proof shows is that these properties hold for because this tensor is equal to the covariant energy-momentum tensor on-shell, = T on-shell , (10.81)

the latter being (on-shell) covariantly conserved and (o-shell) symmetric by contruction, and requiring absolutely no Belinfante-like gymnastics and improvement terms for its construction. These general features of the relation between the covariant and Belinfante-improved canonical energy-momentum tensors in Minkowski space and curved space-times are well and representatively illustrated by the example of Maxwell theory, already touched upon in section 5.4: In Minkowski space the canonical energy-momentum tensor is (5.31) = L 1 A + L = F A 4 F F , ( A ) (10.82)

which is on-shell conserved but neither symmetric nor gauge-invariant. The term that should be added to rectify this and to turn A into F is F A = (F A ) + ( F )A . (10.83)

Here the rst term is identically conserved and is the Belinfante correction term, = F A = , while the second term is zero on-shell. As a consequence, = + (F A ) = F F + L ( F )A (10.84)

(10.85)

agrees on-shell with the standard (covariant, symmetric and gauge-invariant) energy-momentum tensor
() 1 T = F F 4 F F

(10.86)

of Maxwell theory,
() = T

on-shell

(10.87)

176

 As shown in section 5.4, the minimally coupled extension T of T to a curved background agrees with the covariant energy-momentum tensor, dened by the variation of the Maxwell action with respect to the metric, 2 S[A , g ] . T = F F 1 g F F = 4 g g This tensor agrees on-shell with the covariantisation of , = T ( F )A . and therefore is on-shell symmetric and covariantly conserved. However, in a curved background neither the (covariantised) canonical energymomentum tensor nor the (covariantised) improvement term are separately conserved. In particular, from
1 = F A 4 g F F

()

(10.88)

(10.89)

(10.90)

one can calculate that on-shell = 1 F [ , ]A , 2 and from the improvement term one nds
1 (F A ) = 2 F [ , ]A

(10.91)

(10.92)

so that the two curvature terms indeed cancel. For me, the upshot of this long discussion is (but please draw your own conclusions) that the covariant denition of the energy-momentum tensor appears to be superior, both conceptually and calculationally, to other denitions, because it is more general, more concise and to the point, and easier to work with. It should therefore also be the denition of choice even if one is just interested in Poincar-invariant eld theories in e Minkowski space, in particular as it completely side-steps the issue of having to contruct the Belinfante improvement terms to the canonical energy-momentum tensor. Moreover, crucially for the present context and regardless of this entire discussion, whatever the virtues of other denitions may be, from the variational principle for general relativity it is the covariant energy-momentum tensor that plays the role of the source term for the Einstein equations. 10.5 Comments on Gravitational Energy

As an aside, let me briey return to the covariant conservation law T = 0 for the matter energy-momentum tensor which played such a key role above, and which we now write more explicitly as the non-conservation law (cf. (5.66)) T = 0 g1/2 (g1/2 T ) = T . 177 (10.93)

In the spirit of the interpretation of G in T = G (5.64) as the external force density acting on the system, one might like to interpret the term on the right-hand side as the gravitational external force density representing the exchange of energy between matter (represented by T ) and the gravitational eld (represented by ). can be made to disappear from the right-hand The external matter force-density G side of the (non-)conservation equation (5.64) by including and taking into account also the energy-momentum tensor of the source (one has no right to expect to obtain a true conservation law otherwise). This suggests that also in the present gravitational case it should be possible to dene a conserved total energy-momentum tensor by taking into account not only the matter energy-momentum tensor but also the energy-momentum of the gravitational eld itself. However, this is easier said then done, and attempts to make sense of this and make this well-dened are an important and controversial part of resarch in general relativity from the earliest days of general relativity to today. I will just add some short and introductory remarks on this, but must precede these with a caveat: This is treacherous territory and I cannot guarantee that even these elementary remarks are widely considered to be uncontroversial (in fact, the number of uncontroversial statements one can make about this subject is probably quite small - but is likely to include this parenthetical statement . . . ). 1. Ones rst thought may be that, in precise analogy with the denition of the covariant matter energy-momentum tensor, the gravitational energy-momentum tensor should be dened in terms of the variation of the gravitational (EinsteinHilbert) action with respect to the metric, or, equivalently, that the total energymmentum tensor should be dened as the variation of the total (Einstein-Hilbert + matter) action with respect to the metric. While this seems to be the logical thing to do, 2 1 tot ? T = SEH [g ] + SM [, g ] g g 16GN 1 = G + T , 8GN

(10.94)

it is evidently not useful because by the variational principle for general relativity this total energy-momentum tensor is identically zero for any solution to the Einstein equations. Whatever thus the poetic or philosophical virtues of such a denition might be (everything from nothing, the total energy of the universe is zero), it is clearly decient in many other respects and does not provide a whole lot of insight. In particular, with this denition one would assign zero gravitational energy to any source-free region of space-time, i.e. to vacuum gravitational eld (like gravitational waves, the exterior of a star etc.). Evidently, therefore, this denition fails 178

to capture some essential aspects of and contributions to what one would commonly refer to as gravitational potential energy. 2. Let us therefore return to (10.93). Note that the would-be gravitational force density term on the right-hand side of (10.93) is non-tensorial. It is often argued that this non-tensoriality reects the equivalence principle and is therefore also a necessary, profound, and characteristic feature of any potential denition of the energy density and/or the energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational eld. The argument for this runs along the lines of by the equivalence principle one can always go to an inertial, i.e. freely falling, reference frame in which, along the worldline of an observer (Fermi coordinates), the eects of gravity are absent in such a frame the energy-momentum tensor (or energy density) of the gravitational eld should therefore be zero if the gravitational energy-momentum tensor were a true tensor, it would then have to be zero in all reference frames thus a non-trivial gravitational energy-momentum tensor cannot be tensorial This argument, as compelling as it may appear at rst sight, is not watertight, however, in particular because the statement the eects of gravity are absent refers only to the metric and its rst derivatives, the deviation from the at metric showing up in the second derivatives of the metric, i.e. the Riemann curvature tensor. Thus it is possible that an appropriate notion of gravitational energy is just suciently non-local (by depending on the second derivatives of the metric) that it cannot be eliminated by going to a freely falling reference frame along a single worldline. Nevertheless, this provides a rst indication that the notion of energy density of the gravitational eld is perhaps somewhat more subtle than expected. 3. The above line of reasoning can be strengthened and illuminated somewhat by looking at the Newtonian limit. In the Newtonian theory, there is a (more or less, see the comment below) well-dened notion of gravitational potential energy density, and it is proportional to -()2 , minus the square of the gradient of the gravitational potential (the strictly negative gravitational binding energy). With the metric g playing the role of in general relativity, one might therefore expect to be able to write the gravitational energy density as an expression quadratic in the rst derivatives of the metric or, equivalently, quadratic in the Christoel symbols. However, there is no scalar or tensor that one can build

179

only from the metric and its rst derivatives and thus, the reasoning goes, whatever generalises the Newtonian notion of gravitational energy density cannot be tensorial. It is a curious and apparently under-appreciated fact that already the Newtonian theory exhibits an analogous behaviour, i.e. that even in the Newtonian theory the notion of gravitiational energy density at a point is strictly speaking ambiguous.9 This is essentially a consequence of the equality of gravitational and inertial mass, the precursor of the equivalence principle, which allows one to replace + a = ( + a.x) (10.95)

for any constant acceleration vector a. One can thus always make the the force and the potential energy density vanish at a point x0 by choosing a = (x0 ) (i.e. by going to a freely falling reference frame, as in our rst discussion of the equivalence principle in section 1.1). This local ambiguity of the gravitational potential energy density can be (and is usually implicitly) xed by invoking (nonlocally) the required or expected asymptotic behaviour of the gravitational eld (e.g. that it goes to zero asymptotically). It is this local ambiguity that sets the gravitational potential energy density apart from (formally similar) quantities like the electrostatic potential energy density. This suggests that perhaps this non-localisability or non-tensoriality of the gravitational potential energy density is an intrinsic property of this quantity, thus simply an inevitable feature and not a bug. Again this argument may sound compelling but is not without loopholes. For example, an integration by parts would put the Newtonian gravitational potential energy density into the form , and following the argument in section 9.3 (extended to quadratic order in the uctuations of the metric) it is certainly conceivable that one come up with some tensorial generalisations of this expression (involving second derivatives of the metric, i.e. contractions the Riemann tensor). However, then one needs to investigate whether such a candidate expression has other desired or desirable properties, beyond having the right Newtonian limit, in order to qualify as a candidate for the gravitational energy density or energymomentum tensor. In some way, this situation reects the tension of having to choose between working with either a covariant action, but involving second derivatives of the metric (the Einstein-Hilbert action (10.2)),
For a lucid recent discussion of this issue and its ramications in general relativity, see J. Frauendiener, L. Szabados, A note on the post-Newtonian limit of quasi-local energy expressions, arXiv:1102.1867 [gr-qc].
9

180

 or a non-covariant action, but nicely quadratic in the rst derivatives of the metric (the Einstein action (10.12)). 4. If among the desirable features for a potential gravitational energy-momentum tensor one wants to include the statement that, whatever the energy-momentum tensor t of the gravitational eld might be, it should be such that the total G energy-momentum tensor consisting of the sum of the matter and gravitational energy momentum tensors is conserved (in the ordinary sense of providing conserved currents), then this conicts directly with the requirement of tensoriality. Indeed, then the total energy-momentum tensor would have to satisfy some ordinary local conservation law of the type g(T + t ) = 0 G (10.96)

(or perhaps with some other power of g). However, since ( gT ) is not tensorial by itself (it is only the rst part of the covariant derivative), it is clear that t is then also invariably not tensorial. And if the sum T + t were G G covariantly conserved instead, then we would again face the same problem as in (10.93). A multitude of objects satisfying an equation like (10.96) are known, with t G non-tensorial, and these are known as energy-momentum pseudotensors. These are typically indeed quadratic in the rst derivatives of the metric (and hence, as we already discussed, necessarily non-tensorial but with a potentially viable Newtonian limit). Examples have been constructed e.g. by Einstein himself, or by Landau and Lifshitz, the pseudotensor of the latter at least having the attractive feature that it is symmetric.10 Such obervations and considerations (and a dislike of pseudo-tensorial objects) have led to the realisation that the notion of local energy density of the gravitational eld at a point may not be particularly useful or meaningful in general relativity. There appears to be a general consensus, though, that it is possible (and meaningful) to unambiguously dene, at the other extreme, the total energy, momentum and angular momentum of an isolated (asymptoticaly at, say) gravitating system in general relativity, and that these quantities can be calculated by boundary surface integrals over a 2-sphere at innity (ADM charges - for a very brief discussion of the ADM energy see section 23.4). Problems with the potential non-tensoriality of the boundary integrand can in those cases be avoided e.g. by appealing to an inertial Minkowskian observer at innity and only requring a tensorial behaviour under Lorentz transformations at innity.
For modern accounts and further references see e.g. the brief discussions in the textbooks N. Straumann, General Relativity or T. Ortin, Gravity and Strings, and the review article by L. Szabados (footnote 11).
10

181

Perhaps the most interesting question is therefore if one can do a bit better than that and talk in a meaningful way not only about the total energy contained in the total spatial volume of a space-time, but also somewhat more locally about the total energy in some nite localised volume of space-time. In spite of the problems with strictly local expressions for the energy-density, numerous candidates for such quasi-local expressions for the energy have been proposed and debated in the literature, and have been argued to provide reasonable denitions of gravitational energy in specic circumstances.11 The nal outcome may be that eventually a single best and universally accepted and agreed upon denition of quasi-local gravitational energy emerges from these investigations. However, at present it seems far more likely that no such universal denition exists and that the right answer depends on the specic context and question one is asking. 10.6 The Palatini Variational Principle

Recall from sections 4.8, 4.9 and 7.9 that a priori a metric g and a connection are independent concepts, and that the notion of curvature (curvature and Ricci tensors) can be dened for an arbitrary connection, R () = + , R () = R () . (10.97)

General relativity employs and is formulated in terms of the canonical Levi-Civita con nection described by the Christoel symbols = , characterised by the fact that the connection is compatible with the metric and has no torsion. It is thus easy to come up with various generalisations of general relativity in which these requirements are relaxed.12 We will not get into these matters here. However, it is a curious, and occasionally calculationally or conceptually useful, fact that it is possible to relax somewhat the a priori identication of the connection with the Levi-Civita connection and nevertheless reproduce general relativity by treating the connection and metric as independent variables. Specically, we will consider an action of the generalised Einstein-Hilbert-like form S[g , ] = 4 gd x R() = gd4 x g R () (10.98)

for a (yet to be specied) class of connections , with g and to be treated as independent variables. Since R () does then not depend on the metric, the characteristic feature and key simplication of this kind of action is that the variation with
For an excellent detailed review of the attempts to dene a notion of local or quasi-local energy density of the gravitational eld, see L. Szabados, Quasi-Local EnergyMomentum and Angular Momentum in General Relativity, Living Rev. Relativity 12, (2009), 4; http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2009-4. 12 Many of these (including theories with non-symmetric metrics) were originally explored by Einstein and his collaborators in their futile and ill-motivated attempts to nd a unied eld theory of gravity and Maxwell theory. For details, see e.g. the review H. Goenner, On the History of Unied Field Theories, Living Rev. Relativity 7 (2004) 2, http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-2.
11

182

respect to the metric is elementary (and identical to the variation of the of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density gg R ), namely g S[g , ] = 4 gd x R () 1 g R() g 2

gg terms

(10.99)

(no integration by parts or identication of total derivative terms required). Thus, in the absence of the coupling of the metric (or of gravity) to other elds we nd the equations of motion 1 G () R () 2 g R() = 0 . (10.100) These are, however, not yet the vacuum Einstein equations because the independent connection is not the Levi-Civita connection. It remains to look at the equations of motion imposed by stationarity of the action with respect to variations of . It turns out (the Palatini principle) that 1. if one chooses the connections to be torsion-free and imposes the -equations of motion, then the connections are forced to also be compatible with the metric and thus is uniquely determined to be the Levi-Civita connection 2. if one chooses the connections to be compatible with the metric and imposes the -equations of motion, then the connections are forced to also be torsion-free and thus is uniquely determined to be the Levi-Civita connection In terms of the notation introduced in section 4.9, this amounts to the assertions T () = 0 and S[g, ] = 0 Q () = 0 and S[g, ] = 0 Q () = 0 T () = 0 = (10.101) =

In either case, the metric equations of motion (10.100) then reduce to the vacuum Einstein equations. In order to establish the assertions (10.101), we need two preparatory results. The rst is that the generalisation of the formula (10.19), R () = (10.102)

for the variation of the Ricci tensor in terms of the variation of the connection is R () = + . (10.103)

The second is that when the connection is not the Levi-Civita connection, an expression like J is not a total derivative in the integral, this being only true for the Levi-Civita connection thanks to the identity gd4 x J = 183 d4 x ( gJ ) . (10.104)

Writing = + C , we have V = V + C V and, in particular, J = J + C J , only the rst term on the right-hand side giving rise to a total derivative. What we are interested in is g R (), and with the above results and notation we can write this as
g R () =g C C C C C C + C C

(10.105) (10.106) (10.107)

(10.108)

+ total derivative terms Thus the variation of the action with respect to the is S[g, ] = =
gd4 x g C C C C C C + C C

(10.109)

gd x

+g C

If we were to consider arbitrary and hence unconstrained variations C , the con dition for the action to be stationary with respect to variations of would be S[g, ] = 0 g C + g C C C = 0 . (10.110)

However, these equations do not determine the C uniquely, and hence in this case the Einstein-Hilbert-like action (10.98) alone does not give rise to acceptable equations of motion for the elds. The situation changes if one imposes some a priori contraints on the allowed , and hence on their variations C . We now consider separately the two cases mentioned above: 1. are restricted to be symmetric (torsion-free)
In terms of the coecients C , this amounts to the condition

C = C and the same condition should be imposed on their variations, C = C

(10.111)

(10.112)

Thus, symmetrising appropriately, from (10.109) one obtains the constraints 2g C + g C + g C 2C 2C = 0 . 184 (10.113)

Taking traces, once by contraction with g and once by contraction with g (or, equivalently, with g ), one obtains two linearly independent conditions on the traces C and C requiring both to vanish, traces C = 0 , C = 0 . (10.114)

Then, upon symmetrisation, (10.113) reduces to the condition C + C = 0 C + C = 0 (10.115)

But as we have seen in (4.83) of section 4.9, this is precisely the condition that the non-metricity tensor is zero, Q = C + C = 0 , i.e. that the connection is compatible with the metric. Since we started o with a torsion-free (symmetric) connection, this means that the equations of motion x the connection to be the Levi-Civita connection. Alternatively, (10.111) and (10.115) imply that C = 0 This concludes the proof of the rst assertion in (10.101). 2. are restricted to be compatible with the metric This is largely analogous. In terms of the coecients C , metric compatibility amounts (as just recalled) to the condition C = C and the same condition should be imposed on their variations, C = C Thus C = C() + C[] = T() + 1 T 2 g C g C + C C = 0 . (10.119) is the contorsion tensor. In this case, antisymmetrisation of (10.109) leads to (10.120) (10.118) (10.117) (10.116)

Taking traces, one nds C = 0 (the other trace C is identically zero because of anti-symmetry), and thus (10.120) reduces to C C = 0 C = C , (10.121)

which is precisely the symmetry (no torsion) condition T = C C = 0 . (10.122)

Since we started o with metric-compatible connection, this means that the equa tions of motion x the connection to be the Levi-Civita connection. Alternatively, (10.117) and (10.121) imply that C = 0. This concludes the proof of the second assertion in (10.101). 185

Remarks:

1. When one couples either of these theories to matter, one will nd the standard Einstein equations with source the usual matter energy-momentum tensor, provided that the minimally coupled matter action depends only on the metric and not on the connection. As we have seen, this is satised in the case of scalar or Maxwell gauge elds (for which the minimally coupled action in the usual setting could be written in such a way that it depends only on the metric but not on the derivatives of the metric). However, typically the connection appears explicitly in the action for spinors, and in this case variation of the matter action will produce a non-zero contribution to the torsion, say. Thus in that case the Einstein-Hilbert approach (no torsion as a kinematical contraint) and the Palatini approach (torsion determined dynamically) are inequivalent. 2. Within the present framework, it is not possible to relax both the no-torsion and the metricity constraints simultaneously, but one can attempt to achieve this either with the aid of additional auxiliary elds, or spontaneously by adding potentials that force the connection in the ground state to either zero torsion or zero non-metricity.13 3. Once one contemplates and permits the presence of non-metricity and/or torsion, there are many more terms that one can in principle use to build an action (by using scalars built from the torsion and non-metricity tensors T and Q and their covariant derivatives). Thus, unless one imposes additional symmetry requirements, say, there is no good reason to focus attention exclusively on the Einstein-Hilbert-like action (10.98) (and many generalisations of general relativity suggested and disucssed in the literature can and should be either rejected or amended simply on these grounds).

13

See e.g. R. Percacci, Geometry of Nonlinear Field Theories for an exploration of some of these ideas.

186

Part II: Selected Applications of General Relativity

Until now, our treatment of the basic structures and properties of Riemannian geometry and General Relativity has been rather systematic. In the second half of the course, we will instead discuss some selected applications of General Relativity. These will include, of course, a discussion of the classical predictions and tests of General Relativity (the deection of light by the sun and the perihelion shift of Mercury). Then one can, depending on time and interest, look at a variety of other topics. Here is a list of the topics covered in the remainder of the notes (the blocks made of sections 11-15, 16-22, 23-24, and section 25 can be read pretty much independently of each other): 11. The Schwarzschild Metric 12. Particle and Photon Orbits in the Schwarzschild Geometry 13. Approaching the Schwarzschild Radius 14. The Schwarzschild Black Hole 15. The Reissner-Nordstrm Solution 16. Interlude: Maximally Symmetric Spaces 17. Cosmology I: Basics 18. Cosmology II: Basics of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Cosmology 19. Cosmology III: Qualitative Analysis 20. Cosmology IV: Some Exact Solutions 21. Interior Solution for a Collapsing Star 22. de Sitter and anti-de Sitter Spaces 23. Linearised Gravity and Gravitational Waves 24. Exact Wave-like Solutions of the Einstein Equations 25. Kaluza-Klein Theory

187

11
11.1

The Schwarzschild Metric

Introduction

Einstein himself suggested three tests of General Relativity, namely 1. the gravitational red-shift 2. the deection of light by the sun 3. the anomalous precession of the perihelion of the orbits of Mercury and Venus, and calculated the theoretical predictions for these eects. In the meantime, other tests have also been suggested and performed, for example the time delay of radar echos passing the sun (the Shapiro eect). All these tests have in common that they are carried out in empty space, with gravitational elds that are to an excellent aproximation static (time independent) and isotropic (spherically symmetric). Thus our rst aim will have to be to solve the vacuum Einstein equations under the simplifying assumptions of isotropy and time-independence. This, as we will see, is indeed not too dicult. 11.2 Static Spherically Symmetric Metrics

Even though we have decided that we are interested in static spherically symmetric metrics, we still have to determine what we actually mean by this statement. After all, a metric which looks time-independent in one coordinate system may not do so in another coordinate system. There are two ways of approaching this issue: 1. One can try to look for a covariant characterisation of such metrics, in terms of Killing vectors etc. In the present context, this would amount to considering metrics which admit four Killing vectors, one of which is timelike, with the remaining three representing the Lie algebra of the rotation group SO(3). 2. Or one works with preferred coordinates from the outset, in which these symmetries are manifest. While the former approach may be conceptually more satisfactory, the latter is much easier to work with and is hence the one we will adopt. It is important to recall and realise once again that, precisely because the theory is invariant under coordinate transformations, one is allowed to choose whatever coordinate system is most convenient to perform a calculation (much like Lorentz invariance in

188

special relativity allows one to prove Lorentz-invariant statements by proving them in any suitably chosen intertial frame). We will implement the condition of time-independence by choosing all the components of the metric to be time-independent, and we will express the condition of isotropy by the requirement that, in terms of spatial polar coordinates (r, , ) the metric can be written as ds2 = A(r)dt2 + B(r)dr 2 + 2C(r)dr dt + D(r)r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . (11.1)

This ansatz, depending on the four functions A(r), B(r), C(r), D(r), can still be simplied a lot by choosing appropriate new time and radial coordinates. First of all, let us introduce a new time coordinate T (t, r) by T (t, r) = t + (r) . Then dT 2 = dt2 + 2 dr 2 + 2 dr dt . (11.3) Thus we can eliminate the o-diagonal term in the metric by choosing to satisfy the dierential equation d(r) C(r) = . (11.4) dr A(r) This is tantamount to making the coordinate choice C(r) = 0. We can also eliminate D(r) by introducing a new radial coordinate R(r) by R2 = D(r)r 2 . Thus we can assume that the line element of a static isotropic metric is of the form ds2 = A(r)dt2 + B(r)dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . (11.5) (11.2)

This is tantamount to making the coordinate choice D(r) = 1, and leads to what is known as the standard form of a static isotropic metric. Another useful presentation, related to the above by a coordinate transformation, is provided by the choice D(r) = B(r), so that the metric takes the form ds2 = A(r)dt2 + B(r)(dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) = A(r)dt2 + B(r)dx2 . This is the static spherically symmetric metric in isotropic form.
Remarks:

(11.6)

1. We will mostly be using the metric in the standard form (11.5). Let us note some immediate properties of this metric: (a) By our ansatz, the components of the metric are time-independent. Because we have been able to eliminate the dtdr-term, the metric is also invariant under time-reversal t t. 189

(b) The surfaces of constant t and r have the metric ds2 |r=const.,t=const. = r 2 d2 , and hence have the geometry of two-spheres. (c) Because B(r) = 1, we cannot identify r with the proper radial distance. However, r has the clear geometrical meaning that the two-sphere of constant 2 r has the area A(Sr ) = 4r 2 . (d) Also, even though the coordinate time t is not directly measurable, it can be invariantly characterised by the fact that /t is a timelike Killing vector. (e) The functions A(r) and B(r) are now to be found by solving the Einstein eld equations. (f) If we want the solution to be asymptotically at (i.e. that it approaches Minkowski space for r ), we need to impose the boundary conditions
r

(11.7)

lim A(r) = lim B(r) = 1 .

r

(11.8)

2. The advantage of the istropic form of the metric is that one can, as alrady indicated in (11.6), replace dr 2 + r 2 d2 by e.g. the standard metric on R3 in Cartesian coordinates, or any other metric on R3 . This is useful when one likes to think of the solar system as being essentially described by at space, with some choice of coordinates. 3. We have assumed from the outset that the metric is static. However, it can be shown with little eort (see section 11.6) that the vacuum Einstein equations imply that a spherically symmetric metric is static. This result is known as Birkho s theorem. It is the General Relativity analogue of the Newtonian result that a spherically symmetric body behaves as if all the mass were concentrated in its center. 4. In the present context it means that the gravitational eld not only of a static spherically symmetric body is static and spherically symmetric (as we have assumed), but that the same is true for a radially oscillating/pulsating object. This is a bit surprising because one would expect such a body to emit gravitational radiation. What Birkhos theorem shows is that this radiation cannot escape into empty space (because otherwise it would destroy the time-independence of the metric). Translated into the language of waves, this means that there is no s-wave (monopole) gravitational radiation. We will come back to other aspects of measurements of space and time in such a geometry after we have solved the Einstein equations.

190

11.3

Solving the Einstein Equations for a Static Spherically Symmetric Metric

We will now solve the vacuum Einstein equations for the static isotropic metric in standard form, i.e. we look for solutions of R = 0 for metrics of the type (11.5). You should have already (as an exercise) calculated all the Christoel symbols of this metric, using the Euler-Lagrange equations for the geodesic equation. As a reminder, here is how this method works. To calculate all the Christoel symbols r , say, in one go, you look at the Euler Lagrange equation for r = r( ) resulting from the Lagrangian L = g x x /2. This is easily seen to be r+ A 2 B 2 t + = 0 r + 2B 2B (11.9)

(a prime denotes an r-derivative), from which one reads o that r = B /2B etc. rr Proceeding in this way, you should nd (or have found) that the non-zero Christoel symbols are given by rrr = r B 2B r = B rtt = A 2B

r sin2 B A 1 ttr = r = r = r 2A = sin cos = cot r =

(11.10)

Now we need to calculate the Ricci tensor of this metric. A silly way of doing this would be to blindly calculate all the components of the Riemann tensor and to then perform all the relevant contractions to obtain the Ricci tensor. A more intelligent and less time-consuming strategy is the following: 1. Instead of using the explicit formula for the Riemann tensor in terms of Christoel symbols, one should use directly its contracted version R = R = + and use the formula (4.36) for derived previously. 2. The high degree of symmetry of the Schwarzschild metric implies that many components of the Ricci tensor are automatically zero. For example, invariance of the Schwarzschild metric under t t implies that Rrt = 0. The argument for this is simple. Since the metric is invariant under t t, the Ricci tensor should also be invariant. But under the coordinate transformation t t, Rrt transforms as Rrt Rrt . Hence, invariance requires Rrt = 0, and no further calculations for this component of the Ricci tensor are required. 191 (11.11)

3. Analogous arguments, now involving or instead of t, imply that Rr = Rr = Rt = Rt = R = 0 . (11.12)

4. Since the Schwarzschild metric is spherically symmetric, its Ricci tensor is also spherically symmetric. It is easy to prove, by considering the eect of a coordinate transformation that is a rotation of the two-sphere dened by and (leaving the metric invariant), that this implies that R = sin2 R . (11.13)

One possible proof (there may be a shorter argument): Consider a coordinate transformation (, ) ( , ). Then d 2 + sin2 d2 =
2

+ sin2

d 2 + . . .

(11.14)

Thus, a necessary condition for the metric to be invariant is ( 2 ) + sin2 ( )2 = 1 . (11.15)

Now consider the transformation behaviour of R under such a transformation. Using R = 0, one has R = ( 2 ) R + ( )2 R . (11.16)

Demanding that this be equal to R (because we are considering a coordinate transformation which does not change the metric) and using the condition derived above, one obtains R = R (1 sin2 ( which implies (11.13). 5. Thus the only components of the Ricci tensor that we need to compute are Rrr , Rtt and R . Now some unenlightning calculations lead to the result that these components of the Ricci tensor are given by Rtt = Rrr R A A A B A ( + )+ 2B 4B A B rB A A A B B = + ( + )+ 2A 4A A B rB r A B 1 ( ) . = 1 B 2B A B 192 2 ) ) + ( )2 R , (11.17)

(11.18)

Inspection of these formulae reveals that there is a linear combination which is particularly simple, namely BRtt + ARrr , which can be written as BRtt + ARrr =
1 rB (A B

+ B A) .

(11.19)

Demanding that this be equal to zero, one obtains A B + B A = 0 A(r)B(r) = const. Asymptotic atness xes this constant to be = 1, so that B(r) = 1 . A(r) (11.21) (11.20)

Plugging this result into the expression for R , one obtains R = 0 A 1 + rA = 0 (Ar) = 1 , which has the solution Ar = r + C or A(r) = 1 + Now also Rtt = Rrr = 0. To x C, we compare with the Newtonian limit which tells us that asymptotically A(r) = g00 should approach (temporarily reinserting c) (1 + 2/c2 ), where = GN M/r is the Newtonian potential for a static spherically symmetric star of mass M . Thus C = 2M G/c2 , and the nal form of the metric is ds2 = (1
2M GN 2 2 )c dt c2 r

(11.22)

C . r

(11.23)

+ (1

2M GN 1 2 ) dr c2 r

+ r 2 d2

(11.24)

This is the famous Schwarzschild metric, obtained by the astronomer Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, the very same year that Einstein published his eld equations, while he was serving as a soldier in World War I (and discovered independently a few months later by Johannes Droste, a student of Lorentz). We will usually not write the constant GN explicitly (and set c = 1), and thus we introduce the abbreviation GN M m= , (11.25) c2 in terms of which the Schwarzschild metric takes the form ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , f (r) = 1 2m . r (11.26)

The interpretation of m is that of the gravitational mass radius associated to the mass M . To see that all this is dimensionally correct, note that Newtons constant has dimensions (M mass, L length, T time) [GN ] = M1 L3 T2 so that [GN ] = M1 L3 T2 193 [m] = [GN M/c2 ] = L . (11.27)

For examples of the value of m for various objects see section 11.4. We have seen that, by imposing appropriate symmetry conditions on the metric, and making judicious use of them in the course of the calculation, the complicated Einstein equations become rather simple and manageable. 11.4 Schwarzschild Coordinates and Schwarzschild Radius

The metric we have obtained is quite remarkable in several respects. As mentioned before, the vacuum Einstein equations imply that an isotropic metric is static. Furthermore, the metric contains only a single constant of integration, the mass M . This implies that the metric in the exterior of a spherical body is completely independent of the composition of that body. Whatever the energy-momentum tensor for a star may be, the eld in the exterior of the star has always got the form (11.24). This considerably simplies the physical interpretation of General Relativity. In particular, in the subsequent discussion of tests of General Relativity, which only involve the exterior of stars like the sun, we do not have to worry about solutions for the interior of the star and how those could be patched to the exterior solutions. We begin our investigation of the Schwarzschild metric by taking a look at the coordinates and their range (always a useful rst step). 1. The polar coordinates and have their standard interpretation and range. 2. The time coordinate t can be interpreted as the proper time of a static observer innittely far away from the star, at r . Thus, given the asymptotic atness of the solution, we can think of t as measuring Minkowski time. Clearly, the range of t is unrestricted, < t < . 3. However, the issue regarding r is more interesting. (a) We had already discussed above, that its geometrical interpretation is that of an area radius, i.e. it is characterised by the fact that, even though r is not proper radial distance, the surface area of a sphere of constant radius r is 4r 2 . (b) Moreover, the metric is, by construction, a vacuum metric. Thus, if the star has radius r0 , then the solution is only valid for r > r0 , and the range of r is restricted appropriately, r0 < r < . (c) However, (11.26) also shows that the metric appears to have a singularity at the Schwarzschild radius rs , given by rs = 2GN M = 2m . c2 (11.28)

194

Thus, for the time being we will also require r > rs . For most practical purposes, this is not a further constraint on the range of r, since the radius of a physical object is almost always much larger than its Schwarzschild radius. For example, for a proton, for the earth and for the sun one has approximately Mproton 1024 g rs 2, 5 1052 cm r0 1013 cm Mearth 6 1027 g rs 1 cm r0 6000km (11.29)

Msun 2 1033 g rs 3 km r0 7 105 km .

However, for more compact objects, their radius can approach that of their Schwarzschild radius. For example, for neutron stars one can have rs 0.1r0 , and it is an interesting question (we will take up again later on, in sections 13 and 14) what happens to an object whose size is equal to or smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. (d) One thing that does not occur at rs , however, in spite of what (11.26) may suggest, is a true physical singularity. The singularity in (11.26) turns out to be a pure coordinate singularity, i.e. an artefact of having chosen a poor coordinate system, and later on we will construct coordinates in which the metric is completely regular at rs . Nevertheless, it turns out that something interesting does happen at r = rs , even though there is no singularity and e.g. geodesics are perfectly well behaved there: rs is an event-horizon, in a sense a point of no return. Once one has passed the Schwarzschild radius of an object with r0 < rs , there is no turning back, not on geodesics, but also not with any amount of acceleration. 11.5 Measuring Length and Time in the Schwarzschild Metric

In order to learn how to visualise the Schwarzschild metric (for r > r0 > rs ), we will now discuss some further elementary properties of length and time in the Schwarzschild geometry. Let us rst consider proper time for a stationary observer, i.e. an observer at rest at xed values of (r, , ). Proper time is related to coordinate time by d = (1 2m/r)1/2 dt < dt . (11.30)

Thus, rst of all, up to a constant factor for such observers their proper time agrees with their coordinate time, and we can simply and conveniently label events as described by a stationary observer by the coordinate time t instead of the proper time of the observer. Secondly, we can interpret the above relationship as the statement that stationary clocks (measuring the proper time ) run slower in a gravitational eld - something we already 195

Sphere of radius r+dr

dr

dR > dr

Sphere of radius r

Figure 9: Figure illustrating the geometry of the Schwarzschild metric. In R3 , concentric spheres of radii r and r + dr are a distance dr apart. In the Schwarzschild geometry, such spheres are a distance dR > dr apart. This departure from Euclidean geometry becomes more and more pronounced for smaller values of r, i.e. as one travels down the throat towards the Schwarzschild radius r = 2m. saw in the discussion of the gravitational red-shift in section 2.8, and also in the discussion of the so-called twin-paradox and the equivalence principle in section 1.1. This formula again suggests that something interesting is happening at the Schwarzschild radius r = 2m - we will come back to this below. As regards spatial length measurements, thus dt = 0, we have already seen above that the slices r = const. have the standard two-sphere geometry. However, as r varies, these two-spheres vary in a way dierent to the way concentric two-spheres vary in R3 . To see this, note that the proper radius R, obtained from the spatial line element by setting = const., = const, is dR = (1 2m/r)1/2 dr > dr . (11.31)

In other words, the proper radial distance between concentric spheres of area 4r 2 and area 4(r + dr)2 is dR > dr and hence larger than in at space. Note that dR dr for r so that, as expected, far away from the origin the space approximately looks like R3 . One way to visualise this geometry is as a sort of throat or sink, as in Figure 9. To get some more quantitative feeling for the distortion of the geometry produced by the gravitational eld of a star, consider a long stick lying radially in this gravitational eld, with its endpoints at the coordinate values r1 > r2 . To compute its length L, we have to evaluate r1 L= dr(1 2m/r)1/2 . (11.32)
r2

196

It is possible to evaluate this integral in closed form (by changing variables from r to u = 1/r), but for the present purposes it will be enough to treat 2m/r as a small perturbation and to only retain the term linear in m in the Taylor expansion. Then we nd r1 r1 dr(1 + m/r) = (r1 r2 ) + m log L > (r1 r2 ) . (11.33) r2 r2 We see that the corrections to the Euclidean result are suppressed by powers of the Schwarzschild radius rs = 2m so that for most astronomical purposes one can simply work with coordinate distances. This is even more evident when one puts the Schwarzschild metric into the isotropic form of the metric (11.6). This is accomplished by the coordinate transformation r = (1 + leading to ds = =
2

m 2 ) , 2 m 4 2 ) (d + 2 d2 ) 2 ( 2 = x2 ) ,

(11.34)

(1 + (1 + (1

(1

m 2 2 ) 2 m 2 dt ) 2 m 2 2 ) 2 m 2 dt ) 2

+ (1 +

m + (1 + )4 dx2 2

(11.35)

as can easily be veried. To actually nd the appropriate coordinate transformation in the rst place, one needs to solve the equation f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 = B()(d2 + 2 d2 ) , i.e. dr rf 1/2 (r) d (11.36)

ln(/0 ) = cosh1 (r/m 1) .

(11.37)

This leads to (11.34) for the choice 0 = m/2 (but any other choice would have been just as good). From this one can now read o that the relation between proper and coordinate distance (the latter now referring to the spatial Cartesian coordinates x in (11.35)) is m (x)proper = (1 + )2 (x) . (11.38) 2 However, in interpreting this or using this form of the metric for other purposes, one should pay attention to the fact that the region 2m < r < of the Schwarzschild metric is covered twice by the isotropic coordinates. In particular, r both for 0 and for , while r() reaches its minimal value r = 2m for = m/2. Thus the metric in isotropic coordinates appears to describe not just one but two identical (isometric) asymptotically at regions, joined together at the 2-sphere = m/2 r = 2m. This is the rst indication that with the Schwarzschild metric we seem to have obtained more than we bargained for, in particular when considering objects whose radius is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius rs = 2m. Later on, we will encounter 197

numerous other coordinate systems for the Schwarzschild metric, providing us with different insights into its physics and geometry. In particular, we will then (re-)discover this second asymptotically at region in section 14.6 (as the mirror region III). 11.6 Birkhoffs Theorem

A slightly more general calculation than we have performed in section 11.3 to nd the Schwarzschild solution for the exterior of a spherically symmetric static star provides us with 1. a proof of Birkhos theorem, mentioned above, that a spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the Einstein equations is necessarily static; 2. some more insight into the interpretation of the parameter M as the mass of the solution; 3. as an added benet, the basic set of equations governing the solutions of the Einstein equations for the interior of the star (an issue we will briey consider in section 11.7). Thus, let us start with a general spherically symmetric (but not necessarily timeindependent) metric. Arguments analogous to those leading to (11.5) allow one to conclude that the metric can be chosen to be of the form ds2 = A(t, r)dt2 + B(t, r)dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . (11.39)

However, as we have already seen in the derivation of the Schwarzschild metric, this parametrisation of the metric in terms of the two functions A(r) and B(r) is not ideal. To see what might be more convenient, we rst reanalyse the Einstein equations in the time-independent case, but this time with an energy-momentum tensor. Thanks to the relation (11.19) we have (AB) Rrr Rtt = (rB)1 . (11.40) AB This suggests that it is useful to introduce a new function h(r) through A(r)B(r) = e 2h(r) , i.e. through A(r) = e 2h(r) f (r) , B(r) = f (r)1 (11.42) for some arbitrary new function f (r). Using the Einstein equations (9.33) in the form R = 8GN (T 1 T ) , 2 (11.43) (11.41)

198

one sees that one particular linear combination of the Einstein equations now takes the form h (r) = 4GN rf (r)1 (T r T t ) . (11.44) r t The remaining independent component (in the time-independent case) can be chosen to be Rtt 1 R = 8GN T t (11.45) t 2 which, after a bit of algebra with the formulae (11.18), works out to be [r(f (r) 1)] = 8GN r 2 T t . t This suggests that one trades f (r) for another function r(f (r) 1) = 2m(r) so that (11.46) becomes m (r) = 4GN r 2 (T t ) . t (11.48) Equations (11.44) and (11.48) make it as manifest as possible that the spherically symmetric vacuum solution is the Schwarzschild metric with f (r) = 1 2m/r, m constant, and h(r) = 0 (an arbitrary constant can be absorbed into the denition of the timecoordinate t). Let us therefore now, in the time-dependent case, and with the benet of the above hindsight, parametrise the two arbitrary functions A(t, r) and B(t, r) in (11.39) in terms of two other functions h(t, r) and either f (t, r) or m(t, r) by the substitution A(t, r) = e 2h(t, r) f (t, r) f (t, r) = 1 2m(t, r) . r B(t, r) = f (t, r)1 (11.49) f (r) = 1 2m(r)/r , (11.47) (11.46)

Thus, explicitly, the modied ansatz for a general spherically symmetric metric is ds2 = e 2h(t, r) f (t, r)dt2 + f (t, r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 . (11.50)

In this gauge, the full (non-vacuum) Einstein equations turn out to take a particuarly simple and useful form. The previously obtained equations (11.44) and (11.48) continue to be valid also in the time-dependent case, and there is now one more independent equation, arising from, say, the (rt)-component of the Einstein equation. This set of three equations is (a dot now denotes a t-derivative, a prime as before an r-derivative) m (t, r) = 4GN r 2 (T t ) t m(t, r) = 4GN r 2 (+T r ) t h (t, r) = 4GN rf (t, r)1 (T t + T r ) . t r (11.51)

199

For vacuum solutions these equations immediately imply that the mass function m(t, r) = m is a constant and that h (t, r) = 0 so that h = h(t) is an arbitrary function of t: T = 0 and m (t, r) = m(t, r) = 0 m(t, r) = m h (t, r) = 0

constant h = h(t) .

(11.52)

Thus h(t), which only appears in the (tt)-component of the metric, can simply be absorbed into a redenition of t, ds2 = e 2h(t) f (r)dt2 = f (r) e h(t) dt f (r)(dtnew )2 +f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2
2

+f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 +f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2

(11.53)

and we can, without loss of generality, assume that h = 0. Thus we uniquely recover the Schwarzschild solution, even without having to assume from the outset that the metric is time-independent. This is Birkhos theorem.
Remarks:

1. A caveat should be added here: if one applies the above reasoning to a region of space-time where f (r) < 0 (we will study this region of the Schwarzschild metric in great detail in section 14), then the above argument still shows that an additional Killing vector emerges from the joint requirement of spherical symmmetry and the vacuum Einstein equations. But now this Killing vector (misleadingly called t ) is spacelike and not timelike.14 2. Since T t is (minus) the energy density and T r represents the radial energy ux, t t the above equations show that m(t, r) can inded be interpreted as the mass or energy of the solution. Indeed, let (r) = T t denote the energy density inside a static spherically symt metric star, say, and let m(r) = GN M (r). Then (11.48) implies M (r) = 4r 2 (r)
r

M (r) = 4
0

dr (r )2 (r ) ,

(11.54)

which looks exactly like the ordinary mass inside sphere of radius r (in at space). In particular, if (r) = 0 for r > r0 (with r0 the radius of the star), then one can interpret
r0

M M (r0 ) = 4
14

dr (r )2 (r )

(11.55)

For a more careful statement and proof of Birkhos theorem along these lines see e.g. K. Schleich, D. Witt, A simple proof of Birkho s theorem for cosmological constant, arXiv:0908.4110v2 [gr-qc].

200

as the total mass-energy of the star. One can (try to) attribute the dierence between this integral and that of (r) weighted by the proper spatial volume element,
r0

Mproper = 4
0 r0

dr (r )2

grr (r )(r ) (11.56)

= 4
0

dr (r )2 (r )(1 2m(r ))1/2 > M

to the binding energy of the star. 3. The above set (11.51) of Einstein equations for spherical symmetry (which should still be supplemented by, say, the conservation law for the energy-momentum tensor), also allows one to read o some fairly simple generalisations of Birkhos theorem, such as spherical symmetry and static sources (i.e. T = T (r)) metric is time-independent. 4. Finally, note that the characteristic form ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 (11.57)

of the Schwarzschild solution is implied not just by the vacuum Einstein equations but, more generally, by the Einstein equations with T t = T r . This sitr t uation is not as uncommon as one may think. For example, solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations for spherically symmetric electrically charged stars (the Reissner-Nordstrm solution, see section 15), even with the inclusion of a cosmological constant, turn out to also be of this form. Some other examples of solutions of this type (in more than 4 dimensions) are presented in section 14.9.15 11.7 Interior Solution for a Static Star and the TOV Equation

The Schwarzschild solution is a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations for the exterior of a spherically symmetric (static) star. The Einstein equations also govern and describe the gravitational eld = space-time geometry in the interior of the star. In this case one needs to specify the energy-momentum tensor for the matter content in the interior of the star, and in general this is a complicated astrophysics problem which we will not address here. However, a useful idealised model of the energy-momentum tensor, compatible with the symmetry requirements arising from the fact that the star is assumed to be static and spherically symmetric, which we will take to mean that the metric has the form ds2 = e 2h(r) f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 (11.58) 2m(r) f (r) = 1 , r
For some further reections on the ubiquity of such solutions, see T. Jacobson, When is gtt grr = 1?, arXiv:0707.3222v3 [gr-qc].
15

201

is provided by the ansatz T = diag ((r), p(r), p(r), p(r)) . (11.59)

Here we interpret = (r) as the energy density of the star, and p = p(r) as its pressure density.
Remarks:

1. This ansatz amounts to neglecting anisotropic stresses in the interior of the star (the spatial o-diagonal components) as well as energy-ow in the form of heatconduction, say (the o-diagonal time-space components). Depending on the type of star one wishes to describe this may or may not be a justied approximation (but is considered to be an excellent approximation for very compact stars like white dwarves / dwarfs and neutron stars). 2. The covariant components T of the energy-momentum tensor can be written as T = ( + p)u u + pg , where u = (gtt (r))1/2 , 0, 0, 0 u u = gtt (r)(gtt (r))1 = 1 (11.61) (11.60)

is the velocity-eld of stationary observers, i.e. observers remaining at xed values of the spatial coordinates (r, , ). This is the general form of the energymomentum tensor of what is known as a perfect uid, and will be discussed in more detail in the sections on cosmology - see in particular section 18.2. 3. Specifying the energy-momentum content requires specifying not only the energymomentum tensor (11.59) but also an equation of state, which in this simplied context amounts to postulating a relation p = p(). Again see section 18.2 for a discussion and examples of this. We will sidestep this issue in the discussion below since the only case we will consider explicitly is that of constant energy density (r) = 0 , in which case the Einstein equations determine p = p(r) via the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volko equation to be derived (in general) below. With this set-up, the Einstein equations (11.44) and (11.48) for a metric of the form (11.58) and an energy-momentum tensor of the form (11.59) read m (r) = 4GN r 2 (r) h (r) = 4GN rf (r)1 ((r) + p(r)) . The rst of these can be written in integral form as in (11.54),
r

(11.62)

m(r) = GN M (r) ,

M (r) = 4
0

dr (r )2 (r ) ,

(11.63)

202

where the regularity condition M (0) = 0 has been imposed. The equations (11.62) need to be supplemented either by the conservation-law T = 0 (11.64)

for the energy-momentum tensor, or by another component of the Einstein equations, say the ()-component, but the former is simpler and more insightful. The only component of (11.64) that is not identically satised for an energy-momentum tensor of the form (11.59) and a metric of the form (11.58) is the = r component which reads 0 = T + T T = r p(r) + p(r) ttr ((r)) kkr p(r) r r r r = p (r) + ttr ((r) + p(r)) = p (r) + (h (r) + f (r)/2f (r))((r) + p(r)) , p (r) = (h (r) + f (r)/2f (r))((r) + p(r)) . or (11.66) Here both h (r) and f (r) can be eliminated in favour of (r) and p(r) by using the Einstein equations (11.62), in particular
1 2 f (r)

(11.65)

= m (r)/r + m(r)/r 2 = GN (4r(r) + M (r)/r 2 ) ,

(11.67)

and performing these substitutions one obtains the equation p (r) = GN ((r) + p(r)) M (r) + 4r 3 p(r) r(r 2m(r)) . (11.68)

This is the famous Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volko (TOV) Equation which determines the pressure in the interior of the star.
Remarks:

1. This equation should be supplemented by the boundary condition that p(r0 ) = 0 where r0 is the radius of the star. 2. It can be interpreted as the condition for hydrostatic equilibrium of the star and generalises the Newtonian hydrostatic equation p (r) = GN (r)M (r) . r2 (11.69)

The dierences between (11.68) and (11.69) can be attributed to (and provide useful insight into) the key dierences between Newtonian gravity and general relativity: In general relativity, not only the mass M (r) acts as a source of the gravitational eld, but anything that appears in the energy-momentum tensor, in particular in the present sitaution the pressure p(r). This accounts for the substitution M (r) M (r) + 4r 3 p(r). 203

 In general relativity, gravity acts not only on (r) but also on p(r). This accounts for the substitution (r) (r) + p(r). In general relativity, the gravitational force diers from the Newtonian gravitational force. In the present case this accounts for the additional factor of f (r) = 1 2m(r)/r in the denominator. We will now consider the solution of this set of equations in the case where the energy density is constant inside the star, (r) = 0 for r r0 , (r) = 0 for r > r0 . (11.70)

We begin with f (r) or m(r). Since M (r) = f (r) has the form 2m(r) 1 f (r) = 1 = r
8GN 0 2 r 3 40 3 3 r 40 3 3 r0

for for

r r0 r r0
2 r r0 2GN M r

(11.71)

=1

2GN M r0

for for

r r0

r r0

(11.72)

This already completely determines the spatial part of the interior metric, and matches perfectly with the radial part of the exterior Schwarzschild solution, which has grr = f (r)1 with f (r) = 1 2GN M/r for all r > r0 . Knowing m(r) (and (r) = 0 ), we can determine p(r) from the TOV equation (11.68), which now reads p (r) = Writing 4GN r (0 + p(r)) (0 + 3p(r)) . 3 f (r) (11.73)

1 d 0 + 3p p (r) = ln (0 + p(r))(0 + 3p(r)) 20 dr 0 + p 4GN r 1 d = ln f (r) , 3 f (r) 40 dr

(11.74)

and

(11.75)

it follows immediately that the solution satisfying the boundary condition p(r0 ) = 0 is p(r) = f (r)1/2 f (r0 )1/2 0 . 3f (r0 )1/2 f (r)1/2 (11.76)

We will come back to one of the consequences of this equation below. Before turning to that, let us complete the solution of the Einstein equations by determining h(r). This can be found either directly by integration of the second equation in (11.62), h (r) = 4GN rf (r)1 (0 + p(r)) , (11.77) 204

or, more eciently, from (11.66), which we rewrite as p (r) d 1 (h(r) + 2 ln f (r)) = dr 0 + p(r) d (h + 1 ln f ) = (0 + p)1 . 2 dp (11.78)

The solution to this equation is evidently e h(r) f (r)1/2 = C(0 + p(r))1 for some integration constant C. Using 0 + p(r) = 2f (r0 )1/2 0 (3f (r0 )1/2 f (r)1/2 )1 (11.80) (11.79)

and xing this integration constant by the requirement h(r0 ) = 0, so that also the (tt)component of the metric matches onto that of the exterior Schwarzschild solution at r = r0 , one nds e h(r) = 1 (3f (r0 )1/2 /f (r)1/2 1) , (11.81) 2 or
1 gtt (r) = 4 (3f (r0 )1/2 f (r)1/2 )2 .

(11.82)

This completes the derivation of the solution of the Einstein equations for the interior of a perfect-uid star with constant energy density. In summary we have found that the interior metric (r r0 ) is
1 ds2 = 4 (3f (r0 )1/2 f (r)1/2 )2 dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2

(11.83)

with

8GN r2 =1 0 r 2 , (11.84) 2 R 3 supported by a perfect uid matter with (r) = 0 and p(r) given in (11.76) . This matches continuously (and, in fact, once-dierentiably) onto the exterior Schwarzschild solution with gtt (r) = f (r), grr = f (r)1 , and f (r) = 1 2GN M/r, where M is the 3 total mass of the star, M = 40 r0 /3. f (r) = 1
Remarks:

1. The spatial part of this interior metric is (ds2 )space = f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 = with R2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 , 1 r 2 /R2 (11.85)

3 . 8GN 0

(11.86)

and r r0 (we assume that the energy density 0 is positive, 0 > 0). By standard manipulations we can put this metric into the usual form (1.93), r = R sin (ds2 )space = R2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) with arcsin(r0 /R) , (11.87)

205

of the metric on the 3-sphere. Thus the geometry of the interior of the star is (see section 16) that of a metric of a maximally symmetric space with constant positive curvature, namely the standard metric on the 3-sphere with radius R, restricted to the disc r r0 . Note that in order for the metric to be well-dened, the range of r needs to be such that the maximal value r0 satises r0 < R. Writing R2 from (11.86) in term of the total mass M and the radius r0 , R2 = we see that R r0
3 3 r0 r3 = = 0 , 8GN 0 2GN M rs 2

(11.88)

r0 . rs

(11.89)

Thus R > r0 i the radius of the star is larger than its Schwarzschild radius, R > r0 r0 > rs . (11.90)

This is indeed a necessary condition for a star - an object that is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius will turn out to be not a star but a black hole. 2. A stronger constraint on the relative size of r0 and rs arises from an analysis of the solution (11.76) of the TOV equation. Recall that we have f (r) = 1r 2 /R2 . Since r < r0 in the interior, one has f (r0 ) < f (r). Thus the pressure can potentially become innite at values of r where the denominator of (11.76) vanishes. The condition for the existence of a stable star, i.e. the requirement that the pressure be non-singular everywhere in the interior of the star, in particular at the origin r = 0, is f (r0 )1/2 > 1/3 9 r0 > rs 8 Mmax = 4 r0 . 9GN (11.91)

Thus we learn that a star consisting of matter with constant energy density must be larger than 9/8 times its Schwarzschild radius. In other words, the maximal amount of mass that can be contained in a star with radius r0 is bounded from above by 4r0 /9GN . This result is actually valid for far more general equations of state and is known as the Buchdahl limit or Buchdahls Theorem (1959). 3. Here we have considered the simplest model of a static star, with constant energy density. The basic set-up, however, can also be used to analyse in detail the stellar structure and evolution of other compact stars like neutron stars.16 4. We will look at some equally idealised models of gravitational collapse of a star in sections 14.8 (the exterior solution) and 21 (interior solution). In the latter case,
16

See e.g. N. Straumann, General Relativity: with applications to astrophysics.

206

the matter of the star will not be modelled by a constant energy density but rather by pressureless matter, i.e. p = 0. A look at (11.68) shows that such an equation of state is evidently incompatible with a static star, i.e. with hydrostatic equilibrium (pressure is required to maintain the star), but it provides a reasonable (free-fall) approximation to a collapsing star.

207

12

Particle and Photon Orbits in the Schwarzschild Geometry

We now come to the heart of the matter, the study of planetary orbits and light rays in the gravitational eld of the sun, i.e. the properties of timelike and null geodesics of the Schwarzschild geometry. We shall see that, by once again making good use of the symmetries of the problem, we can reduce the geodesic equations to a single rst order dierential equation in one variable, analogous to that for a one-dimensional particle moving in a particular potential. Solutions to this equation can then readily be discussed qualitatively and also quantitatively (analytically). 12.1 From Conserved Quantities to the Effective Potential

A convenient starting point in general for discussing geodesics is, as I stressed before, the Lagrangian L = g x x . For the Schwarzschild metric this is L = (1 2m/r)t2 + (1 2m/r)1 r 2 + r 2 ( 2 + sin2 2 ) , (12.1)

where 2m = 2M GN /c2 . Rather than writing down and solving the (second order) geodesic equations, we will make use of the conserved quantities K x associated with Killing vectors. After all, conserved quantities correspond to rst integrals of the equations of motion and if there are a sucient number of them (there are) we can directly reduce the second order dierential equations to rst order equations. So, how many Killing vectors does the Schwarzschild metric have? Well, since the metric is static, there is one timelike Killing vector, namely /t, and since the metric is spherically symmetric, there are spatial Killing vectors generating the Lie algebra of SO(3), hence there are three of those, and therefore all in all four Killing vectors. Now, since the gravitational eld is isotropic (and hence there is conservation of angular momentum), the orbits of the particles or planets are planar. Without loss of generality, we can choose our coordinates in such a way that this plane is the equatorial plane = /2, so in particular = 0, and the residual Lagrangian to deal with is L = (1 2m/r)t2 + (1 2m/r)1 r 2 + r 2 2 . (12.2)

This choice xes the direction of the angular momentum (to be orthogonal to the plane) and leaves two conserved quantities, the energy (per unit rest mass) E and the magnitude L (per unit rest mass) of the angular momentum, corresponding to the cyclic variables t and , (or: corresponding to the Killing vectors /t and /), L =0 t L =0 d d d d L =0 t L =0 ,

(12.3)

208

namely E = (1 2m/r)t L = r 2 sin2 = r 2 . (12.4) (12.5)

Calling L the angular momentum (per unit rest mass) requires no further justication, but let me pause to explain in what sense E is an energy (per unit rest mass). On the one hand, it is the conserved quantity (2.45) associated to time-translation invariance. As such, it certainly deserves to be called the energy. But it is moreover true that for a particle at innity (r ) E is just the special relativistic energy E = (v )c2 , with (v) = (1 v 2 /c2 )1/2 the usual relativistic factor, and v the coordinate velocity dr/dt at innity. This can be seen in two ways. First of all, for a particle that reaches r = , the constant E can be determined by evaluating it at r = . It thus follows from the denition of E that E = t . (12.6)

In Special Relativity, the relation between proper and coordinate time is given by (setting c = 1 again) (12.7) d = 1 v 2 dt t = (v) , suggesting the identication E = (v ) (E = (v )c2 if c = 1) (12.8)

Another argument for this identication will be given below, once we have introduced the eective potential. As we have seen in section 2.1 (and again in section 4.7), there is also always one more integral of the geodesic equation (corresponding roughly speaking to parametrisation invariance of the Lagrangian), namely L itself, d L = 2g x x = 0 . d Thus we set L= , where = 1 for timelike geodesics and = 0 for null geodesics. Thus we have (1 2m/r)t2 + (1 2m/r)1 r 2 + r 2 2 = , (12.11) (12.10) (12.9)

and we can now express t and in terms of the conserved quantities E and L to obtain a rst order dierential equation for r alone, namely (1 2m/r)1 E 2 + (1 2m/r)1 r 2 + 209 L2 = . r2 (12.12)

Multiplying by (1 2m/r)/2 and rearranging the terms, one obtains E2 + r2 m L2 mL2 = + + 2 3 . 2 2 r 2r r Now this equation is of the familiar Newtonian form Eef f = with E2 + 2 m L2 mL2 Vef f (r) = + 2 3 , (12.15) r 2r r describing the energy conservation in an eective potential. Except for t , this is exactly the same as the Newtonian equation of motion in a potential Eef f = m mL2 3 , (12.16) r r the eective angular momentum term L2 /r 2 = r 2 2 arising, as usual, from the change to polar coordinates. V (r) = In particular, for = 1, the general relativistic motion (as a function of ) is exactly the same as the Newtonian motion (as a function of t) in the potential m mL2 3 . (12.17) r r The rst term is just the ordinary Newtonian potential, so the second term is apparently a general relativistic correction. We will later on treat this as a perturbation but note that the above is an exact result, not an approximation (so, for example, there are no higher order corrections proportional to higher powers of m/r). We expect observable consequences of this general relativistic correction because many properties of the Newtonian orbits (Keplers laws) depend sensitively on the fact that the Newtonian potential is precisely 1/r. = 1 V (r) = Looking at the equation for = 1,
1 2 2r

(12.13)

r2 + Vef f (r) , 2

(12.14)

+ Vef f (r) = 1 (E 2 1) 2

(12.18)

and noting that Vef f (r) 0 for r , we can read o that for a particle that reaches r = we have the relation r = E 2 1 . 2 (12.19) This implies, in particular, that for such (scattering) trajectories one necessarily has E 1, with E = 1 corresponding to a particle initially or nally at rest at innity. For E > 1 the coordinate velocity at innity can be computed from
2 v =

r 2 . t2

(12.20)

210

Using (12.6) and (12.19), one nds E2 1 2 E = (1 v )1/2 , E2 thus conrming the result claimed in (12.8).
2 v =

(12.21)

For null geodesics, on the other hand, the Newtonian part of the potential is zero, as one might expect for massless particles, but in General Relativity a photon feels a non-trivial potential mL2 (12.22) = 0 V (r) = 3 . r 12.2 The Equation for the Shape of the Orbit

Typically, one is primarily interested in the shape of an orbit, that is in the radius r as a function of , r = r(), rather than in the dependence of, say, r on some extraterrestrials proper time . In this case, the above mentioned dierence between t (in the Newtonian theory) and (here) is irrelevant: In the Newtonian theory one uses L = r 2 d/dt to express t as a function of , t = t() to obtain r() from r(t). In General Relativity, one uses the analogous equation L = r 2 d/d to express as a function of , = (). Hence the shapes of the General Relativity orbits are precisely the shapes of the Newtonian orbits in the potential (12.16). Thus we can use the standard methods of Classical Mechanics to discuss these general relativistic orbits and of course this simplies matters considerably. To obtain r as a function of we proceed as indicated above. Thus we use dr d to combine (12.14), r 2 = 2Eef f 2Vef f (r) , and (12.5), L2 2 = 4 r into r 2 2 L = 2Eef f 2Vef f (r) r4 where a prime denotes a -derivative. (12.25) (12.26) (12.24)
2

r2 2

(12.23)

In the examples to be discussed below, we will be interested in the angle swept out by the object in question (a planet or a photon) as it travels along its trajectory between the farthest distance r2 from the star (sun) (r2 = for scattering trajectories) and the position of closest approach to the star r1 (the perihelion or, more generally, if we are not talking about our own solar system, periastron), and back again,
r2

= 2
r1

d dr . dr

(12.27)

211

In the Newtonian case, these integrals can be evaluated in closed form. With the general relativistic correction term, however, these are elliptic integrals which can not be expressed in closed form. A perturbative evaluation of these integrals (treating the exact general relativistic correction as a small perturbation) also turns out to be somewhat delicate since e.g. the limits of integration depend on the perturbation. It is somewhat simpler to deal with this correction term not at the level of the solution (integral) but at the level of the corresponding dierential equation. As in the Kepler problem, it is convenient to make the change of variables u= Then (12.26) becomes u2 = L2 (2Eef f 2Vef f (r)) . Upon inserting the explicit expression for the eective potential, this becomes u2 + u2 = E 2 + 2m 2 u + 2mu3 . L2 L (12.30) (12.29) 1 r u = r . r2 (12.28)

This can be used to obtain an equation for d(u)/du = u1 , leading to

u1

= 2
u2

d du . du

(12.31)

Dierentiating (12.30) once more, one nds u (u + u) = u ( m + 3mu2 ) . L2 (12.32)

Thus either u = 0, which corresponds to a circular, constant radius, orbit and is irrelevant since neither the planets nor the photons of interest to us travel on circular orbits, or m u + u = 2 + 3mu2 . (12.33) L This is the equation that we will study below to determine the perihelion shift and the bending of light by a star. In the latter case, which is a bit simpler, I will also sketch two other derivations of the result, based on dierent perturbative evaluations of the elliptic integral. 12.3 Timelike Geodesics

We will rst try to gain a qualititative understanding of the behaviour of geodesics in the eective potential L2 mL2 m (12.34) Vef f (r) = + 2 3 . r 2r r The standard way to do this is to plot this potential as a function of r for various values of the parameters L and m. The basic properties of Vef f (r) are the following: 212

1. Asymptotically, i.e. for r , the potential tends to the Newtonian potential, Vef f (r)
r

m . r

(12.35)

2. At the Schwarzschild radius rs = 2m, nothing special happens and the potential is completely regular there, Vef f (r = 2m) = 1 . 2 (12.36)

For the discussion of planetary orbits in the solar system we can safely assume that the radius of the sun is much larger than its Schwarzschild radius, r0 rs , but the above shows that even for these highly compact objects with r0 < rs geodesics are perfectly regular as one approaches rs . Of course the particular numerical value of Vef f (r = 2m) has no special signicance because V (r) can always be shifted by a constant. 3. The extrema of the potential, i.e. the points at which dVef f /dr = 0, are at r = (L2 /2m)[1 1 12(m/L)2 ] , (12.37)

and the potential has a maximum at r and a local minimum at r+ . Thus there are qualitative dierences in the shapes of the orbits between L/m < 12 and L/m > 12. Let us discuss these two cases in turn. When L/m < 12, then there are no critical points and the potential looks approximately like that in Figure 10. Note that we should be careful with extrapolating to values of r with r < 2m because we know that the Schwarzschild metric has a coordinate singularity there. However, qualitatively the picture is also correct for r < 2m. From this picture we can read o that there are no bounded orbits for these values of the parameters. Any inward bound particle with L < 12m will continue to fall inwards (provided that it moves on a geodesic). This should be contrasted with the Newtonian situation in which for any L = 0 there is always the centrifugal barrier reecting incoming particles since the repulsive term L2 /2r 2 will dominate over the attractive m/r for small values of r. In General Relativity, on the other hand, it is the attractive term mL2 /r 3 that dominates for small r. Fortunately for the stability of the solar system, the situation is qualitatively quite dierent for suciently large values of the angular momentum, namely L > 12m (see Figure 11). In that case, there is a minimum and a maximum of the potential. The critical radii correspond to exactly circular orbits, unstable at r (on top of the potential) and stable at r+ (the minimum of the potential). For L 12m these two orbits approach each 213

V (r) eff 2m | r

-1/2

Figure 10: Eective potential for a massive particle with L/m < to values of r < 2m has been indicated by a dashed line.

12. The extrapolation

V (r) eff

2m | r-

r1

r+

r2

-1/2 E

Figure 11: Eective potential for a massive particle with L/m > 12. Shown are the maximum of the potential at r (an unstable circular orbit), the minimum at r+ (a stable circular orbit), and the orbit of a particle with Eef f < 0 with turning points r1 and r2 .

214

other, the critical radius tending to r 6m. Thus the innermost stable circular orbit (known aectionately as the ISCO in astrophysics) is located at rISCO = 6m . (12.38)

On the other hand, for very large values of L the critical radii are (expand the square root to rst order) to be found at (r+ , r ) (L2 /m, 3m) .
L

(12.39)

For given L, for suciently large values of Eef f a particle will fall all the way down the potential. For Eef f < 0, there are bound orbits which are not circular and which range between the radii r1 and r2 , the turning points at which r = 0 and therefore Eef f = Vef f (r). 12.4 The Anomalous Precession of the Perihelia of the Planetary Orbits

Because of the general relativistic correction 1/r 3 , the bound orbits will not be closed (elliptical). In particular, the position of the perihelion, the point of closest approach of the planet to the sun where the planet has distance r1 , will not remain constant. However, because r1 is constant, and the planetary orbit is planar, this point will move on a circle of radius r1 around the sun. As described in section 12.2, in order to calculate this perihelion shift one needs to calculate the total angle swept out by the planet during one revolution by integrating this from r1 to r2 and back again to r1 , or
r2

= 2
r1

d dr . dr

(12.40)

Rather than trying to evaluate the above integral via some sorcery, we will determine by analysing the orbit equation (12.33) for = 1, u + u = m + 3mu2 . L2 (12.41)

In the Newtonian approximation, this equation reduces to that of a displaced harmonic oscillator, m u + u0 = 2 (u0 m/L2 ) + (u0 m/L2 ) = 0 , (12.42) 0 L and the solution is a Kepler ellipse described parametrically by u0 () = m (1 + e cos ) L2 (12.43)

where e is the eccentricity (e = 0 means constant radius and hence a circular orbit). Plugging this back into the Newtonian non-linear 1st-order equation (cf. (12.30)) u 2 + u2 = 0 0 E 2 1 2m + 2 u0 , L2 L 215 (12.44)

one nds that the integration constant e is related to the energy by e2 = 1 + L2 2 2L2 (E 1) = 1 + 2 Eef f . 2 m m (12.45)

In particular, e2 < 1 for bound states (bounded orbits) with Eef f < 0, and we will concentrate on these orbits. The perihelion (aphelion) is then at = 0 ( = ), with r1,2 = Thus the semi-major axis a of the ellipse, 2a = r1 + r2 , is L2 1 . m 1 e2 In particular, in the Newtonian theory, one has a= ()0 = 2 . The anomalous perihelion shift due to the eects of General Relativity is thus = 2 . In order to determine , we now seek a solution to (12.41) of the form u = u 0 + u1 where u1 is a small deviation. This leads to the equation u + u1 = 3mu2 . 1 0 (12.52) (12.51) (12.50) (12.47) L2 1 . m 1e (12.46)

(12.48)

(12.49)

The general solution of this inhomogenous dierential equation is the general solution of the homogeneous equation (we are not interested in) plus a special solution of the inhomogeneous equation. Writing
1 1 (1 + e cos )2 = (1 + 2 e2 ) + 2e cos + 2 e2 cos 2

(12.53)

and noting that ( sin ) + sin = 2 cos (cos 2) + cos 2 = 3 cos 2 one sees that a special solution is u1 () = 3m3 1 ((1 + 1 e2 ) 6 e2 cos 2 + e sin ) . 2 L4 216 (12.55) (12.54)

The term of interest to us is the third term which provides a cumulative non-periodic eect over successive orbits. Focussing on this term, we can write the approximate solution to the orbit equation as u() m 3m2 e (1 + e cos + sin ) . L2 L2 (12.56)

If the rst perihelion is at = 0, the next one will be at a point = 2 + close to 2 which is such that u () = 0 or sin = 3m2 (sin + (2 + ) cos ) . L2 (12.57)

Using that is small, and keeping only the lowest order terms in this equation, one nds the result GN M 2 6m2 = 6( ) . (12.58) = 2 L cL An alternative way to obtain this result is to observe that (12.56) can be approximately written as m 3m2 u() 2 1 + e cos[(1 2 )] (12.59) L L From this equation it is manifest that during each orbit the perihelion advances by = 2 3m2 L2 (12.60)

(2(1 3m2 /L2 )(1 + 3m2 /L2 ) 2) in agreement with the above result. In terms of the eccentricity e and the semi-major axis a (12.48) of the elliptical orbit, this can be written as 6GN M = . (12.61) 2 c a(1 e2 )

As these parameters are known for the planetary orbits, can be evaluated. For example, for Mercury, where this eect is largest (because it has the largest eccentricity) one nds = 0, 1 per revolution. This is of course a tiny eect (1 second, 1 , is one degree divided by 3600) and not per se detectable. However,

1. this eect is cumulative, i.e. after N revolutions one has an anomalous perihelion shift N ; 2. Mercury has a very short solar year, with about 415 revolutions per century; 3. and accurate observations of the orbit of Mercury go back over 200 years. Thus the cumulative eect is approximately 850 and this is suciently large to be observable. The prediction of General Relativity for this eect is GR = 43, 03 /century . 217 (12.62)

And indeed such an eect is observed (and had for a long time presented a puzzle, an anomaly, for astronomers). In actual fact, the perihelion of Mercurys orbit shows a precession rate of 5601 per century, so this does not yet look like a brilliant conrmation of General Relativity. However, of this eect about 5025 are due to fact that one is using a non-inertial geocentric coordinate system (precession of the equinoxes). 532 are due to perturbations of Mercurys orbit caused by the (Newtonian) gravitational attraction of the other planets of the solar system (chiey Venus, earth and Jupiter). This much was known prior to General Relativity and left an unexplained anomalous perihelion shift of anomalous = 43, 11 0, 45 /century . (12.63) Now the agreement with the result of General Relativity is truly impressive and this is one of the most important experimental verications of General Relativity. Other observations, involving e.g. the mini-planet Icarus, discovered in 1949, with a huge eccentricity e 0, 827, binary pulsar systems, and more recently obervations of highly eccentric stars close to the galactic (black hole) center have provided further conrmation of the agreement between General Relativity and observations. 12.5 Null Geodesics

To study the behaviour of massless particles (photons) in the Schwarzschild geometry, we need to study the eective potential Vef f (r) = L2 mL2 L2 2m ) . 3 = 2 (1 2 2r r 2r r (12.64)

The following properties are immediate: 1. For r > 2m, the potential is positive, V (r) > 0. 2. For r , one has Vef f (r) 0. 3. Vef f (r = 2m) = 0. 4. When L = 0, the photons feel no potential at all. 5. There is one critical point of the potential, at r = 3m, with Vef f (r = 3m) = L2 /54m2 . Thus the potential has the form sketched in Figure 12. For energies E 2 > L2 /27m2 , photons are captured by the star and will spiral into it. For energies E 2 < L2 /27m2 , on the other hand, there will be a turning point, and light rays will be deected by the star. As this may sound a bit counterintuitive (shouldnt a photon with higher energy be more likely to zoom by the star without being forced 218

V (r) eff

r=2m

r=3m

Figure 12: Eective potential for a massless particle. Displayed is the location of the unstable circular orbit at r = 3m. A photon with an energy E 2 < L2 /27m2 will be deected (lower arrow), photons with E 2 > L2 /27m2 will be captured by the star. to spiral into it?), think about this in the following way. L = 0 corresponds to a photon falling radially towards the star, L small corresponds to a slight deviation from radial motion, while L large (thus large) means that the photon is travelling along a trajectory that will not bring it very close to the star at all (see the next subsection for the precise relation between the angular momentum L and the impact parameter b of the photon). It is then not surprising that photons with small L are more likely to be captured by the star (this happens for L2 < 27m2 E 2 ) than photons with large L which will only be deected in their path. We will study this in more detail below. But let us rst also consider the opposite situation, that of light from or near the star (and we are of course assuming that r0 > rs ). Then for r0 < 3m and E 2 < L2 /27m2 , the light cannot escape to innity but falls back to the star, whereas for E 2 > L2 /27m2 light will escape. Thus for a path suciently close to radial (L small, because is then small) light can always escape as long as r > 2m. The existence of one unstable circular orbit for photons at r = 3m (the photon sphere), while not relevant for the applications to the solar system in this section, turns out to be of some interest in black hole astrophysics (as a possibly observable signature of black holes).

219

12.6

The Bending of Light by a Star: 3 Derivations

To study the bending of light by a star, we consider an incoming photon (or light ray) with impact parameter b (see Figure 13) and we need to calculate (r) for a trajectory with turning point at r = r1 . At that point we have r = 0 (the dot now indicates dierentiation with respect to the ane parameter of the null geodesic, we can but need not choose this to be the coordinate time t) and therefore r1 is determined by Eef f = Vef f (r1 )
2 r1 =

2m L2 (1 ) . E2 r1

(12.65)

The rst thing we need to establish is the relation between b and the other parameters E and L. Consider the ratio r2 L = . (12.66) E (1 2m/r)t For large values of r, r 2m, this reduces to d L = r2 . E dt (12.67)

On the other hand, for large r we can approximate b/r = sin by . Since we also have dr/dt = 1 (for an incoming light ray), we deduce L d b = r2 =b . E dt r (12.68)

In terms of the variable u = 1/r the equation for the shape of the orbit (12.33) is u + u = 3mu2 and the elliptic integral (12.31) for is

(12.69)

= 2
r1

d dr = 2 dr

u1 0

du [b2 u2 + 2mu3 ]1/2 .

(12.70)

Moreover, in terms of u we can write the equation (12.65) for u1 = 1/r1 as b2 = u2 2mu3 . 1 1 (12.71)

In the absence of the general relativistic correction (calling this Newtonian is perhaps not really appropriate since we are dealing with photons/light rays) one has b1 = u1 or b = r1 (no deection). The orbit equation u + u0 = 0 0 has the solution u0 () = describing the straight line r0 () sin = b . 220 (12.74) 1 sin , b (12.72)

(12.73)

Obligingly the integral gives

1

()0 = 2
0

dx(1 x2 )1/2 = 2 arcsin 1 = .

(12.75)

Thus the deection angle is related to by = . We will now determine in three dierent ways, by perturbatively solving the orbit equation (12.69); by perturbatively evaluating the elliptic integral (12.70); by performing a perturbative expansion (linearisation) of the Schwarzschild metric. Derivation I: Perturbative Solution of the Orbit Equation In order to solve the orbit equation (12.69), we proceed as in section 12.4. Thus the equation for the (small) deviation u1 () is u + u1 = 3mu2 = 1 0 3m 3m (1 cos2 ) = 2 (1 cos 2) 2 b 2b (12.77) (12.76)

which has the particular solution (cf. (12.54)) u1 () = Therefore 3m (1 + 1 cos 2) . 3 2b2 (12.78)

1 3m (12.79) sin + 2 (1 + 1 cos 2) . 3 b 2b By considering the behaviour of this equation as r or u 0, one nds an equation for (minus) half the deection angle, namely u() = 1 3m 4 (/2) + 2 = 0 , b 2b 3 leading to the result = 4m 4M GN = . b bc2 (12.80)

(12.81)

Derivation II: Perturbative Evaluation of the Elliptic Integral The perturbative evaluation of (12.70) is rather tricky when it is regarded as a function of the independent variables m and b, with r1 determined by (12.65) (try this!). The trick to evaluate (12.70) is (see R. Wald, General Relativity) to regard the integral as 221

r1

Delta phi

delta phi

Figure 13: Bending of light by a star. Indicated are the denitions of the impact parameter b, the perihelion r1 , and of the angles and . a function of the independent variables r1 and m, with b eliminated via (12.71). Thus (12.70) becomes
u1

= 2
0

du [u2 u2 2m(u3 u3 )]1/2 . 1 1

(12.82)

The rst order correction = ()0 + m()1 + O(m2 ) is therefore ()1 = This integral is elementary, dx and thus ()1 = 4b1 , leading to 4m 4M GN = , b bc2 in agreement with the result (12.81) obtained above. = Derivation III: Linearising the Schwarzschild Metric It is instructive to look at the second derivation from another point of view. As we will see, in some sense this derivation works because the bending of light is accurately described by the linearised solution, i.e. by the metric that one obtains from the 222 (12.86) 1 x3 = (x + 2) (1 x2 )3/2 m =2
m=0 0 b1

(12.83)

du

b3 u3 . (b2 u2 )3/2
1/2

(12.84)

1x 1+x

(12.85)

(12.87)

Schwarzschild metric by the approximation A(r) = 1 B(r) = (1 2m r 1 2m r 2m 1+ . r

2m 1 ) r

(12.88)

I will only sketch the main steps in this calculation, so you should think of this subsection as an annotated exercise. First of all, redoing the analysis of sections 12.1 and 12.2 for a general spherically symmetric static metric (11.5), ds2 = A(r)dt2 + B(r)dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) , it is easy to see that the orbit equation can be written as B(r) or, in terms of u = 1/r, as Bu2 + u2 = E2 + 2 . L2 L A(u) (12.91) r 2 1 E2 + 2 = 2+ 2 4 r r L L A(r) (12.90) (12.89)

We will concentrate on the lightlike case = 0, Bu2 + u2 = E2 , L2 A(u) (12.92)

and express the impact parameter b = L/E in terms of the turning point r1 = 1/u1 of the trajectory. At this turning point, u = 0, and thus E2 = A(u1 )u2 , 1 L2 leading to Bu2 = We thus nd d A(u1 ) 2 = B(u)1/2 u u2 du A(u) 1 A(u1 ) 2 u u2 . A(u) 1
1/2

(12.93)

(12.94)

(12.95)

For the (linearised) Schwarzschild metric the term in square brackets is A(u1 ) 2 u u2 = u2 (1 + 2m(u u1 )) u2 1 A(u) 1 u2 1 = (u2 u2 )(1 2m ) . 1 u1 + u Using this and the approximate (linearised) value for B(u), B(u) 1 + 2mu 223 (12.97)

(12.96)

one nds that d/du is given by d du = B(u)1/2 (u2 u2 )(1 2m 1 (u2 u2 )1/2 1 + m( 1 = (u2 u2 )1/2 + m 1 u2 1 ) u1 + u
1/2

u2 1 + u) u1 + u (12.98)

u3 u3 1 . (u2 u2 )3/2 1

The rst term now gives us the Newtonian result and, comparing with Derivation II, we see that the second term agrees precisely with the integrand of (12.84) with b r1 (which, in a term that is already of order m, makes no dierence). We thus conclude that the deection angle is, as before,
u1

= 2
0

du m

u3 u3 4m 1 = 4mu1 . 2 u2 )3/2 b (u1

(12.99)

This eect is physically measurable and was one of the rst true tests of Einsteins new theory of gravity. For light just passing the sun the predicted value is 1, 75 . (12.100)

Experimentally this is a bit tricky to observe because one needs to look at light from distant stars passing close to the sun. Under ordinary circumstances this would not be observable, but in 1919 a test of this was performed during a total solar eclipse, by observing the eect of the sun on the apparent position of stars in the direction of the sun. The observed value was rather imprecise, yielding 1, 5 < < 2, 2 which is, if not a conrmation of, at least consistent with General Relativity. More recently, it has also been possible to measure the deection of radio waves by the gravitational eld of the sun. These measurements rely on the fact that a particular Quasar, known as 3C275, is obscured annually by the sun on October 8th, and the observed result (after correcting for diraction eects by the corona of the sun) in this case is = 1, 76 0, 02 . The value predicted by General Relativity is, interestingly enough, exactly twice the value that would have been predicted by the Newtonian approximation of the geodesic equation alone (but the Newtonian approximation is not valid anyway because it applies to slowly moving objects, and light certainly fails to satisfy this condition). A calculation leading to this wrong value had rst been performed by Soldner in 1801 (!) (by cancelling the mass m out of the Newtonian equations of motion before setting m = 0) and also Einstein predicted this wrong result in 1908 (his equivalence principle days, long before he came close to discovering the eld equations of General Relativity now carrying his name). 224

This result can be obtained from the above calculation by setting B(u) = 1 instead of (12.97), as in the Newtonian approximation only g00 is non-trivial. More generally, one can calculate the deection angle for a metric with the approximate behaviour B(u) 1 + 2mu , for a real parameter, with the result 1 + 4m . 2 b (12.102) (12.101)

This reproduces the previous result for = 1, half its value for = 0, and checking to which extent measured deection angles agree with the theoretical prediction of general relativity ( = 1) constitutes an experimental test of general relativity. In this context is known as one of the PPN parameters (PPN for parametrised post-Newtonian approximation). 12.7 A Unified Description in terms of the Runge-Lenz Vector

The perhaps slickest way to obtain the orbits of the Kepler problem is to make use of the so-called Runge-Lenz vector. Recall that, due to conservation of angular momentum L, the orbits in any spherically symmetric potential are planar. The bound orbits of the Kepler problem, however, have the additional property that they are closed, i.e. that the perihelion is constant. This suggests that there is a further hidden symmetry in the Kepler problem, with the position of the perihelion the corresponding conserved charge. This is indeed the case. Consider, for a spherically symmetric potential W (r), the vector A = x L + W (r)x or, in components, Ai = ijk xj Lk + W (r)xi . (12.104) A straightforward calculation, using the Newtonian equations of motion in the potential W (r), shows that d Ai = (rr W (r) + W (r))xi . (12.105) dt Thus A is conserved if and only if W (r) is homogeneous of degree (1), c d . A = 0 W (r) = dt r In our notation, c = m, and we will henceforth refer to the vector m A=xL+ x r as the Runge-Lenz vector. 225 (12.107) (12.106) (12.103)

It is well known, and easy to see by calculating e.g. the Poisson brackets of suitable linear combinations of L and A, that A extends the manifest symmetry group of rotations SO(3) of the Kepler problem to SO(4) for bound orbits and SO(3, 1) for scattering orbits. It is straightforward to determine the Keplerian orbits from A. While A has 3 components, the only new information is contained in the direction of A, as the norm A of A can be expressed in terms of the other conserved quantities and parameters (energy E, angular momentum L, mass m) of the problem. In the notation of section 12.1 one has A2 = E 2 L2 + (L2 + m2 ) . (12.108)

Let us choose the constant direction A to be in the direction = 0. Then A.x = Ar cos and from (12.107) one nds Ar cos = L2 + mr . (12.109) Now we consider the two cases = 1 and = 0. For = 1, (12.109) can be written as 1 m A = 2 (1 + cos ) . r() L m (12.110)

Comparing with (12.43), we recognise this as the equation for an ellipse with eccentricity e and semi-major axis a (12.48) given by e= A m m 1 = . L2 a(1 e2 ) (12.111)

Moreover, we see that the perihelion is at = 0 which establishes that the Runge-Lenz vector points from the center of attraction to the (constant) position of the perihelion. During one revolution the angle changes from 0 to 2. For = 0 (i.e. no potential), on the other hand, (12.109) reduces to 1 A = 2 cos r() L This describes a straight line (12.73) with impact parameter b= L2 L = . A E (12.113) (12.112)

In this case, runs from /2 to /2 and the point of closest approach is again at = 0 (distance b). We see that the Runge-Lenz vector captures precisely the information that in the Newtonian theory bound orbits are closed and lightrays are not deected. The Runge-Lenz vector will no longer be conserved in the presence of the general relativistic correction to the Newtonian motion, and this non-constancy is a precise measure of the deviation 226

of the general relativistic orbits from their Newtonian counterparts. As shown e.g. in an article by Brill and Goel17 this provides a very elegant and quick way of (re-)deriving the results about perihelion precession and deection of light in the solar system. Calculating the time-derivative of A (12.107) for a particle moving in the general relativistic potential (12.16) m mL2 (12.114) V (r) = 3 , r r one nds (of course we now switch from t to ) d 3m2 L2 d A= n d r 2 d (12.115)

where n = x/r = (cos , sin , 0) is the unit vector in the plane = /2 of the orbit. Thus A rotates with angular velocity = 3mL2 cos . Ar 2 (12.116)

Here A now refers to the norm of the Newtonian Runge-Lenz vector (12.107) calculated for a trajectory x( ) in the general relativistic potential (12.114). This norm is now no longer constant, 2mL4 A2 = E 2 L2 + (L2 + m2 ) + . (12.117) r3 However, assuming that the change in A is small, we obtain an approximate expression for by substituting the unperturbed orbit r0 () from (12.109), r0 () = L2 , A cos m (12.118)

as well as the unperturbed norm (12.108) in (12.116) to nd 3m (A cos m)2 cos . AL2 (12.119)

Now the total change in the direction of A when the object moves from 1 to 2 can be calculated from
2

=
1

d 3m AL2
2 1

d (A cos m)2 cos .

(12.120)

For = 1, and (1 , 2 ) = (0, 2), this results in (only the cos2 -term gives a non-zero contribution) 6m2 3m2 , (12.121) = 2 2 = L L2
D. Brill, D. Goel, Light bending and perihelion precession: A unied approach, Am. J. Phys. 67 (1999) 316, arXiv:gr-qc/9712082
17

227

in precise agreement with (12.58,12.60). For = 0, on the other hand, one has = Using cos3 = sin 1 sin3 , 3 4mA 4m , = L2 b which agrees precisely with the results of section 12.6. = one nds (12.123) 3mA L2
/2 /2

d cos3 .

(12.122)

(12.124)

228

13

Approaching the Schwarzschild Radius rs

So far, we have been considering objects of a size larger (in practice much larger) than their Schwarzschild radius, r0 > rs . We also noted that the eective potential Vef f (r) is perfectly well behaved at rs . We now consider objects with r0 < rs and try to unravel some of the bizarre physics that nevertheless occurs when one approaches or crosses rs = 2m. We will do this in several steps: First we will consider observers that dont quite dare to cross rs and which try to remain stationary at a xed value of r close to rs . Then we will consider observers that fall freely (and radially) in this geometry, and describe their voyage both from their point of view and from that of a distant stationary observer (which will turn out to be quite dierent). Then we will study the geometry of the Schwarzschild metric near r = rs , and show that the geometry is completely non-singular (and is in fact closely related to the geometry of the Rindler metric for Minkowski space-time discussed in section 1.3). These considerations will indicate that (and explain why) the usual Schwarzschild coordinates (specically the time-coordinate t) are inadequate for describing the physics across the radius rs . In order to learn more about the region near and beyond r = rs , we next study the behaviour of lightcones and light rays in this geometry. These considerations will then lead us (in section 14) to the introduction of coordinates in which the Schwarzschild metric is non-singular for all 0 < r < , and then the fun can begin and we can try to understand what actually happens (and what characterises) r = rs . 13.1 Stationary Observers

Some insight into the Schwarzschild geometry, and the dierence between Newtonian gravity and general relativistic gravity, is provided by looking at stationary observers, i.e. observers hovering at xed values of (r, , ). Thus their 4-velocity u = x has the = (u0 , 0, 0, 0) with u0 > 0. The normalisation u u = 1 then implies form u u = f (r)1/2 , 0, 0, 0 = 1 1 2m/r , 0, 0, 0 . (13.1)

The worldline of a stationary observer is clearly not a geodesic (that would be the worldline of an observer freely falling in the gravitational eld), and we can calculate 229

its covariant acceleration (4.66) a = u = u u = (d/d )u + u u . Noting that u is time-independent, one nds a = (u0 )2 = (1 2m/r)1 . 00 00 Thus only ar is non-zero, and one nds a = (0, m/r 2 , 0, 0) . (13.4) (13.3) (13.2)

This looks nicely Newtonian, with a force in the radial direction designed to precisely cancel the gravitational attraction. However, this is a bit misleading since this is a coordinate dependent statement. A coordinate-invariant quantity is the norm of the acceleration, 1/2 m 2m 1/2 . (13.5) = 2 1 a(r) g a a r r While this approaches the Newtonian value as r , it diverges as r 2m, indicating that stationary observers will nd it harder and harder, and need to travel nearly at the speed of light, to remain stationary close to r = 2m.
Remarks:

1. While a(r) diverges as r 2m, we will see later (section 14.7) that the nite quantity limr2m f (r)1/2 a(r) = 1/4m can be regarded as a measure of the strength of the gravitational eld at r = 2m (surface gravity). 2. One can also think of a(r) as the radial component of the acceleration with respect to an orthonormal frame at that point, whose radial component would be (1 2m/r)1/2 r , the prefactor ensuring that this vector has unit length. 3. The covariant components of the acceleration can be written as the gradient a = ( 1 ln f (r)) (r) , 2 (13.6)

so that here (and in the static spherically symmetric case in general) (r) can be regarded as the general relativistic analogue of the Newtonian potential (r), to which it reduces in the Newtonian limit, (r) =
1 2

ln f (r)

1 2

ln(1 + 2(r)) = (r) + . . .

(13.7)

230

13.2

Vertical Free Fall

We will now consider an object with r0 < rs and an observer who is freely falling vertically (radially) towards such an object. Vertical means that = 0, and therefore there is no angular momentum, L = 0. Hence the eective potential equation (12.13) becomes 2m E 2 1 = r2 , (13.8) r where the conserved energy E (per unit mass) is given by E = (1 2m )t . r (13.9)

In particular, if ri is the point at which the particle (observer) A was initially at rest, dr |r=ri = 0 , d we have the relation E2 = 1 2m f = f (ri ) ri (13.10)

(13.11)

between the constant of motion E and the initial condition ri . In particular, E = 1 for an observer following a trajectory of an object that would have initially been at rest at innity. In that case, (13.8) is readily integrated to give r( ) (0 )2/3 so that the observer reaches r = 0 at = 0 . For ri < , we obtain and, upon dierentiation, r2 = 2m 2m = f (ri ) f (r) r ri r+ (13.12)

(13.13)

m =0 . (13.14) r2 This is just like the Newtonian equation (which should not come as a surprise as Vef f coincides with the Newtonian potential for zero angular momentum L = 0), apart from the fact that r is not radial distance and the familiar = t. Nevertheless, calculation of the time along the path proceeds exactly as in the Newtonian theory. For the proper time required to reach the point with coordinate value r = rf we obtain = (2m)1/2
rf

dr
ri

ri r ri r

1/2

(13.15)

Since this is just the Newtonian integral, we know, even without calculating it, that it is nite as rf rs (and even as rf 0). This integral can also be calculated in closed form, e.g. via the change of variables r() = 1 ri (1 + cos ) with 2 231 i = 0 f , (13.16)

leading (after some convenient cancellations) to = ri 2m

1/2 0 f

d r() =

3 ri 8m

1/2

(f + sin f ) .

(13.17)

In particular, this is nite as rf 2m and our freely falling observer can reach and cross the Schwarzschild radius rs in nite proper time. Coordinate time, on the other hand, becomes innite at rf = 2m. This can roughly (and very easily) be seen by noting that = (1 2m 1/2 ) t . r (13.18)

As is nite (as we have seen) and (1 2m )1/2 0 as r 2m, clearly we need r t . One can also calculate explicitly t = t() or t = t(r), say, and check that this indeed diverges as r 2m, but this is unenlightning. What we will do below is check the divergence by concentrating on the region near r = 2m, and interpret this divergence in terms of observations made by a stationary oberver. 13.3 Vertical Free Fall as seen by a Distant Observer

We will now investigate how the above situation presents itself to a distant observer hovering at a xed radial distance r . He will observe the trajectory of the freely falling observer as a function of his proper time . Up to a constant factor (1 2m/r )1/2 , this is the same as coordinate time t, and we will lose nothing by expressing r as a function of t rather than as a function of . From (13.8), 2m ) = E2 , (13.19) r which expresses r as a function of the freely falling observers proper time , and the denition of E, 2m E = t(1 ) , (13.20) r which relates to the coordinate time t, one nds an equation for r as a function of t, r 2 + (1 2m 2m 1/2 dr = E 1 (1 )(E 2 (1 )) dt r r (13.21)

(the minus sign has been chosen because r decreases as t increases). We want to analyse the behaviour of the solution of this equation as the freely falling observer approaches the Schwarzschild radius, r 2m, dr dt r 2m r 2m 1/2 )(E 2 ) r r r 2m r 2m E 1 ( )(E 2 )1/2 = ( ) . 2m 2m = E 1 ( 232

(13.22)

We can write this equation as 1 d (r 2m) = (r 2m) , dt 2m which obviously has the solution (r 2m)(t) e t/2m . (13.24) (13.23)

This shows that, from the point of view of the observer at innity, the freely falling observer reaches r = 2m only as t . In particular, the distant observer will never actually see the infalling observer cross the Schwarzschild radius. This is clearly an indication that there is something wrong with the time coordinate t which runs too fast as one approaches the Schwarzschild radius. We can also see this by looking at the coordinate velocity v = dr/dt as a function of r. Let us choose ri = for simplicity - other choices will not change our conclusions as we are interested in the behaviour of v(r) as r rs . Then E 2 = 1 and from (13.21) we nd v(r) = (2m)1/2 r 2m r 3/2 (13.25)

As a function of r, v(r) reaches a maximum at r = 6m = 3rs , where the velocity is (restoring the velocity of light c) 2c vmax = v(r = 6m) = . 3 3 (13.26)

Beyond that point, v(r) decreases again and clearly goes to zero as r 2m. The fact that the coordinate velocity goes to zero is another manifestation of the fact that coordinate time goes to innity. Somehow, the Schwarzschild coordinates are not suitable for describing the physics at or beyond the Schwarzschild radius because the time coordinate one has chosen is running too fast. This is the crucial insight that will allow us to construct better coordinates, which are also valid for r < rs , later on in this section. 13.4 Infinite Gravitational Red-Shift

One dramatic aspect of what is happening at (or, better, near) the Schwarzschild radius for very (very!) compact objects with rs > r0 is the following. Recall the formula (2.105) for the gravitational red-shift, which gave us the ratio between the frequency of light e emitted at the radius re and the frequency received at the radius r > re in a static spherically symmetric gravitational eld. The result, which is in particular also valid for the Schwarzschild metric, was (g00 (re ))1/2 . = e (g00 (r ))1/2 (13.27)

233

In the case of the Schwarzschild metric, this is (1 2m/re )1/2 . = e (1 2m/r )1/2 (13.28)

We now choose the emitter to be the freely falling observer whose position is described by re = r( ) or r(t), and the receiver to be the xed observer at r rs . As re rs , one clearly nds 0 . (13.29) e Expressed in terms of the gravitational red-shift factor z, 1+z = e (13.30)

this means that there is an innite gravitational red-shift as re rs , re rs z . (13.31)

More explicitly, using (13.24) one nds the late-time behaviour of the red-shift factor z, in terms of coordinate time (or the distant observers proper time), to be 1 + z (r 2m)(t)1/2 e t/4m . (13.32)

Thus for the distant observer at late times there is an exponentially growing red-shift and the distant observer will never actually see the unfortunate emitter crossing the Schwarzschild radius: he will see the freely falling observers signals becoming dimmer and dimmer and arriving at greater and greater intervals, and the freely falling observer will completely disappear from the distant observers sight as re rs . Note that the time-scale tz for this exponential red-shift at late times is set by tz 4m/c, which is of the order of M tz 105 s , (13.33) Msun so that this is pretty much instantaneous for an object the mass of an ordinary star. We will come back to these estimates later on when (briey) talking about gravitational collapse in section 14.8. This was for a stationary observer. As we have seen, the situation presents itself rather dierently for the freely falling observer himself who will not immediately notice anything particularly dramatic happening as he approaches or crosses rs . 13.5 The Geometry Near rs and Minkowski Space in Rindler Coordinates

We have now seen in two dierent ways why the Schwarzschild coordinates are not suitable for exploring the physics in the region r 2m: in these coordinates the metric becomes singular at r = 2m and the coordinate time becomes innite. On the other 234

hand, we have seen no indication that the local physics, expressed in terms of covariant quantities like proper time or the geodesic equation, becomes singular as well. So we have good reasons to suspect that the singular behaviour we have found is really just an artefact of a bad choice of coordinates. In fact, the situation regarding the Schwarzschild coordinates is quite reminiscent of the Rindler coordinates for Minkowski space we discussed (way back) in section 1.3. As we saw there, these only covered part of Minkowski space (the right quadrant or Rindler wedge), bounded by lines (or hypersurfaces) where the time coordinate became innite, while inertial (geodesic, freely falling) observers could exit this region in nite proper time. This is in fact more than just a loose analogy: as we will see now, the Rindler metric (1.64) gives an accurate description of the geometry of the Schwarzschild metric close to the Schwarzschild radius. To conrm this, let us temporarily introduce the variable r = r 2m measuring the coordinate distance from the horizon. In term of r the (t, r)-part of the Schwarzschild metric reads r r + 2m ds2 = dt2 + d2 . r (13.34) r + 2m r Close to the horizon, i.e. for small r << 2m, we can approximate r r r + 2m 2m so that the metric becomes ds2 = r 2 2m 2 dt + d . r 2m r (13.36) r + 2m 2m , r r (13.35)

Introducing the new radial variable (proper radial distance from the horizon) via d2 = one nds 2m 2 d r r = 8m , r (13.37)

1 2 dt2 + d2 . 16m2 Finally a simple rescaling of t, = t/4m, leads to ds2 = ds2 = 2 d 2 + d2 ,

(13.38)

(13.39)

which, remarkably, is identical to the Rindler metric (1.64). Keeping track of the transverse 2-sphere and using r 2 (2m)2 in the near-horizon approximation, the complete metric in this limit and in these coordinates reads ds2 = 2 d 2 + d2 + (2m)2 d2 (13.40)

If we further restrict to just a small angular region on the sphere, we can approximate d 2 + sin2 d2 d 2 + 2 d2 = (dx2 )2 + (dx3 )2 235 (13.41)

which gives us the complete 4-dimensional Rindler metric. In any case, we see that, up to the harmless redenition (r, t) (, ) that we just performed, Schwarzschild coordinates for the Schwarzschild geometry are just like Rindler coordinates for Minkowski space.
Remarks:

1. The rst, and most crucial, thing we learn from this is that the singularity of the Schwarzschild metric at r = 2m in the Schwarzschild coordinates (t, r) is, as anticipated, a mere coordinate singularity. Indeed, r = 2m corresponds to r = 0 = 0, and we already know that the singularity of the Rindler metric at = 0 is just a coordinate singularity (which can be eliminated e.g. by passing to standard inertial Minkowski coordinates a via (1.63)). 2. Moreover, we can now understand physically why the Schwarzschild coordinates break down at r = 2m: they are adapted to accelerating observers, in the present context the stationary observers in the Schwarzschild geometry at constant r, with proper time proportional to the Schwarzschild coordinate time t. Referring back to Figure 7 in section 1.3, these are the observers with constant hyperbolic wold lines. The problem is evidently that the required acceleration of these observers becomes innite as 0 r 2m (as we have calculated in section 13.1). That these observers appear to see a singular metric is then not the geometrys fault but can be attributed to a bad choice of observers whose perception of the geometry is distorted by their acceleration and their desperate attempt to stay at constant values of r even when they are very close to r = 2m. 3. The situation is quite dierent for the freely falling observers. Their worldlines look like the vertical line labelled worldline of a stationary observer in Figure 7, they cross the horizon in nite proper time, experiencing no strong acceleration or gravitational elds. As already noted in section 1.3, they evidently become invisible to observers in the Rindler quadrant (now Schwarzschild patch) of the geometry, stationary outside observers noting an infnite gravitational redshift aecting the signals sent out by the freely falling observer. 4. Introducing coordinates adapted to freely falling observers (so that e.g. time is their proper time) would be tantamount to passing from Rindler coordinates to ordinary Minkowski coordinates. and we will consider that option in section 14.1 below (Painlev-Gullstrand coordinates). These will provide us, as we will see, e with a coordinate system that extends in a non-singular way across the Schwarzschild radius.

236

5. In order to elucidate the signicance of the Schwarzschild radius, it will then turn out to be useful to base the construction of new coordinates not on the behaviour of timelike freely falling observers but on ingoing light rays instead (which evidently also do not suer from the problems of the stationary observers). These are the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates to be discussed in section 14.3. 6. Finally, we can anticipate that upon introduction of suitable analogues of the Minkowski coordinates for the Rindler space-time, we may perhaps uncover not just one new region (quadrant) of space-time (the one lying to the future of r = 2m), but also counterparts of the other two quadrants of Minkowski space. This expectation will indeed be borne out. 13.6 Tortoise Coordinates

To improve our understanding of the Schwarzschild geometry, it is important to study its causal structure, i.e. the lightcones. Radial null curves satisfy (1 2m/r)dt2 = (1 2m/r)1 dr 2 . Thus (13.42)

dt = (1 2m/r)1 , (13.43) dr In the (r, t)-diagram of Figure 14, dt/dr represents the slope of the lightcones at a given value of r. Now, as r 2m, one has dt r2m , dr (13.44)

so the light cones close up as one approaches the Schwarzschild radius. This is the same statement as before regarding the fact that the coordinate velocity goes to zero at r = 2m, but this time for null rather than timelike geodesics. As our rst step towards introducing coordinates that are more suitable for describing the region around rs , let us write the Schwarzschild metric in the form ds2 = (1 2m/r)(dt2 + (1 2m/r)2 dr 2 ) + r 2 d2 . We see that it is convenient to introduce a new radial coordinate r via dr = (1 2m/r)1 dr = The solution to this equation is r 2m dr = (1 + )dr . r 2m r 2m (13.46) (13.45)

r = r + 2m log(r/2m 1) .

(13.47)

This new radial coordinate r , known as the Regge - Wheeler radial coordinate or tortoise coordinate, also provides us with the solution t = r + C 237 (13.48)

r=2m

Figure 14: The causal structure of the Schwarzschild geometry in the Schwarzschild coordinates (r, t). As one approaches r = 2m, the lightcones become narrower and narrower and eventually fold up completely. to the equation (13.43) describing the lightcones. In terms of r the metric simply reads ds2 = (1 2m/r)(dt2 + dr 2 ) + r 2 d2 , where r is to be thought of as a function of r . We see immediately that we have made some progress. Now the lightcones, dened by dt2 = dr 2 , (13.50) (13.49)

do not seem to fold up as the lightcones have the constant slope dt/dr = 1 (see Figure 15), and there is no singularity at r = 2m. However, r is still only dened for r > 2m and the surface r = 2m has been pushed innitely far away (r = 2m is now at r = ). Moreover, even though non-singular, the metric components gtt and gr r (as well as g) vanish at r = 2m. 13.7 The Klein-Gordon Field in the Schwarzschild Geometry

As an aside, and to conclude this section, I just want to point out that the tortoise coordinate r and the corresponding retarded and advanced time-coordinates u, v = t r (which we will reencounter in section 14.3 as part of the Eddington Finkelstein coordinates) are not only useful for clarifying the causal structure of the Schwarzschild 238

r=2m r* =-infinity

r*

Figure 15: The causal structure of the Schwarzschild geometry in the tortoise coordinates (r , t). The lightcones look like the lightcones in Minkowski space and no longer fold up as r 2m (which now sits at r = ). geometry, but also for the analysis of the propagation of scalar (and other) elds. This is principally due to the fact that in these coordinates the (t, r)-part of the metric is conformally at - see (13.49) or (14.78) below. Combined with the observation of section 5.5 that the Klein-Gordon action is conformally invariant in (1 + 1)-dimensions, this leads to a canonical form for the (3 + 1) wave operator in the (t, r)-sector (and the (, )-sector is standard anyway). Specically, we start with the action for a (massless, say) scalar eld in the metric (13.49), S[] = = gd4 x g (13.51)

dt dr d r 2 f (r) f (r)1 ((t )2 + (r )2 ) r 2 S 2 dt dr d (rt )2 + (rr )2 ) f (r) S 2 ,

where f (r) = 1 2m/r, d = sin d d denotes the solid angle on the 2-sphere, and S 2 is the Laplace operator on the 2-sphere. Separating variables according to (x) = r 1
,m

m (t, r )Ym (, ) ,

(13.52)

239

using S 2 Ym = ( + 1)Ym , and using r r = f (r) rr (m /r) = r m r 1 f (r)m , (13.54) one nds for = m the equation of motion
2 2 (t r ) + V (r ) = 0 ,

(13.53)

(13.55)

where V (r ) = f (r)

( + 1) 2m + 3 r2 r

(13.56)

This potential is non-negative for all 2m < r < and goes to zero quite rapidly as r or r 2m, i.e. as r ,
r r 2m : V (r) e r /2m .

r + r : V (r) (r )2

(13.57)

This means that at innity (in r) and near the horizon, the solutions of this equation can be chosen to have the standard right-moving (outgoing) / left-moving (ingoing) form
(t, r ) e i(t r ) = e iu

or

(t, r ) e i(t + r ) = e iv .

(13.58)

However, this does not mean that a mode having the above form near innity, say, evolved from a mode that had also had such a form near the horizon. Rather, the almost innite exponential gravitational red-shift between the near-horizon and asymptotic regions discussed in section 13.4 leads to an exponential relation between the parameter u, say, labelling an outgoing wave at innity, and the corresponding parameter near the horizon. This exponential relation is analogous to that encountered for a scalar eld in Rindler versus inertial Minkowski coordinates (section 5.6). For the Schwarzschild metric it is encoded in the precisely analogous relation (14.92) between the coordinates u, v and the Kruskal coordinates uK , vK to be introduced below, the latter being the analogues of Minkowski inertial coordinates, and the former the analogues of Rindler coordinates. These observations are at the heart of the so-called Hawking Eect, i.e. the quantum radiation of black holes. See the references given in section 14.5 for introductions to these topics. By separating out the time-dependence, (t, r ) = e it (r ) , (13.59)

the exact equation to be solved takes the form of a standard time-independent Schrdinger o equation, 2 r + V (r ) = 2 . (13.60) 240

It plays an important role in numerous aspects of Black Hole physics, e.g. in the analysis of the stability of the Schwarzschild solution. In this context, the above equation and its counterparts for vectors and symmetric tensors are known as the Regge-Wheeler(Zerilli) equations.

241

14

The Schwarzschild Black Hole

The primary purpose of this section is to understand the signicance and physics of the Schwarzschild radius and the region r < 2m. We will acccomplish this principally via a construction of appropriate, physically motivated coordinate systems and, indeed, a secondary purpose of this section is to illustrate how to go about constructing such coordinate systems in a systematic way (instead of just introducing them without further explanations). Even though the details will dier, the general principles of how to construct coordinates to explore and understand a given space-time (by constructing and using coordinates adapted to preferred classes of observers or geodesics) can be applied to other metrics, e.g. some of those listed in section 14.9. Let me also make clear from the outset what the issue is not. Namely, the issue is not one of constructing appropriate coordinates solely in the region 0 < r < 2m. Indeed, we have known such coordinates all along, simply the original Schwarzschild coordinates (t, r). The Schwarzschild metric is a vacuum solution of the Einstein equations also in that region, and the coordinates (t, r) give a valid non-singular description of the metric there. Since f (r) = 1 2m/r < 0, their interpretation diers, i.e. r is a timelike coordinate, and t plays the role of a radial coordinate, but this notational issue can easily be rectied by renaming r = T, t = R, and writing the Schwarzschld metric in the region 0 < r = T < 2m as f (r) = 1 2m 2m ( 1) r T 2m 2m 1)1 dT 2 + ( 1)dR2 + T 2 d2 . ds2 = ( 2 T T (14.1)

While this provides some minimal insight (e.g. that for r < 2m surfaces of constant r are spacelike and that the metric looks time-dependent), what we are looking for is a way of describing the physics of the Schwarzschild solution that encompasses both the region r > 2m and the region r < 2m (and that therefore e.g. provides a valid continuous map for the freely falling observer as he crosses r = 2m). 14.1 Crossing rs with Painlev-Gullstrand Coordinates e

We had seen that the Schwarzschild time coordinate t is adapted to stationary observers (whose proper time is proportional to t), and therefore not useful for describing the region r < 2m. We had also seen that freely falling observers cross r = 2m in nite proper time . This suggests to choose some family of freely falling observers (geodesics) and to use their proper time = T (t, r, , ) as the new time coordinate, i.e. to perform the coordinate transformation (t, r, , ) (T, r, , ) 242 (14.2)

(retaining, for the time being, the coordinates (r, , )). A natural (and the simplest) choice is to consider the family of freely falling observers which fall radially (angular momentum L = 0) and start o at rest from innity (energy E = 1). In this case, the geodesic equations (13.8) and (13.9) take the form r = (2m/r)1/2 which also imply that dt/dr = (r/2m)1/2 (1 2m/r)1 . The solutions for r = r( ) and t = t(r) are r( ) = [3 2m(0 )/2]2/3 0 = (2/3)(2m)1/2 r 3/2 t(r) = t0 (2/3)(2m)1/2 r 3/2 (r) , where (r) = 2m 2(r/2m)1/2 + ln is the solution of d(r)/dr = (2m/r)1/2 (1 2m/r)1 . (14.7) In particular, we see that, up to the irrelevant constant 0 t0 , (r) and t(r) are related by (r) = t(r) + (r) . (14.8) We are thus led to the introduce the new time coordinate T (t, r) by T (t, r) = t + (r) = t + 2(2mr)1/2 + 2m ln (r/2m)1/2 1 (r/2m)1/2 + 1 . (14.9) (14.4) , t = (1 2m/r)1 , (14.3)

(14.5)

(r/2m)1/2 1 (r/2m)1/2 + 1

(14.6)

Since the metric does not depend explicitly on t, to determine the metric in the coordinates (T, r, , ) we only need to substitute dt by dt = dT d = dT (r/2m)1/2 (1 2m/r)1 dr . Then one immediately nds the simple result ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 = dT 2 + dr + 2m/rdT
2

(14.10)

= f (r)dT 2 + 2 2m/rdT dr + (dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) + r 2 d2 .

(14.11)

This is the Schwarzschild metric in Painlev-Gullstrand Coordinates (Painlev (1921), e e Gullstrand (1922)), abbreviated to PG coordinates in the following, and this form of the metric already reveals a number of important properties of the Schwarzschild geometry. 243

Most importantly, we see that due to the non-singular o-diagonal term the metric in these coordinates is well-dened and non-degenerate for all 0 < r < , in particular at r = 2m. This is the denitive proof that the singularity at r = 2m in Schwarzschild coordinates is really just a coordinate singularity.
Remarks:

1. The metric has the characteristic property that the metric induced on the slices of constant T is just the at Euclidean metric for any T , ds2 |T =T0 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 = dx2 . (14.12)

This makes this form of the metric (and choice of time coordinate) particularly convenient e.g. for the canoncial quantisation of elds in the Schwarzschild space-time, and it is also for this reason that this coordinate system has become increasingly popular in recent years.18 2. It is easy to verify / conrm directly in the PG coordinates that the new timecoordinate T really has the interpretation as measuring the proper time of radially freely falling observers starting o at rest at innity. To that end note that in PG coordinates a radial timelike goedesic satises T 2 + r + 2m/r T
2

= 1 ,

(14.13)

while the conserved energy associated with the T -translation invariance of the metric has the form (14.14) E = f T 2m/r r . It immediately follows that T = T = +1 r = 2m/r E=1 . (14.15)

These are precisely the geodesic paths with which we began the construction. The coordinate transformation (14.9) is of the general form T (t, r) = t + (r) (11.2) discussed previously, and preserves the t-independence and manifest spherical symmetry of the metric. Turning this around, once one has found the Schwarzschild metric in Schwarzschild coordinates, say, one can of course discover an innite number of new coordinate systems for the Schwarzschild metric by performing such a (or a more general)
See e.g. P. Kraus, F. Wilczek, A Simple Stationary Line Element for the Schwarzschild Geometry, and Some Applications, arXiv:gr-qc/9406042 and citations thereto; A. Nielsen, M. Visser, Production and decay of evolving horizons, arXiv:gr-qc/0510083 for PG-like metrics for general time-dependent spherically symmetric metrics; C. Barcelo, S. Liberati, M. Visser, Analogue Gravity, arXiv:gr-qc/0505065 for a detailed discussion of PG-like metrics in the context of so-called analogue models of gravity.
18

244

coordinate transformation. Only in special cases, however, will one nd a coordinate system that is actually useful. Let us see how to recover the PG coordinate system in this way, and how to precover another coordinate system that we will disuss in more detail in section 14.3. Starting with the Schwarzschild metric in Schwarzschild coordinates, and performing the coordinate transformation t T (t, r) = t + (r), one nds the metric ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 f (r)dT 2 + 2f (r) (r)dT dr + f (r)1 (1 f (r)2 ( (r))2 )dr 2 + r 2 d2 (14.16) f (r)dT 2 + 2C(r)dT dr + f (r)1 (1 C(r)2 )dr 2 + r 2 d2 ,

where C(r) = f (r) (r) is an essentially arbitary function of r. This metric represents the Schwarzschild metric for any choice of C(r) (in particular, the vacuum Einstein equations do not impose any constraints on C(r)), and one can now choose C(r) at will. 1. One natural choice is gT r = 0 C(r) = 0 . (14.17) This makes the metric diagonal, corresponds to (r) constant, and evidently returns one to Schwarzschild coordinates. Any other choice of C(r) will lead to a non-diagonal metric in the coordinates (T, r). 2. Another attractive choice is grr = 1 ds2 |T =T0 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 1 C(r)2 = f (r) C(r) = 2m/r (14.18)

We see that with the upper sign this is precisely the choice giving rise to PG coordinates, conrmed by the fact that for (r) this implies the dierential equation C(r) = + 2m/r (r) = 2m/rf (r)1 (r) = (r) . (14.19)

The same argument shows that the lower sign gives a corresponding set of PG coordinates based on outgoing rather than on ingoing coordinates. 3. Lastly, another attractive choice is grr = 0 C(r) = 1 (r) = f (r)1 , (14.20)

so that the metric has the particularly simple (and non-singular at r = 2m) form ds2 = f (r)dT 2 2dT dr + r 2 d2 . (14.21)

Referring back to the discussion of section 13.6, in particular (13.46), we see that the solution to this equation is (r) = r T (t, r) = t r . (14.22)

These are just the advanced and retarded time coordinates (u, v) of section 13.7, and we will encounter them in section 14.3 as Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. 245

This procedure can in principle be applied to any static, spherically symmetric metric, and we will also make use of it later, e.g. in section 22.2 when constructing coordinates for de Sitter space. A geometrically more satisfactory construction of such adapated coordinates can be based on the attempt to nd a function T such that the 4-velocity of a family (congruence) of observers u is orthogonal to the slices of constant T , in the sense that u = T . The two conditions u u = 1 (for a timelike congruence, say) and u = T imply that u is geodesic,
1 u u = u u = 2 (u u ) = 0 ,

(14.23)

and that the metric component gT T with respect to this new coordinate function T is gT T = g T T = g u u = 1 , and the construction can proceed from there.19 Conversely, this kind of reasoning may allow one to discover the geometric interpretation of a coordinate system that one has selected through other criteria, e.g. via a convenient choice of the function C(r) in (14.16). In particular, applied to PG coordinates, one can argue as follows: 1. Given the metric in PG coordinates, one seeks the interpretation of the gradient covector u = T , (14.25) which is correctly normalised for a 4-velocity eld, u u = 1, because gT T = 1 in PG coordinates; 2. in Schwarzschild coordinates, u has the components (t T r T, T, T ) = (1, (r/2m)1/2 f (r)1 , 0, 0) ; 3. thus its contravariant components give the 4-velocity eld u = (f (r)1 , (r/2m)1/2 , 0, 0) , (14.27) (14.26) (14.24)

and comparison with (14.3) shows that this is precisely the family of tangent vectors u = x = (t, r, , ) (14.28) characterising the radial ingoing geodesics with E = 1.
See K. Martel, E. Poisson, Regular coordinate systems for Schwarzschild and other spherical spacetimes, arXiv:gr-qc/0001069, which also introduces generalised PG coordinates adapted to geodesic observers with E > 1, i.e. with non-zero velocity at innity. Corresponding coordinates for E < 1, i.e. adapted to freely falling observers with maximal radius ri < , have been constructed by Gautreau and Homann (see the references in this article).
19

246

Even though we now have a coordinate system that extends in a non-singular way across r = 2m, so that r = 2m is not a true singularity, this does not mean that nothing interesting at all happens at that locus. Indeed, the (legitimate) stationary observers at large radii r 2m are still waiting for an explanation for their observations, described in sections 13.3 and 13.4. Simply telling them that their coordinates are no good near r = 2m will hardly be considered by them to be a satisfactory explanation of what they observe. In order to address this issue, we now look at the behaviour of (radial) lightrays in PG coordinates, characterised by f (r)dT 2 + 2 2m/rdT dr + dr 2 = 0 . (14.29)

Parametrising the lightrays by r = r(T ), with a prime denoting a T -derivative, r = dr/dT , we can write this equation as (r )2 + 2 2m/rr = f (r + 2m/r)2 = 1 . (14.30)

Thus this has the two solutions r + 2m/r = 1

r = 1

2m/r ,

(14.31)

and we can now understand the role that r = 2m plays. For r > 2m one has r > 2m :
r+ > 0 and r < 0 .

(14.32)

This is the usual situation. There is one outgoing direction along which r = r(T ) grows, and one ingoing direction along which r(T ) decreases. In particular, while remaining within the future lightcone one can choose to go to either larger or smaller values of r. For r < 2m, on the other hand, one has r < 2m :
r+ < 0 and r < 0 .

(14.33)

Thus along both directions lightrays (and therefore massive particles as well) must move to smaller values of r. In particular, no observer, no lightray and no information can escape from the region r < 2m. No wonder that the asymptotic stationary observers never see the infalling observer cross r = 2m. This new region is a future extension of the Schwarzschild patch r > 2m of the space-time, uncovered by ingoing radial geodesics. With the opposite choice of sign in (14.18), corresponding to outgoing rather than ingoing radial geodesics, one would instead have discovered a region r < 2m in which r > 0. This can therefore not possibly be the same region r < 2m, and indeed is a past extension of the Schwarzschild patch, uncovered by the back-tracking of outgoing radial geodesics. 247

While it is possible to further explore the consequences of all this in terms of the present PG coordinates, since we have been led to consider the structure of the lightcones, i.e. null geodesics, it turns out to be more convenient, also for the following, to discuss this in terms of coordinates that are adapted to lightrays rather than to the timelike goedesics. These are the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates to be discussed in section 14.3 below. 14.2 Lema tre and Novikov Coordinates

Before turning to Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, I want to briey mention two more coordinate systems that are instructive and occasionally useful, and that combine one of the attractive feature of PG coordinates (namely that the time coordinate is physical proper time for suitable geodesic observers) with one of the useful features of Schwarzschild coordinates (namely that the metric is diagonal), albeit at the expense of a time-dependent coordinate transformation rendering also the metric time-dependent. This will be accomplished by constructing comoving coordinates for the geodesic observers underlying the (generalised) PG coordinate system, where comoving means that these observers remain at xed values of all the spatial coordinates and only evolve in time = proper time. Since radial geodesics already remain at xed values of the angular coordinates (, ), what this amounts to is to trade the coordinate r for another coordinate that simply labels the individual geodesics (and that is therefore, tautologically, guaranteed to also remain constant along such a geodesic). Such a label is provided by an integration constant appearing in the solution to the radial geodesic equation since (tauto-)logically such an integration constant is constant along the geodesic. Let us rst consider the case E = 1. Going back to the solution (14.5), r= 2m/r r( ) = [3 2m(0 )/2]2/3 , (14.34)

we can identify 0 as a candidate for a comoving radial coordinate. This label 0 can be interpreted as the proper time at which the geodesic ends up at r = 0, r(0 ) = 0. Alternatively and preferably, if one is (understandably) reluctant to label geodesics by their behaviour at r = 0, 0 can be thought of as being related to the value r0 of r( ) at = 0, r0 = r( = 0) = [3 2m0 /2]2/3 . (14.35) We can thus introduce a new radial variable = (r, ) by r(, ) = [3 2m( )/2]2/3 . This satises dr = rd + (r/)d = r(d d) = 248 2m/r(d d) , (14.37) (14.36)

so that (denoting the PG proper time coordinate T now by ) the Schwarzschild line element in PG form (14.11) turns into ds2 = d 2 + dr + = d 2 + = d 2 + 2m/rd
2 2

+ r 2 d2 (14.38)

2m/rd

+ r 2 d2

2m d2 + r(, )2 d2 , r(, )

with r(, ) given explicitly by (14.36). This is the Schwarzschild metric in Lemitre a Coordinates (Lema (1938)), which have a clear physical interpretation and also mantre ifestly extend in a non-singular way across r = 2m (the Schwarzschild radius is located at = 4m/3), to all r > 0.
Remarks:

1. Note that g = 1 and g = 0 are automatic consequences of this construction: by denition, in comoving coordinates the velocity eld has the form u = (1, 0, 0, 0), and u = implies u = g = g = (1, 0, 0, 0)
!

g = 1

g = 0 g = 0 .

g = 1 ,

(14.39)

We will discuss comoving coordinates, and metrics employing them, in much more detail in the context of cosmology in sections 17-20, cf. in particular section 17.5 for geodesics of comoving observers in comoving coordinates, 2. Somewhat surprisingly, Lema tre coordinates appear not to have attracted a lot of attention or found widespread use. However, the fact that in Lema tre coordinates the metric extends all the way to r = 0, is diagonal, and is explicit (unlike the Novikov coordinates, briey discussed below, or the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates to be described in detail later on) again makes them an attractive coordinate system to use e.g. when studying quantum eld theory in a Schwarzschild background.20 Closely related to Lema coordinates are the so-called Novikov coordinates, comoving tre coordinates based on radial geodesics with a nite maximal radius, ri < (i.e. E < 1) in the notation of section 13.2. In this case, trajectories are implicitly dened by (13.16) and (13.17), i.e. 1 r() = 2 ri (1 + cos ) 1/2 (14.40) 3 ri ( + sin ) , () = 8m
See e.g. K. Melnikov, M. Weinstein, On Unitary Evolution of a Massless Scalar Field In A Schwarzschild Background: Hawking Radiation and the Information Paradox, arXiv:hep-th/0205223.
20

249

 and one thinks of these relations, together with the usual relation E = f t (13.9) as dening the change of variables r = r(, ri ) , t = t(, ri ) . (14.41)

Note that ri is clearly a comoving coordinate, as it can be used to label the geodesic. Note also that, if required/desired, from (14.40) one can solve for = (r, ri ), = arccos(2r/ri 1) (r, ri ) =
3 ri 8m 1/2

arccos(2r/ri 1) + 2

(r/ri ) (r/ri )2

(14.42) .

However, even without having to solve or invert these implicit equation, it is easy to see that the resulting metric will have the form
2 ds2 = d 2 + f (ri )1 r (, ri )2 dri + r(, ri )2 d2 ,

(14.43)

where r (, ri ) = r(, ri )/ri : Writing

dt = td + t dri

dr = rd + r dri ,

(14.44)

and plugging this into the Schwarzschild metric, one nds

2 ds2 = (f t2 f 1 r 2 )d 2 +2(f 1 rr f tt )d dri +(f 1 (r )2 f (t )2 )dri . (14.45)

The rst term in brackets is equal to 1 because (t( ), r( )) parametrise a timelike radial geodesic, timelike radial geodesic f (r)t2 + f (r)1 r 2 = 1 . (14.46)

Thus g = 1, as expected for comoving coordinates. Moreover, for comoving coordinates the second term in brackets, i.e. the odiagonal term, is zero, g ri = 0 (14.39). Thus we can deduce g ri = 0 Using r = (fi f )1/2 , f t = E = fi
1/2

f 1 rr f tt = 0 .

(14.47)

(fi f (ri )) ,

(14.48)

this allows us to eliminate t in favour of r , (t )2 = f 2 (1 f /fi )(r )2 . (14.49)

250

 This implies for the third term in brackets that gri ri = f 1 (r )2 f (t )2 = fi1 (r )2 , leading to the result given in (14.43).
Remarks:

(14.50)

1. Usually, the metric is expressed not in terms of the variable ri but in terms of R = (ri /2m 1)1/2 ri = 2m(R2 + 1) R2 + 1 R2
2

E 2 = fi =

R2 + 1 R2

(14.51)

so that the metric takes the form ds2 = d 2 + r R dR2 + r(, R)2 d2 . (14.52)

This is the metric in Novikov Coordinates (Novikov, 1963). In terms of R, the relation (14.42) can also, using arccos(2r/ri 1) = 2 arccos(r/2m(R2 + 1))1/2 , be written as r (r/2m)2 (r, R) = (R2 + 1) 2 2m 2m R +1
1/2

(14.53)

+ (R2 + 1)3/2 arccos

r/2m R2 + 1

1/2

. (14.54)

This is the expression commonly found and used in the literature. 2. The fact that r(, ri ) or r(, R) is only determined implicitly makes Novikov coordinates somewhat more awakward to use in practice than Lema coordinates.21 tre Nevertheless, this is compensated by their clear physical interpretation. In particular, they are useful e.g. in numerical simulations and other investigations of gravitational collapse, and the Novikov metric will indeed naturally arise in this context in our brief discussion of gravitational collapse in section 14.8. 3. Since the timelike geodesics that Novikov coordinates are based on oscillate in nite proper time from r = 0 in the past through the maximal radius ri to r = 0 in the future, Novikov coordinates cover both the past and future extensions of the metric in the Schwarzschild patch discovered in terms of PG coordinates in section 14.1, and to be discussed again below in section 14.3. The reection symmetry R R of the metric also exchanges the Schwarzschild patch and its mirror region (rst encountered in the context of isotropic coordinates at the end of section 11.5, and to be discussed in detail in section 14.6), and thus Novikov coordinates actually turn out to provide a complete covering of the fully extended Kruskal-Schwarzschild space-time.22
See e.g. the appendix of J. Makela, A. Peltola, Thermodynamical Properties of Horizons, arXiv:gr-qc/0205128 for somewhat more explicit expressions, including a Taylor expansion of r . 22 See e.g. Figure 31.2 of C. Misner, K. Thorne, J. Wheeler, Gravitation.
21

251

14.3

Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates and Event Horizons

It is natural to introduce coordinates that are adapted to null geodesics, by promoting the integration constant C in (13.48) to a new coordinate, namely the retarded and advanced time coordinates u = t r , v = t + r . (14.55)

Then infalling radial null geodesics (dr /dt = 1) are characterised by v = const. and outgoing radial null geodesics by u = const. Now we pass to the ingoing or outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (v, r, , ) or (u, r, , ) (we keep r but eliminate t). Note that this coordinate transformation u(t, r) = t r or v(t, r) = t + r is also of the general form T (t, r) = t + (r) whose consequences were already explored in section 14.1. In particular, as already anticipated in (14.21), in terms of these coordinates the Schwarzschild metric reads ds2 = (1 2m/r)dv 2 + 2dv dr + r 2 d2

= (1 2m/r)du2 2du dr + r 2 d2 .

(14.56)

Even though the metric coecent guu or gvv vanishes at r = 2m, as for the PG coordinates of section 14.1 there is no real degeneracy, the two-dimensional metric in the (v, r)- or (u, r)-directions having the completely non-singular and non-degenerate form g= (1 2m/r) 1 1 0 (14.57)

In particular, the determinant of the metric is det(g ) g = r 4 sin2 , which is completely regular at r = 2m. To determine the lightcones in the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates we again look at radial null geodesics which this time are solutions to (1 2m/r)dv 2 = 2dv dr . There are thus two possiblities: 1. Ingoing null geodesics are described by dv/dr = 0 or v = const.. These null geodesics can also be understood in a dierent way. Note that from the form (14.56) it is evident that r is a null vector, since grr = 0. Moreover, its integral curves, i.e. the curves x () = (r = , v = v0 , = 0 , = 0 ) 252 (14.60) (14.59) (14.58)

are geodesics. In particular, the radial coordinate is then seen to be an ane parameter along ingoing null geodesics. That these curves are geodesics can be seen explicitly by calculating the acceleration of u = (1, 0, 0, 0), u u = r u = u = , r rr or more concisely (see (4.10) and the discussion in section 4.2) by r r = . rr (14.62) (14.61)

Either way this shows that r is geodesic, as = 0 (since grr = 0, the only rr possible contribution to rr could have arisen from r gvr , but gvr = 1 is constant). 2. Outgoing null geodesics are described by the solutions to the equation dv = 2(1 2m/r)1 . dr (14.63)

The solution to this equation is evidently v(r) = 2r + C u = t r = C. Thus the lightcone remain well-behaved (do not fold up) at r = 2m, the surface r = 2m is at a nite coordinate distance, namely (to reiterate the obvious) at r = 2m, and there is no problem with following geodesics beyond r = 2m. But even though the lightcones do not fold up at r = 2m, something interesting is certainly hapening there. Whereas, in a (v, r)-diagram (see Figure 16), one side of the lightcone always remains horizontal (at v = const.), the other side becomes vertical at r = 2m (dv/dr = ) and then tilts over to the other side. In particular, beyond r = 2m all future-directed paths, those within the forward lightcone, now have to move in the direction of decreasing r: clearly the ingoing null geodesics move towards smaller values of r, but so do those that for r > 2m were outgoing, (14.63) dr/dv < 0 for r < 2m . (14.64)

There is thus no way to turn back to larger values of r, not on a geodesic but also not on any other path (i.e. not even with a powerful rocket) once one has gone past r = 2m. Thus, even though locally the physics at r = 2m is well behaved, globally the surface r = 2m is very signicant as it is a point of no return. Once one has passed the Schwarzschild radius, there is no turning back. Such a surface is known as an event horizon. Note that this is a null surface so, in particular, once one has reached the event horizon one has to travel at the speed of light to stay there and not be forced further towards r = 0. In any case, we now encounter no diculties when entering the region r < 2m, e.g. along lines of constant u and this region should be included as part of the physical space-time. 253

v=const.

r=0

r=2m

Figure 16: The behaviour of lightcones in ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. Lightcones do not fold up at r = 2m but tilt over so that for r < 2m only movement in the direction of decreasing r towards the singularity at r = 0 is allowed. Note that because v = t + r and r for r 2m, we see that decreasing r along lines of constant v amounts to t . Thus the new region at r 2m we have discovered is in some sense a future extension of the original Schwarzschild space-time. Note also that nothing, absolutely nothing, no information, no light ray, no particle, can escape from the region behind the horizon. Thus we have a Black Hole, an object that is (classically) completely invisible from the outside. Even though the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates were already introduced by Eddington back in 1924, the full signicance of the Schwarzschild radius and its interepretation as a one-way membrane were only understood much later (Finkelstein, 1958).
Remarks:

1. One can of course check directly that the Eddington-Finkelstein metric (14.56) is a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations. One can also obtain the metric directly from integrating the Einstein vacuum equations if one starts not with the standard form of a static isotropic metric. (11.5) but makes an ansatz of the form ds2 = f (v, x)dv 2 + 2dv dx + r(v, x)2 d2 (14.65)

in terms of two unknown functions f (v, x) and r(v, x) of two variables. The same arguments as in the discussion of ingoing null geodesics above show that this 254

general form of the metric is characterised by the fact that that the integral curves of the null vector x (i.e. the curves with constant (v, , )) are null geodesics, with ane parameter x, (14.66) gxx = 0 , x x = 0 . As one can always choose to build a coordinate system in such a way, this is a valid a priori ansatz for the metric, and from this perspective one never encounters the question if the singularity at r = 2m is real or not, since it is not even a coordinate singularity in these coordinates. 2. In the above (v, r) coordinate system we can cross the event horizon only on future directed paths, not on past directed ones. The situation is reversed when one uses the coordinates (u, r) instead of (v, r). In that case, the lightcones in Figure 16 are ipped (either up-down or left-right), and one can pass through the horizon on past directed curves. The new region of space-time covered by the coordinates (u, r) is denitely dierent from the new region we uncovered using (v, r) even though both of them lie behind r = 2m. In fact, this one is a past extension (beyond t = ) of the original Schwarzschild patch of space-time. In this patch, the region behind r = 2m acts like the opposite (time-reversal) of a black hole (a white hole) which cannot be entered on any future-directed path. 3. As we will discuss later, in section 14.8, this white hole region is unphysical, i.e. an artefact of the idealisation of an eternal black hole metric. The future black hole region, however, is denitely of relevance as it can be created by gravitational collapse. 14.4 Kerr-Schild Form of the Metric

Ordinary space-time diagrams are more familiar (and therefore more intuitive) than space-null diagrams such as the above (r, v)-diagram (in which, for example, in the asymptotically at regime r the lightcone has slopes 0 and 2 rather than the usual 45 slopes 1). In the present case this can easily be rectied by introducing a new time-coordinate t instead of v by the relation v = t + r = t + r . The metric looks perhaps somewhat less illuminating in the (t, r)-coordinates, ds2 = (1 2m/r)dt2 + (4m/r)dt dr + (1 + 2m/r)dr 2 + r 2 d2 , (14.68) (14.67)

but the lightcones and the horizon now have the following simple and easy to visualise description: one side of the lightcone has (as we already know) v = const., thus dt/dr = 1 everywhere, is thus at 45 everywhere. 255

 the other side of the lightcone is described by dt/dr = +1 for r (slope +1), by dt/dr for r 2m, and dt/dr 1 for r 0. In particular, the horizon is (again) vertical in such a diagram, with the (wouldbe) outgoing side of the lightcone tangent to the horizon, while the lightcone degenerates as r 0. Nice diagrams that you can nd in many places depicting the collapse of a spherically symmetric star to a black hole and the formation of the horizon typically (either implicitly or explicitly) use these (t, r)-coordinates. Note also that in these coordinates the metric can be split as ds2 = (1 2m/r)dt2 + (4m/r)dt dr + (1 + 2m/r)dr 2 + r 2 d2 2m = dt2 + dr 2 + r 2 d2 + dv(t, r)2 . r Thus it has the curious property that in components it has the form g = + 2m v v r (14.70) (14.69)

where is the Minkowski metric and v is null with respect to the inverse Minkowski metric , v v = vv = 0 (14.71) because v = t + r is a null coordinate for the Minkowski metric dt2 + dr 2 + (. . .). This is the Schwarzschild metric in what is known as Kerr-Schild form. There is also a corresponding Kerr-Schild form of the metric in outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, namely (now with u = t r = t r, so this is not the same t) ds2 = dt2 + dr 2 + r 2 d2 + More generally, metrics of the form g = + f (x)N N with N N = N N = 0 (14.73) 2m du(t, r)2 . r (14.72)

are known as Kerr-Schild metrics. This ansatz for the metric played an important role in the search for other exact solutions of the Einstein equations. The form (14.73) implies that 1. N N is also null with respect to g : g N N = N N + f (x)(N N )(N N ) = 0 (14.74)

256

2. the inverse metric is given by g = f (x)N N Indeed, for g of this form one has g g = ( f (x)N N )( + f (x)N N ) = f (x)N N + f (x)N N = . (14.76) (14.75)

3. the contravariant components of N with respect to g are the same as those with respect to : g N = N f (x)N N N = N , so that the notation N is unambiguous. 14.5 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates (14.77)

Using Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, we have discovered two new regions of the space-time. Are there still other regions of space-time to be discovered? The answer is yes (as suggested by the analogy with Rindler and Minkowski space) and one way to nd them would be to study spacelike rather than null geodesics. Alternatively, let us try to guess how one might be able to describe the maximal extension of space-time. The rst guess might be to use the coordinates u and v simultaneously, instead of r and t. In these coordinates, the metric takes the form ds2 = (1 2m/r)du dv + r 2 d2 , (14.78)

with r = r(u, v). But while this is a good idea, the problem is that in these coordinates the horizon is once again innitely far away, at u = + or v = (i.e. at 2r = v u = ). We can rectify this by introducing coordinates U and V with U = e u/4m , V = e v/4m (14.79)

say, so that the horizon is now at either U = 0 or V = 0. To better understand why we choose these coordinates and why exactly this factor in the exponent (and not any other positive number, which so far would have had the same eect of moving the horizon to U = 0 or V = 0), note that vu r r = + log 1 4m 2m 2m so that the prefactor f (r) = 1 2m/r can be written as 1 2m 2m r 2m r/2m (v u)/4m = 1 = e e . r r 2m r 257 (14.81) , (14.80)

Thus the metric can then be written as ds2 = 2m r/2m v/4m e dv e r e u/4m du + r(u, v)2 d2 . (14.82)

It is now clear why we made the choice (14.79). The metric now takes the simple form ds2 = 32m3 r/2m e dU dV + r(U, V )2 d2 , r (14.83)

with r = r(U, V ) given implicitly by

U V = e (v u)/4m = e r /2m = (r/2m 1)e r/2m

(14.84)

and t = t(U, V ) explicitly by U/V = e (u + v)/4m = e t/2m . (14.85)

Finally, we pass from the null coordinates (U, V ) (meaning that U and V are null vectors) to more familiar timelike and spacelike coordinates (T, X) dened, in analogy with (u, v) = t r , by U =T X , V =T +X , (14.86) in terms of which the metric is ds2 = 32m3 r/2m e (dT 2 + dX 2 ) + r 2 d2 . r (14.87)

Here r = r(T, X) is now implicitly given by X 2 T 2 = (r/2m 1)e r/2m . Chasing through the above sequence of coordinate transformations (t, r) (t, r ) (u, v) (U, V ) (T, X) , (14.89) (14.88)

one nds that the coordinate transformation (t, r) (T, X) is explicitly, and in its full glory, given by
1 X(t, r) = 2 (V U ) = (r/2m 1)1/2 e r/4m cosh t/4m

T (t, r) = 1 (U + V ) = (r/2m 1)1/2 e r/4m sinh t/4m , 2

(14.90)

Remarks:

1. In these coordinates, the original Schwarzschild patch r > 2m, the region of validity of the Schwarzschild coordinates, corresponds to the region < U < 0, 0 < V < , or, in terms of X and T , to the region X > 0 and X 2 T 2 > 0, or |T | < X. As Figure 17 shows, this Schwarzschild patch is mapped to the rst quadrant of the Kruskal-Szekeres metric, bounded by the lines X = T . 258

r=2m

Figure 17: The Schwarzschild patch in the Kruskal-Szekeres metric: the half-plane r > 2m is mapped to the quadrant between the lines X = T in the Kruskal-Szekeres metric. 2. As in Minkowski space, null lines are given by X = T + const. and surfaces of constant r are given by X 2 T 2 = const. 3. In particular, the boundary of the Schwarzschild patch is the horizon r = 2m. In terms of (U, V ) this is mapped to U V = 0 which is the union of the two lines (null surfaces) U = 0 and V = 0, and in terms of (T, X) one has r = 2m X = T , (14.91)

4. In these coordinates the metric is now manifestly completely non-singular and regular not only at the horizons but everywhere except possibly at r = 0. We will discuss this extension of the Schwarschild space-time in more detail in the next section. 5. Minor cosmetic improvements can be obtained by introducing, instead of U and V (14.79) the rescaled coordinates (uK , vK ) through duK = e u/4m du dvK = e v/4m dv uK = 4me u/4m = 4m U (14.92)

vK = +4me +v/4m = 4m V ,

in terms of which the metric takes the form ds2 = 2m r/2m e duK dvK + r 2 d2 , r (14.93)

but then factors of (16m2 ) will reappear in other places, so we will forego this here. 259

6. It is also possible to further scale uK and vK so that the exponential prefactor has the form exp((r 2m)/2m) (e.g. by dening r with a dierent integration constant, r r 2m), so that for r 2m the metric tends to ds2 duk dvk without additional numerical factors like e1 but, as I said, this is pure cosmetics. In any case, as we will learn later on, U and V are coordinates that are naturally dened only up to ane transformations, so one choice is as good as any other. 7. Writing the implicit relation (14.84) between r and (U, V ) as U V /e = (r/2m 1)e (r/2m 1) , one sees that r can be expressed in terms of the Lambert function W , r(U, V ) = 2m (W (U V /e) + 1) dened by x = W (x)e W (x) (W (x) W (1/e) = 1, W (0) = 0 is the horizon).23 8. Note that the transformation (14.92) is strictly identical to the transformation (2.102) between Minkowski and Rindler null coordinates, with the identication a = 1/4m. This is much more profound than it sounds at rst. In particular, we will learn in section 14.7 that = 1/4m is the surface gravity of a black hole, i.e. a measure of the gravitational acceleration at the horizon. It is therefore this acceleration that plays the same role in the black hole context as the acceleration called a in the Rindler context. Moreover, this identity is at the heart of the deep relation between the so-called Unruh Eect (thermal nature of a Minkowski QFT vacuum state when seen by an accelerating observer, already mentioned in section 5.6) and the Hawking Eect (quantum radiation of black holes).24 9. Further insight into the nature of Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates will be provided in section 14.7 (where we elucidate the physical signicance of the coordinates (U, V )) and in section 15.8, where we outline the construction of such coordinates for more general back hole metrics.
For some applications of the Lambert function in this context see e.g. K. Lake, Some notes on the Kruskal - Szekeres completion, arXiv:1002.3600 [gr-qc], Some further notes on the Kruskal - Szekeres completion, arXiv:1202.0860 [gr-qc]. 24 For an introduction to QFT in curved spacce-time and a discussion of these eects, see e.g. the monographs N. Birrell, P. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space, V. Mukhanov, S. Winitzki, Quantum Eects in Gravity, or the on-line lecture notes J. Traschen, An Introduction to Black Hole Evaporation, arXiv:gr-qc/0010055, T. Jacobson, Introduction to Quantum Fields in Curved Spacetime and the Hawking Eect, arXiv:gr-qc/0308048, C. Krishnan, Quantum Field Theory, Black Holes and Holography, arXiv:1011.5875.
23

(14.94)

(14.95)

(14.96)

260

14.6

The Kruskal Diagram

Now that we have the coordinates X and T , we can let them range over all the values for which the metric is non-singular. The only remaining singularity is at r = 0, which corresponds to the two sheets of the hyperboloid r = 0 T 2 X2 = 1 T = 1 + X2 . (14.97)

That r = 0 is indeed a real singularity that cannot be removed by a coordinate transformation can be shown by calculating some invariant of the curvature tensor, like the Kretschmann scalar K = R R . On purely dimensional grounds, K must be proportional to m2 /r 6 , the crucial feature being that the constant of proportionality is not zero, explicit calculations (this is a doable but thoroughly unenlightning exercise) showing that m2 R R = 48 6 . (14.98) r Thus the geometry is genuinely singular at r = 0. Nevertheless, since the metric is non-singular for all values of (X, T ) subject to the constraint r > 0 or T 2 X 2 < 1, there is no physical reason to exclude the regions in the other quadrants also satisfying this condition. By including them, we obtain the Kruskal diagram Figure 18. This extension of the Schwarzschild metric was discovered independently by Kruskal and Szekeres in 1960 and presents us with an amazingly rich and complex picture of what originally appeared to be a rather simple (and perhaps even dull) solution to the Einstein equations. It can be shown that this represents the maximal analytic extension of the Schwarzschild metric in the sense that every anely parametrised geodesic can either be continued to innite values of its parameter or runs into the singularity at r = 0 at some nite value of the ane parameter.25 In addition to the Schwarzschild patch, quadrant I, we have three other regions, living in the quadrants II, III, and IV, each of them having its own peculiarities. Note that obviously the conversion formulae from (r, t) (X, T ) in the quadrants II, III and IV dier from those given above for quadrant I. E.g. in region II one can use Schwarzschild(like) coordinates in which the metric reads ds2 = 2m 1 dt2 r 2m 1 r
1

dr 2 + r 2 d2

(14.99)

(these are not the same coordinates as those in patch I, as we have seen we cannot continue the Schwarzschild coordinates across the horizon), and in this quadrant (where
One can also show that any spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein equations is locally isometric to some domain of the Schwarzschild-Kruskal solution. For a proof of this generalised Birkho theorem see e.g. N. Straumann, General Relativity.
25

261

r=0 r=2m

r=m r=3m r=3m

II III
X

I IV

r=m

r=2m r=0
Figure 18: The complete Kruskal-Szekeres universe. Diagonal lines are null, lines of constant r are hyperbolas. Region I is the Schwarzschild patch, separated by the horizon from regions II and IV. The Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (u, r) cover regions I and II, (v, r) cover regions I and IV. Regions I and III are lled with lines of constant r > 2m. They are causally disconnected. Observers in regions I and III can receive signals from region IV and send signals to region II. An observer in region IV can send signals into both regions I and III (and therefore also to region II) and must have emerged from the singularity at r = 0 at a nite proper time in the past. Any observer entering region II will be able to receive signals from regions I and III (and therefore also from IV) and will reach the singularity at r = 0 in nite time. Events occuring in region II cannot be observed in any of the other regions.

262

r is a time coordinate etc.) the relation between Schwarzschild and Kruskal coordinates is X = (1 r/2m)1/2 e r/4m sinh t/4m T = (1 r/2m)1/2 e r/4m cosh t/4m .

(14.100)

To get acquainted with the Kruskal diagram, let us note the following basic facts (some of which we had already noted for region I in the previous section). 1. Null lines are diagonals X = T +const., just as in Minkowski space. This greatly facilitates the exploration of the causal structure of the Kruskal-Szekeres metric. 2. In particular, the horizon corresponds to the two lines X = T . 3. Lines of constant r are hyperbolas. For r > 2m they ll the quadrants I and III, for r < 2m the other regions II and IV. 4. In particular, the singularity at r = 0 is given by the two sheets of the hyperbola T 2 X 2 = 1. 5. Notice in particular also that in regions II and IV worldlines with r = const. are no longer timelike but spacelike. Including the transverse 2-sphere, this should be rephrased as either lines of constant (r, , ) are spacelike for r < 2m or the surfaces of constant r are spacelike for r < 2m. 6. Lines of constant Schwarzschild time t are straight lines through the origin. E.g. in region I one has X = (coth(t/4m))T , with the future horizon X = T corresponding, as expected, to t . 7. The Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (v, r) cover the regions I and II, the coordinates (u, r) the regions I and IV. 8. Quadrant III is completely new and is separated from region I by a spacelike distance. That is, regions I and III are causally disconnected. Now let us see what all this tells us about the physics of the Kruskal-Szekeres metric. An observer in region I (the familiar patch) can send signals into region II and receive signals from region IV. The same is true for an observer in the causally disconnected region III. Once an observer enters region II from, say, region I, he cannot escape from it anymore and he will run into the catastrophic region r = 0 in nite proper time.

263

 As a reward for his or her foolishness, between having crossed the horizon and being crushed to death, our observer will for the rst time be able to receive signals and meet observers emerging from the mirror world in region III. Events occurring in region II cannot be observed anywhere outside that region (black hole). Finally, an observer in region IV must have emerged from the (past) singularity at r = 0 a nite proper time in the past and can send signals and enter into either of the regions I or III. Another interesting aspect of the Kruskal-Szekeres geometry is its dynamical character. This may appear to be a strange thing to say since we explicitly started o with a static metric. But this statement applies only to region I (and its mirror III). An investigation of the behaviour of spacelike slices analogous to that we performed for region I (see Figure 9) reveals a dynamical picture of continuing gravitational collapse in region II. In simple terms, the loss of staticity can be understood by noting that the timelike Killing vector eld t of region I, when expressed in terms of Kruskal coordinates, becomes null on the horizon and spacelike in region II. Indeed it is easy to check from (14.84) and (14.85) that the time-translation symnmetry (t, r) (t + c, r) of the Schwarzschild patch corresponds to the transformation U e c/4m U V e c/4m V . (14.101)

This is a boost in the (U, V ) or (T, X)-plane which leaves the entire Kruskal metric invariant since dU dV is invariant and r = r(U, V ) depends on U and V only via the boost-invariant quantity U V (14.84). Thus this symmetry is generated by the Killing vector K = (V V U U )/4m = (XT + T X )/4m , (14.102) It follows that K has norm proportional to T 2 X 2 , ||K||2 = 2m r/2m 2 e (T X 2 ) . r (14.103)

There are thus three dierent cases to consider, each of them interesting in its own right: K timelike K is timelike in the original region I (and in the mirror region III), with (14.88) I: ||K||2 = 2m 2m r/2m r e 1)e r/2m = (1 ) , ( r 2m r (14.104)

conrming that K = t in region I. We thus recover the statement that the Schwarzschild metric in the Schwarzschild patch is static.

264

 K spacelike K is spacelike in region II. Thus region II has no timelike Killing vector eld, therefore cannot possibly be static, but has instead an additional spacelike Killing vector eld - cf. Remark 1 in section 11.6. Related to this is the fact, already mentioned above, that in regions II and IV the slices of constant r are no longer timelike but spacelike surfaces. Thus they are analogous to, say, constant t or T slices for r > 2m. Just as it does not make sense to ask where is the slice t = 1? (say), only when is t = 1?, or where is r = 3m?, in these regions it makes no sense to ask where is r = m?, only when is r = m?. K null K is null on the horizon. This turns out to be the most interesting case, and therefore I will elaborate on this a bit in the following. 14.7 Killing Horizon and Surface Gravity

K is null on (and tangent to) the horizon T = X or U V = 0. In fact it reduces to K = (V /4m)V = v on the horizon U = 0 (and to K = u on V = 0). In this context (or from this perspective) the horizon is known as a Killing horizon (the locus where an asymptotically time-like Killing vector becomes null). Therefore K generates translations along the horizon, v v + c, and is called the null generator of (this branch of) the horizon. Thus v can naturally be used as a coordinate there. Evidently, K vanishes at the point U = V = 0 where the other horizon V = 0 branches o. Actually this is of course not a point but a perfectly respectable 2-sphere of radius r = 2m known as the bifurcation surface of the Killing horizon of the Schwarzschild geometry, and K vanishing means that this 2-sphere is invariant under the time-translation generated by K, something that is also evident from (14.101). On U = 0 this branching point lies at V 0 v , so the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate v (, +) only covers the half-line U = 0, V > 0 of the horizon. On the other hand the line U = 0 is itself an outgoing (radial) null geodesic, but in light of the above v cannot possibly be an ane parameter along that geodesic (the ane parameter should not reach innite values half-way along the geodesic). The failure of v to be an ane parameter on the horizon can be quantied by calculating the acceleration K K = t t (4.66) of the (integral curves of the) Killing vector and then taking the limit r 2m. This calculation is quite painless in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (v, r) in which K = v everywhere, K = t = (t v)v + (t r)r = v (14.105)

265

(K is evidently a Killing vector because the components of the metric do not depend on v). Then the acceleration is K K (K K) = = (f /2)(f r + v ) vv where f (r) = 1 2m/r. Thus for r 2m one nds
r2m

(14.106)

lim K K =

1 2 f (r)|r=2m

K=

m |r=2m K = r2

1 4m K

(14.107)

Remarks:

1. Since we have K K K on the horizon, this shows rst of all that there it generates a non-anely parametrised geodesic (see (2.25) and (4.67)). Moreover, we see that one interpretation of the ubiquitous factor = 1/4m is that it measures the inanity, i.e. the failure of v to be an ane parameter on the horizon,
r2m

lim K K = K .

(14.108)

2. Note, incidentally, that the above calculation also shows that v is an ane parameter on a null surface at r . Noting that v parametrises in-going light rays, this null surface is the surface of past null innity, aectionately known as scri-minus (short for script-I minus) I . Likewise, u is an ane parameter on future null innity I + .26 3. Another interpretation brought out by the same calculation (14.107) is that = 1/4m is the surface gravity which measures the strength of the gravitational force (acceleration) a(r) (13.5) acting on a stationary observer at the horizon, but as measured at innity (by taking into account the red-shift factor f (r)1/2 ),
1 = lim f (r)1/2 a(r) = 2 f (r)|r=2m = 1/4m . r2m

(14.109)

Anyway, to return to the beginning of this story, we have seen that v is not an ane parameter along the horizon. It turns out, however, that the Kruskal coordinate V is an ane parameter there (and this is one way of understanding why Kruskal coordinates are so natural for exploring the causal structure of the metric), meaning that the null curve x () = (U (), V (), (), ()) = (0, , 0 , 0 ) (14.110) is an anely parametrised null geodesic. This follows on the nose from (14.107) and the result (2.27) of section 2.2. Noting that is constant (actually not just along the
Dening these objects properly requires singnifcantly more care. For details, and much more, see e.g. the classic text-book The large scale structure of space-time by S. Hawking and G. Ellis, or General Relativity by R. Wald.
26

266

geodesic but on the entire horizon, but the former is all we need), (2.27) with and v becomes (dropping integration constants) d e v dv (v) 1 e v V . (14.111)

Another way to see this, which provides some more insight, is to analyse the geodesic Lagrangian and the conserved quantity associated to K in ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (one could also work in Kruskal coordinates, but nothing is gained by that). The elementary steps in the calculation are the following: From the metric (14.56) we deduce that for a radial null-geodesics one has f (r)v 2 + 2v r = 0 (14.112)

where a dot denotes a derivative with respect to the ane parameter . The geodesics with v = const describe ingoing null-geodesics and we are not interested in these, so we have f (r)v + 2r = 0 , (14.113) and since u = t r = v 2r and dr /dr = f (r)1 , this is equivalent to u = 0 and, as anticipated, describes outgoing geodesics. The conserved quantity E associated to the Killing vector K = v is f (r)v r = E . (14.114)

From the two preceding equations we immediately deduce (with a convenient parametrisation of the integration constant) r=E r() = E( 0 ) + rs . (14.115)

For the null geodesic along the horizon we are ultimately interested in, we have r() = rs , i.e. E = 0, but we need to approach this with some care, so we keep the general solution for now. Analogously, for v we nd the equation f (r)v = 2E v= 2rs 2Er() = 2E + . r() rs 0 (14.116)

We can now take the limit E 0 with impunity, and are left with v= 2rs 0 v() = 2rs ln( 0 ) + const. . (14.117)

The prefactor 2rs = 4m is now precisely such that it cancels the factor 1/4m in the denition of the Kruskal coordinate V (14.79), so that V () = e v()/4m = a( 0 ) , (14.118)

which is precisely the statement that V is related to by an ane transformation. Thus V is an ane parameter along the horizon U = 0, as claimed. 267

We now have two natural coordinates on the future horizon U = 0, V > 0 which we can for instance use to measure the frequency of incoming waves. t v measures what is commonly called Killing frequency (this requires no further explanation since it is associated to the Killing vector which generates time-translations in the Schwarzschild wedge), and V measures the so-called free fall frequency (since, more or less by construction, a freely falling observer in the Schwarzschild geometry near r = 2m will see approximately the Minkowski space-time metric ds2 dU dV ). The exponential relation (14.79) between them reects the exponential blue- or red-shift we rst encountered in section 13.4. As a concluding remark to this section, I cannot resist mentioning that the notion of surface gravity plays a crucial role in the analysis of the classical dynamics of general black holes, and even more so in the semi-classical context, since it is directly proportional to the temperature of the famous Hawking radiation of an evaporating black hole, 1 TH = = . (14.119) 2 8GN M For more details on this and other related advanced topics I am not able to cover or do justice to here, I refer you to the references given in footnote 24 of section 14.5, as well as to the superb Cambridge lecture notes on Black Holes.27 14.8 Some Qualitative Aspects of Gravitational Collapse

Now you may well wonder if all this talk about white holes and mirror regions is for real or just science ction. Clearly, if an object with r0 < 2m exists and is described by the Schwarzschild solution, then we will have to accept the conclusions of the previous section. However, this requires the existence of an eternal black hole (in particular, eternal in the past) in an asymptotically at space-time, and this is not very realistic. While black holes are believed to exist, they are believed to form as a consequence of the gravitational collapse of a star whose nuclear fuel has been exhausted (and which is so massive that it cannot settle into a less singular nal state like a White Dwarf or Neutron Star ). To see how we could picture the situation of gravitational collapse (without trying to understand why this collapse occurs in the rst place), let us estimate the average density of a star whose radius r0 is equal to its Schwarzschild radius. For a star with mass M we have 3 2M GN 4r0 rs = . (14.120) and M c2 3 Therefore, setting r0 = rs , we nd that =
27

3c6 2 1016 g/cm3 32G3 M 2 N

Msun M

(14.121)

P. Townsend, Black Holes, arXiv:gr-qc/9707012v1.

268

For stars of a few solar masses, this density is huge, roughly that of nuclear matter. In that case, there will be strong non-gravitational forces and hydrodynamic processes, singicantly complicating the description of the situation. The situation is quite simple, however, when an object of the mass and size of a galaxy (M 1010 Msun ) collapses. Then the critical density (14.121) is approximately that of air, 103 g/cm3 , nongravitational forces can be neglected completely, and the collapse of the object can be approximated by a free fall. The Schwarzschild radius of such an object is of the order of light-days ( 105 s). Under these circumstances, a more realistic Kruskal-like space-time diagram of a black hole would be the one depicted in Figure 19. We assume that at time t = 0 (equivalently, Kruskal time T = 0) we have a momentarily static mass conguration with (initial) radius r0 2m and mass M which then starts to collapse in free fall, the surface of the star described by a function R0 = R0 (t), say, or by R0 = R0 ( ), where is the proper time of a freely falling particle on the surface of the star. In order to actually desribe the crossing of the Schwarzschild radius by the surface of the star, it will evidently be more informative to use the parametrisation R0 = R0 ( ). Neglecting radiation-eects, the mass M of the star (galaxy) remains constant so that the exterior of the star, r > R0 ( ), is described by the corresponding subset of region I, and subsequently (once R0 ( ) < 2m) also region II, of the Kruskal-Szekeres metric. Note that regions III and IV no longer exist because the region r < R is simply not at all described by the Schwarzschild solution, but should be described by a solution of the Einstein equations appropriate for the interior of the star (in particular, this better be a solution of the non-vacuum Einstein equations, and we will describe one such solution in section 21). To model this, we start with the Schwarzschild metric in the region outside the star. For t 0 this is the region r > r0 , while for t > 0 this is the region r > R0 (t) where R0 (t) is the radius of the star at time t, and R0 (t) describes the radial free fall (geodesic motion) of the points on the surface towards the center discussed in section 13.2. By continuity of the metric, the space-time metric induced by the exterior metric on the (2+1)-dimensional worldvolume ext of the surface of the star is then given by ds2 ext = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 = [(f (R0 (t)) f (R0 (t))
1 r=R0 (t)

(dR0 /dt)2 ]dt2 + R0 (t)2 d2

(14.122)

(the subscript ext on ext is used to indicate that this is the metric induced on the surface of the star by the exterior metric, i.e. the metric outside the star). Expressed in terms of proper time , this becomes (writing now R0 = R0 ( ), and t = dt/d, R0 = dR0 /d , as usual) 2 ds2 ext = [(f (R0 ( ))t2 f (R0 ( ))1 R0 ]d 2 + R0 ( )2 d2 . 269 (14.123)

r=0 r=2m , t=infinity

Surface of the Star Interior of the Star

r=const.

X
Figure 19: The Kruskal diagram of a gravitational collapse. The surface of the star is represented by a timelike geodesic, modelling a star (or galaxy) in free fall under its own gravitational force. The surface will reach the singularity at r = 0 in nite proper time whereas an outside observer will never even see the star collapse beyond its Schwarzschild radius. However, as discussed in the text, even for an outside observer the resulting object is practically black.

270

Because (t( ), R0 ( )) parametrise radial null geodesics (for each value of the angular coordinates (, )), one has 2 f (R0 ( ))t2 + f (R0 ( ))1 R0 = 1 , and therefore one nds ds2 ext = d 2 + R0 ( )2 d2 , with R0 ( ) given implicitly by (13.16) and (13.17) (with ri r0 ),
1 R0 () = 2 r0 (1 + cos ) 3 r0 8m 1/2

(14.124)

(14.125)

(14.126) ( + sin ) .

() =
Remarks:

1. This simple form of the metric is due to the fact that the radially falling particles remain at xed values of the angular coordinates (so these are again comoving coordinates), and that is the corresponding proper time, so that one has ds2 = d 2 . Indeed, we can think of the induced metric ds2 ext as the restriction of the Novikov metric (14.43)
2 ds2 = d 2 + f (ri )1 r (, ri )2 dri + r(, ri )2 d2 ,

(14.127)

to the comoving radial coordinate ri = r0 , ds2 ext = d 2 + R0 ( )2 d2 d 2 + r(, r0 )2 d2 (14.128)

2 = d 2 + f (ri )1 r (, ri )2 dri + r(, ri )2 d2

ri =r0

2. From (14.126) one sees that R0 takes its initial (maximal) value R0 = r0 at = 0 or = 0, will inevitably cross the Schwarzschild radius of the star at some nite value of , and will reach r = 0 at = after the nite proper time R0 0 =
3 r0 8m 1/2

( + sin ) =

3 r0 8m

1/2

(14.129)

For an object the size of the sun (for which our free-fall approximation is, however, not really adequate) this would be of the order of one hour, and correspondingly somewhat larger for larger, more massive and less dense, objects. 3. For an observer remaining outside the collpasing star, say at the constant value r = r , in principle the situation (not unexpectedly by now) presents itself in a rather dierent way. Up to a constant factor (1 2m/r )1/2 , his proper time equals the coordinate time t. As the surface of the collapsing galaxy crosses the 271

horizon at t = , strictly speaking the outside observer will never see the black hole form. However, we had also seen that this period is accompanied by an innite and exponentially growing gravitational red-shift (13.32), z exp t/4m for radially emitted photons. Therefore the luminosity L of the star decreases exponentially, as a consequence of this gravitational red-shift and the fact that photons emitted at equal time intervals from the surface of the star reach the observer at greater and greater time intervals. It can be shown that t/3 3m , (14.130) Le so that the star becomes very dark very quickly, the characteristic time being of the order of M 3 3m 2, 5 105 s . (14.131) Msun Thus, even though for an outside observer the collapsing star never disappears completely, for all practical intents and purposes the star is black and the name black hole is justied. 4. Since only regions I and II of the Kruskal diagram are relevant for gravitational collapse, and for black holes arising from gravitational collapse, for most practical purposes Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are not required and it is sucient to consider coordinates that cover these two regions, such as Painlev-Gullstrand e (section 14.1) or Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (section 14.3). 5. Note that, even if the free fall (geodesic) approximation is no longer justied at some point, once the surface of the star has crossed the Schwarzschild horizon, nothing, no amount of pressure, can stop the catastrophic collapse to r = 0 because, whatever happens, points on the surface of the star will have to move within their forward lightcone and will therefore inevitably end up at r = 0 (and since timelike geodesics maximise proper time, any non-geodesic attempt to avoid hitting r = 0 will only get you there even quicker . . . ). 6. In interepreting the collapse to r = 0, it should be kept in mind that the Schwarzschild metric was never meant to be valid at r = 0 anyway (as it is supposed to describe the exterior of a gravitating body). Nevertheless, just being close enough to r = 0, without actually reaching that point is more than sucient to crush any kind of matter. Indeed, (14.98) and the geodesic deviation equation (section 8.3) show that the force needed to keep neighbouring particles apart is proportional to r 3 . Thus the tidal forces within arbitrary objects (be they solids or elementary particles) eventually become innitely big so that these objects will be crushed completely. In that sense, the physics becomes hopelessly singular even before one reaches r = 0 and there seems to be nothing to prevent a collapse of such an object to r = 0 and innite density. 272

7. In section 21 we will construct a matching interior solution to the Einstein equations describing a collapsing star which shows that this singularity is akin to a cosmological (Big Bang, or rather Big Crunch in the present context) singularity. Certainly classical general relativity (and even current-day quantum eld theory) are inadequate to describe this situation (and if or how a theory of quantum gravity can deal with these matters remains to be seen). It is fair to wonder at this point if the above conclusions regarding the collapse to r = 0 are only a consequence of the fact that we assumed exact spherical symmetry. Would the singularity be avoided under more general conditions? The answer to this is, somewhat surprisingly and shockingly, a clear no. There are very general singularity theorems, due to Penrose, Hawking and others, which all state in one way or another that if Einsteins equations hold, the energy-momentum tensor satises some kind of positivity condition, and there is a regular event horizon, then some kind of singularity will appear. These theorems do not rely on any symmetry assumptions.28 It has also been shown that the gravitational eld of a static vacuum black hole, even without further symmetry assumptions, is necessarily given by the spherically symmetric Schwarzschild metric and is thus characterised by the single parameter M (Israel, 1967). This was the rst of a series of remarkable black hole uniqueness (or no hair) theorems which I will briey come back to in section 14.9 below. In this sense, therefore, singularities appear to be unavoidable in classical general relativity, and the theory predicts and points to its own incompleteness (its singular can hardly be considered to be a satisfactory answer . . . ). 14.9 Other Black Hole Solutions

While the Schwarzschild solution that we have discussed at length above is not the only black hole solution of the Einstein equations, in 4 space-time dimensions the possiblilities are remarkably restricted. In particular, it can e.g. be shown that the most general stationary black hole solution of the 4-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell equations (asymptotically at, with a regular event horizon) is characterised by just three parameters, namely its mass M , charge Q and angular momentum J. This is generally referred to as the fact that black holes have no hair, or as the no-hair
See e.g. S. Hawking and G. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time and R. Wald, Chapter 9 of General Relativity for textbook accounts, chapter 1 of S. Hawking, The Nature of Space and Time, arXiv:hep-th/9409195 for an introduction, and J. Senovilla, Singularity Theorems in General Relativity: Achievements and Open Questions, arXiv:physics/0605007v1 [physics.hist-ph] for an overview.
28

273

theorems.29 In terms of gravitational collapse, they roughly amount to the statement that the only characteristics of a black hole which are not somehow radiated away during the phase of collapse via multipole moments of the gravitational, electro-magnetic, . . . elds are those which are protected by some conservation laws. The two most important examples of black hole solutions generalising the Schwarzschild metric, 2-parameter subfamilies of the complete 3-parameter family of black hole metrics, are the following: The Reissner - Nordstrm metric ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , f (r) = 1 2m q 2 + 2 r r (14.132)

is a solution of the coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations describing the exterior geometry of a spherically symmetric electrically charged star. It is characterised by two parameters m and q related to its mass M and charge Q respectively. Although (astro-)physically perhaps not particularly relevant, it displays a number of interesting and curious features which are of interest in their own right and relatively easy to understand. For this reason we will take a closer look at this solution in section 15. The Kerr Metric Astrophysical black holes, while they may carry negligible charge Q, are expected to typically have a non-zero angular momentum J. Now one no longer has spherical symmetry (because the axis of rotation picks out a particular direction) but only axial symmetry. The situation is thus a priori much more complicated, and the solution was found by Kerr only in 1963, almost fty years after the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrm solutions, through monumental calculations.30 The Kerr metric describing a rotating black hole depends on two parameters m and a related to its mass M and angular momentum J respectively. In BoyerLindquist coordinates (one of the coordinate systems in which the metric looks simplest, relatively speaking), the metric takes the form ds2 = dt2 + where 2mr(dt a sin2 d)2 +(r, )2 ((r)1 dr 2 +d 2 )+(r 2 +a2 ) sin2 d2 , (r, )2 (14.133) (r, )2 = r 2 + a2 cos2 (r) = r 2 2mr + a2
29

(14.134)

For a detailed recent review, see M. Heusler, Stationary Black Holes: Uniqueness and Beyond, Living Rev. Relativity 1 (1998) 6; http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-1998-6. 30 See e.g. R. Kerr, Discovering the Kerr and Kerr-Schild metrics, arXiv:0706.1109 [gr-qc]; M. Visser, The Kerr spacetime: A brief introduction arXiv:0706.0622 [gr-qc].

274

Its singularity and horizon structure and the behaviour of geodesics are much more intricate and intriguing than for the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrm solutions but (for the time being at least) I have to refer you to any of the modern standard textbooks on general relativity for more details. There exist various generalisations of the Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrm and Kerr metrics. 1. For example the Kottler metric ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , f (r) = 1 2m r 2 r 3 (14.135)

is the unique spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein vacuum equations with a cosmological constant , G + g = 0 R = g . (14.136)

It is also known as the Schwarzschild - de Sitter metric for > 0 and the Schwarzschild - anti-de Sitter metric for < 0. This solution is not asymptotically at but asymptotically (A)dS, i.e. asymptotic to pure de Sitter or anti-de Sitter space, which is the maximally symmetric solution of the Einstein equation with a positive (negative) cosmological constant - see section 22 for a detailed discussion of these space-times. In particular, we will derive the solution (14.135) in section 22.2 (see equation (22.44)). Unsurprisingly, one can also add charge to this solution, f (r) = 1 2m r 2 q 2 + 2 , r 3 r (14.137)

to nd an exact charged black hole solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations with a cosmological constant. 2. Remarkably, and more surprisingly, for < 0 one can replace the 1 in f (r) by a constant k = 0, 1, 2m r 2 fk (r) = k (14.138) r 3 (formally this also works for > 0, but since fk (r) is strictly negative in that case, this requires some reinterpretation . . . ), provided that one also replaces the 2-sphere by R2 or T 2 for k = 0, and the 2-dimensional hyperboloid H 2 for k = 1, d2 for k = +1 2 ds2 = fk (r)dt2 + fk (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , d2 = dx2 for k = 0 (k) (k) 2 d2 for k = 1 (14.139) 275

 (d2 denotes the line element of the standard metric on H 2 ). These solutions 2 describe black holes immersed into AdS space, with horizons with a non-spherical topology. Therefore such solutions are also, somewhat confusingly, known as topological black holes.31 A special case of (14.139) are the metrics (22.81) one obtains for m = 0, which describe pure AdS space (no black hole) in dierent coordinate systems. 3. These solutions are also easily generalised to higher dimensions. For example, the D = d + 1 dimensional generalisation of the Schwarzschild metric, known as the Schwarzschild-Tangherlini solution, has the standard form ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 d1 with f (r) = 1 r d2 . (14.140)

This has an event horizon at f (r) = 0, i.e. at the largest root of r d2 = , with proportional to the mass M of the black hole. There is also a corresponding generalisation of the Reissner-Nordstrm solution, and these static and asymptotically at solutions are subject to uniqueness theorems that are pretty much analogous to those in D = 4. 4. There is a corresponding, but much richer, generalisation of the topological black hole solutions, r2 (14.141) fk (r) = k d2 2 r where the transverse space (d 1)-dimensional space can now be S d1 , Rd1 or H d1 , or any other Einstein manifold with a metric hij with the same curvature, Rij (h) = (d 2)khij .32 5. There are also analogues of the Kerr metric for D > 4, known as Myers-Perry black holes, characterised by n rotation parameters for D = 2n+1 or D = 2n+2.33 However, what is perhaps as remarkable as the uniqueness theorems for rotating black holes in D = 4 is the fact that the situation appears to be completely dierent for D > 4, a far cry from the completely orderly and manageable situation in D = 4. In particular, in D = 5 there are asymptotically at black ring solutions with horizon-topology S 2 S 1 , and even more exotic objects in D > 5. The general construction and classication of black solutions in higher dimensions is an active area of research and many open questions remain.34
See R. Mann, Topological Black Holes Outside Looking In, arXiv:gr-qc/9709039 for a general discussion of these 4-dimensional topological black holes. 32 See e.g. D. Birmingham, Topological Black Holes in Anti-de Sitter Space, arXiv:hep-th/9808032, and R. Emparan, AdS/CFT Duals of Topological Black Holes and the Entropy of Zero-Energy States, arXiv:hep-th/9906040 for details and applications of these solutions. 33 See R. Myers, Myers-Perry black holes, arXiv:1111.1903 [gr-qc]. 34 See e.g. R. Emparan, H. Reall, Black Holes in Higher Dimensions, arXiv:0801.3471 [hep-th] for a review.
31

276

14.10

Appendix: Summary of Schwarzschild Coordinate Systems

Here is, to wrap up this section, a list of the coordinate systems that we have used to gain insight into the properties of the Schwarzschild metric.

Name Schwarzschild Tortoise Isotropic Painlev e Gullstrand Lema tre Novikov Eddington Finkelstein Kerr-Schild Kruskal Szekeres
Remarks:

Line Element f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 f (r)(dt2 + (dr )2 ) + r(r )2 d2 (g ()/g+ ())dt2 + g+ ()2 (d2 + 2 d2 ) f (r)d 2 + (dr d 2
2m 2 r d )

Adapted to Stationary Observers In & Out Null Geodesics Stationary Observers In/Out Timelike Geodesics In Timelike Geodesics In Timelike Geodesics In/Out Null Geodesics In/Out Null Geodesics In & Out Null Geodesics

Covers I I I,III I,II / I,IV I,II I-IV I,II / I,IV I,II / I,IV I-IV

+ r 2 d2

+ (2m/r(, ))d2
R2 +1 2 (r ) dR2 R2

r(, )2 d2

d 2 +

+ r(, R)2 d2

f (r)d(v/u)2 2d(v/u)dr + r 2 d2 dt2 + dr 2 + r 2 d2 +

2m 2 r (d(t r))

F (r(T, X))(dT 2 + dX 2 ) + r(T, X)2 d2

1. Abbreviations: F (r) = 32m3 r 1 e r/2m r(, R)

f (r) = 1 2m/r

, ,

r(r ) from and r = r/R from

g () = (1 m/2)2 r(, ) = [3 2m( )/2]2/3 (14.40)

r = r + 2m ln(r/2m 1)

(14.142)

r(T, X) from

X 2 T 2 = (r/2m 1)e r/2m

2. Region III is isometric to region I; this doubling of possibilities (e.g. Schwarzschild coordinates cover I or III, etc.) has not been indicated in the last column. 3. The un-insightful option to use Schwarzschild coordinates only in region II, say, and variants thereof, have also not been indicated in the last column.

277

15

The Reissner-Nordstrm Solution

The Reissner - Nordstrm metric is a solution of the coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations describing the exterior geometry of a spherically symmetric electrically charged star or black hole. It has the form (14.132) ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , f (r) = 1 2m q 2 + 2 . r r (15.1)

In this section we will analyse various aspects of this metric. Some of these depend on the specic form of f (r), e.g. the analysis of the motion of (charged) particles in section 15.5. Others, such as the construction of Eddington-Finkelstein and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates in sections 15.7 and 15.9, are valid more generally for static black holes of the ubiquitous (see e.g. the examples in section 14.9) f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 form, and these will initially be discussed in this more general context before specialising to the Reissner-Nordstrm metric. 15.1 The Metric

In order to obtain the solution we again start with with the standard form (11.5) ds2 = A(r)dt2 + B(r)dr 2 + r 2 (d 2 + sin2 d2 ) . (15.2)

of a spherically symmetric metric, and for the gauge eld make the electrostatic ansatz that At = At (r) (r) , Ar = A = A = 0 . (15.3) with (r) the usual scalar potential. Thus the only non-vanishing component of the eld strength tensor is Ftr = t Ar r At = (r) = Er . Therefore one has F F = 2A(r)1 B(r)1 (r)2 , This implies that the energy-momentum tensor T = 1 F F 1 g F F 4 4 (15.6) (15.5) (15.4)

(here and in the following it is convenient to use Gauss units) has the non-vanishing components (Ttt , Trr , T , T ) = A(r), B(r), r 2 , r 2 sin2 A(r)1 B(r)1 or T = diag(1, 1, +1, +1) 278 (r)2 . 8A(r)B(r) (r)2 , 8 (15.7)

(15.8)

Note that this is traceless, as it should be. Moreover, the combination B(r)Ttt + A(r)Trr = 0 (15.9)

vanishes identically so that as in the Schwarzschild case (11.19) - (11.21) one concludes that BRtt + ARrr = 0 A(r) = B(r)1 f (r) . (15.10) But this means that the determinant of the metric is the same as the determinant of the at metric. Recalling that 1 F = ( gF ) g (15.11)

this in turn implies that the usual Minkowski space solution of the Maxwell equations F = 4j , j = (Q(r), 0, 0, 0) (15.12)

describing the electric eld of an electric point charge with charge Q at r = 0, namely (r) = Q/r , Er = Q/r 2 , (15.13)

is also a solution of the Maxwell equations in the gravitational background we are trying to determine. Thus we can take the matter source of the Einstein equations to be given by the standard electrostatic eld Er = Q/r 2 of a point charge. The energy momentum tensor then reduces to (Ttt , Trr , T , T ) = f (r), f (r)1 , r 2 , r 2 sin2 which can also be written as T = diag(1, 1, +1, +1) Q2 . 8r 4 (15.15) Q2 8r 4 (15.14)

Note the characteristic negative radial pressure! Note also that it is a fortuitous coincidence (or hindsight, if you will) in this case that, by doing things in the right order, we have been able to more or less decouple the matter and gravitational equations. Usually one cannot just plug ones favourite Minkowski solution to the equations of motion into the energy-momentum tensor and then solve the Einstein equations because there is no guarantee that the initial solution will also be a solution of the matter equations of motion in the resulting curved space-time. As for Schwarzschild, the fact that A(r) = B(r)1 = f (r) implies (cf. (11.18) and (11.22)) that R = 1 f rf (15.16) and plugging this into the ()-component of the Einstein equation one nds 1 f rf = 8GN T = GN Q2 r2 279 f =1+ Q2 C + GN 2 . r r (15.17)

One can now verify that this is a solution of the complete set of Einstein(-Maxwell) equations. Comparison with the Schwarzschild solution, and introducing, in analogy with the gravitational mass radius m = GN M , the gravitational charge radius q via q 2 = GN Q2 then gives f (r) = 1 2m q 2 + 2 r r 2m q 2 + 2 r r
1

(15.18)

(15.19)

and nally the Reissner-Nordstrm solution ds2 = 1 2m q 2 + 2 r r dt2 + 1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 (15.20)

The main new features of the Reissner-Nordstrm metric, compared with the Schwarzschild metric, are all due to the fact that the function f (r) now potentially has two roots, at (15.21) r = m m2 q 2 . Thus one has to distinguish the three cases m2 q 2 < 0, = 0, > 0, corresponding to the three possibilities for the relative size of the gravitational mass radius m = GN M and the gravitational charge radius q = GN Q, and we will discuss these three possibilities in turn below.
Remarks:

1. Instead of with (15.2) one can also start with the ansatz (11.50) ds2 = e 2h(t, r) f (t, r)dt2 + f (t, r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , m(t, r) = 4GN r 2 (T r ) = 0 t and h (t, r) = 4GN rf (t, r)1 (T t + T r ) = 0 , t r (15.24) so that, without loss of generality, we can choose h(t, r) = 0. The remaining equation for m(r) is m (r) = 4GN r 2 (T t ) = t leading to m(r) = m and thus to (15.19), f (r) = 1 2m q 2 2m(r) =1 + 2 . r r r 280 (15.27) GN Q2 , 2r 2 (15.25) (15.22)

for which the Einstein equations take the form (11.51). In particular, one concludes (15.23)

GN Q2 q2 =m 2r 2r

(15.26)

2. As a check on the dimensions note that Newtons constant has dimensions (M mass, L length, T time) [GN ] = M1 L3 T2 so that (11.27) [GN ] = M1 L3 T2 [m] = [GN M/c2 ] = L , (15.28)

while in Gauss units the Coulomb force has no dimensionful factors apart from Q1 Q2 /r 2 , and therefore (force F = ma having units [F ] = MLT2 ) [Q2 ] = L2 (MLT2 ) = ML3 T2 15.2 [q 2 ] = [GN Q2 /c4 ] = L2 . (15.29)

Basic Properties of the Naked Singularity Solution with m2 q 2 < 0

In this case of an overcharged star (this is not a very realistic situation to put it mildly), f (r) has no real roots, and the coordinate system is valid all the way to r = 0 (where there is a curvature singularity). In particular, the coordinate t is always timelike and the coordinate r is always space-like. While this may sound quite pleasing, much less insane than what happens for the Schwarzschild metric, this is actually a disaster. The singularity at r = 0 is now timelike, and it is not protected by an event-horizon. Such a singularity is known as a naked singularity. An observer could travel to the singularity and come back again. Worse, whatever happens at the singularity can inuence the future physics away from the singularity, but as there is a singularity this means that the future cannot be predicted/calculated in such a space-time because the laws of physics break down at r = 0. Note that m2 q 2 < 0 includes as a special case the solution with m = 0, supposedly describing the gravitational eld of a massless charged object. As shown in section 23.4, m measures the total energy / mass of the system (including, therefore, the positive electrostatic energy of the solution). There is thus clearly something disturbingly unphysical about this solution. There is a famous conjecture, known as the Cosmic Censorship Conjecture (due to Penrose, 1969), which roughly speaking states that the collapse of physically realistic matter congurations will generically not lead to a naked singularity. In spite of a lot of partial results and circumstantial evidence in favour of this conjecture, it is not known if (or in which precise form) it holds in General Relativity.35 Since, beyond exhibiting a naked timelike singularity the causal structure of these spacetimes is not particularly interesting, and they are considered to be unphysical (and, ideally, excluded by cosmic censorship), we shall not discuss this case any further in the following and just note the following curious fact: if one wanted to model elementary particles such as the electron classically as point particles with a given mass and charge
35

See e.g. R. Wald, Gravitational Collapse and Cosmic Censorship, arXiv:gr-qc/9710068.

281

(but one should, in any case, resist that temptation), they would satisfy q 2 > m2 by a wide margin (since the gravitational interaction is completely negligible compared with the Coulomb repulsion). However, one should not conclude from this that elementary particles should hence be modelled by naked singularities - electrons are essentially quantum mechanical objects and outside the regime of validity / applicability of classical general relativity, and thus outside the regime of validity of the present considerations. 15.3 Basic Properties of the Extremal Solution with m2 q 2 = 0

In this (astrophysically speaking still unrealistic but theoretically particularly interesting) case, known as the extreme or extremal Reissner-Nordstrm solution, and characterised by GN M = Q , (15.30) G2 M 2 = GN Q2 N f (r) has a double zero at r+ = r = m. Thus the metric takes the simple form m 2 2 m 2 2 dt + 1 dr + r 2 d2 . (15.31) r r Since f (r) 0 everywhere, the singularity is timelike as in the overcharged case discussed above. Thus crossing the horizon one can avoid running into the singularity and turn back. However, since one cannot cross the same horizon in two directions (one should and can substantiate this by constructing ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates in this case which will exhibit this one-way behaviour via the tilting of the lightcones at the horizon, and we will do this below) this means that on the way out one is really crossing a white hole horizon (use outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates there) into a new asymptotically at extremal Reissner-Nordstrm universe, and this story repeats itself ad innitum. ds2 = 1 It is instructive to write the metric (15.31) in a slightly dierent form, suggested by m 2 2 dt + 1 r m 2 2 = 1 dt + 1 r Introducing r = r m, one thus has ds2 = 1 ds2 = 1 + m r
2

m r m r

dr 2 + 1
2

m r
2

r 2 d2 (15.32)
2

dr + (r m) d m r
2

dt2 + 1 +

d2 + r 2 d2 r

(15.33)

Since d2 + r 2 d2 = dx2 is the at Euclidean metric, this is the extremal Reissnerr Nordstrme metic in isotropic coordinates (see (11.6), and, for comparison, (11.35) for the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates; we have chosen q positive so that m = q) q 2 2 q 2 2 ds2 = 1 + dt + 1 + dx . (15.34) |x| |x| 282

Remarks:

1. In Euclidean space, x = 0 r = 0 would just be a single point, the origin, but this is clearly not the case here. The isotropic form of the metric only describes the outside of the black hole (the horizon being at r = 0). There is also no singularity in the angular part of the metric as r 0, the radius of the two-sphere as r 0 being m (as it should be), lim 1 + m r
2

r 0

r 2 = m2 .

(15.35)

2. The metric (15.34) has a remarkable generalisation, where the function H(x) = 1 + q |x| (15.36)

describing the gravitational solution for a charge q at the position x = 0 is replaced by qk (15.37) H(x) = 1 + |x ak |
k

(with all qk > 0, say). This is a special case of the Majumdar-Papapetrou class of solutions (characterised in general by an equality GN m = e between the matter and charge densities), and describes a multi-centered extremal black hole solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations, with the mutual gravitational attraction precisely balanced by the electrostatic repulsion, and with mass m = k qk . Such extremal black holes (typically characterised by the saturation of an inequality between mass and charges) arise naturally as supersymmetric solutions of supergravity theories. As such they enjoy particular stability properties and provide useful toy-models for all kinds of considerations. As for the Schwarzschild metric (section 13.5), it is instructive to look at the geometry of the solution in the near-horizon region r 0. In the Schwarzschild case (with r = r 2m of course) this gave us ds2 = r 2 2m 2 dt + d + (2m)2 d2 r 2m r (15.38)

and then the Rindler-like metric (13.40) ds2 = 2 d 2 + d2 + (2m)2 d2 . (15.39)

Here, because of the double pole / zero of the extremal metric at r = m, one nds instead that for r 0 one has ds2 = r 2 2 m2 2 dt + 2 d + m2 d2 . r m2 r 283 (15.40)

In particular, this metric factorises, i.e. has a product structure, the second factor just being the standard metric on the 2-sphere with constant radius m. To identify the rst factor, introduce the coordinate y = m2 /. Then one has r dt2 + dy 2 r 2 2 m2 2 dt + 2 d = m2 r m2 r y2 (15.41)

which is nothing other than the Lorentzian counterpart (7.50) of the constant negative curvature metric on the Poincar upper-half plane metric, (7.45), also known as the e two-dimensional anti-de Sitter metric AdS2 (with (curvature) radius m). See section 22.3 for more information on AdS metrics and coordinate systems for them. A further transformation to radial proper distance d = m y 1 dy = m r 1 d r puts this metric into the form m2 dt2 + dy 2 = e 2/m dt2 + d2 . y2 (15.43) (15.42)

Thus we can conclude that the near-horizon geometry of the extremal Reissner-Nordstrm metric is the product geometry Extremal Reissner-Nordstrm
near horizon

AdS2 S 2 .

(15.44)

This is itself a solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations (evidently with dierent asymptotics), and a particular case of the Bertotti-Robinson family of solutions. Note that even in this near-horizon limit the location of where the horizon used to be, namely at rm r0 y log r , (15.45)

is at an innite proper distance from any point outside the horizon. This should then be (and is) a fortiori true in the original extremal Reissner-Nordstrm metric (15.31). Indeed, proper radial distance in that metric is determined by d = 1 m r
1

dr .

(15.46)

Up to the replacement 2m m this is exactly the relation (13.46) that determined the tortoise coordinate r (13.47) for the Schwarzschild geometry, so that the solution is (up to a choice of integration constant) = r + m log(r m) . (15.47)

The crucial dierence is that here is a measure of proper distance whereas in the Schwarzschild case r was just a coordinate. In any case this result exhibits the logarithmic divergence log(r m) as r m. Nevertheless, the horizon can of course be 284

reached in nite proper time along e.g. timelike geodesics, or in nite ane parameter along null geodesics. In particular, it is easy to see (cf. section 15.5) that radial ingoing lightrays are simply described by r() = r0 E (15.78) for a constant (energy) E, so that the ane time required to reach the horizon is proportional to the coordinate distance to the horizon, not the proper distance.
Remark:

This, by the way, provides a nice and drastic illustration of the fact that one should not attempt to dene something like an average velocity of a particle between two points by dividing proper spatial distance by proper time (which would come out to be not only superluminal in this case, but actually innite). Proper time and proper distance measure distance along completely dierent paths in space-time, and dividing them is akin to dividing apples by oranges. Dont yield to the temptation to do this (unless you just want a way of quantifying small deviations from Minkowskian physics in a weak gravitational eld, say, without insisting on interpreting (apples)/(oranges) as a velocity). Unfortunately, many people do not heed this advice . . . 15.4 Basic Properties of the Non-extremal Solution with m2 q 2 > 0

This is in some sense the most interesting case, not because we actually expect to nd stars carrying a signicant amount of electric charge, but rather because the doublehorizon structure this solution exhibits is not untypical and also appears in astrophysically more relevant cases like those of rotating black holes (the Kerr solution). There are now two radii r = m m2 q 2 (15.48) at which f (r) vanishes, and f (r) is positive for 0 < r < r and r > r+ and negative in the intermediate region r < r < r+ . In this case it is more informative to write the function f (r) and the metric as f (r) = and ds2 = (r r+ )(r r ) r2 (15.49)

The coordinate system in which we have written the metric is valid within each of the three separate regions r > r+ , r < r < r+ and r < r (but (r, t) in one region are of course not the same coordinates as (r, t) in another region). The outer radius r+ > m is and behaves just like the event horizon of the Schwarzschild metric, to which it tends for q 0, q0 r+ 2m . (15.51)

r2 (r r+ )(r r ) 2 dt + dr 2 + r 2 d2 r2 (r r+ )(r r )

(15.50)

285

In the intermediate region r < r < r+ any timelike (or null) curve will then have to move from larger to smaller values of r (and will in fact reach r in nite proper time). At the inner radius r < m, which is absent for the Schwarzschild metric since q0 r 0 , (15.52)

there is also just a coordinate singularity and a horizon that reverses the role of radius and time once more so that the singularity is time-like and can be avoided by returning to larger values of r.
Remarks:

1. Again (i.e. as in the extremal case) we can anticipate the appearance of a new white hole region beyond the original inner horizon, through which the particle can pass back across r = r to larger values of r, and on across r = r+ to a new asymptotically at region etc. For a more detailed discussion of this see sections 15.5 - 15.9 below. 2. This turn-around behaviour is unavoidable for timelike geodesics. Indeed we will see below that e.g. neutral massive test particles cannot even ever reach r = 0 since there is a repulsive core at the center of the Reissner-Nordstrm metric. This is essentialy due to the fact that the mass function m(r) = m q 2 /2r (15.26) appearing in 2m q 2 2 q2 f (r) = 1 + 2 =1 m (15.53) r r r 2r becomes negative for suciently small values of r (and thus eectively acts like a negative mass). This critical (or core) radius is m(rc ) = 0 rc = q 2 /2m , (15.54)

and always lies inside the inner horizon, rc < r , because f (rc ) = 1 > 0. 3. In the extremal case we saw that the horizon r = m is at an innite proper distance from any point r0 > m. Let us see what the situation is in the current non-extremal case. Thus we want to calculate the distance between r+ and r0 > r+ ,
r0

=
r+

dr

r = (r r+ )(r r )

r0

d r
0

r + r+ r ( + ) r

(15.55)

where r = r r+ and = r+ r . For = 0 we evidently recover the logarithmic divergence of the extremal case. For > 0, on the other hand, the integral is nite (it can be expressed in closed form in terms of some unenelightning arccoshexpression, but we wont need this), the potentially dangerous piece coming from r+ r 1/2 r r ( + ) r r+ which has a nite integral near zero. 286 (15.56)

4. While we are at it, let us perform another similar calculation which will have an amusing and perhaps unexpected consequence. Namely, let us calculate the proper (timelike) distance between the two horizons r+ and r , i.e. the proper time it takes a radially freely falling observer to get from r+ to r . We can use the standard (t, r) coordinates in this region between the horizons (remembering that r is timelike there) and thus, according to the usual rules, the proper time is r r = dr . (15.57) (r r+ )(r r ) r+ Introducing the coordinate via r =m+ one nds =
0

m2 q 2 cos d m+

0 .

(15.58)

m2 q 2 cos

(15.59)

So far so straightforward. The curious thing, however, is that the second term of the integrand cos integrates to zero over the interval [0, ] and therefore does not contribute to the integral at all, leading to the universal result = m (15.60)

independent of q. Thus the proper time is m for any q < m, and also in the extremal limit q m r r+ . In the extremal black hole, on the other hand, with r+ = r , the coordinate distance between r+ and r = r+ is clearly zero. What this shows is that the extremal black hole (q = m) is perhaps not for all intents and purposes the same thing as the extremal limit (q m) of a nonextremal black hole, and there are also other contexts in which this distinction appears to play a role.36 In the extremal case, it turned out to be useful and instructive to write the metric in isotropic coordinates (15.34). More to the point, it was useful to introduce the coordinate distance r = r m to the extremal horizon, and the resulting metric turned out to be in isotropic form. We can (of course) also write the non-extremal metric in isotropic coordinates, but this is not particularly useful. However, it is possible to write the metric in a form which interpolates nicely between the standard Schwarzschild form of the Schwarzschild metric for q 0 and the nice isotropic form (15.33) of the extremal metric in the extremal limit q m. To that end, all we need to do is replace r by = r r , which reduces to the isotropic coordinate r = r m in the extremal limit and, moreover,
For further discussion, see e.g. S. Carroll, M. Johnson, L. Randall, Extremal limits and black hole entropy, arXiv:0901.0931 [hep-th].
36

287

to the standard radial coordinate r in the Schwarzschild limit r 0 (unlike the r = rr+ introduced in remark 3 above, which has the Schwarzschild limit r r2m). In terms of = r r , and with = r + r = 2 m 2 q 2 measuring the deviation from extremality, the metric takes the form ds2 = H()2 F () + H()2 F ()1 d2 + 2 d2 with H() = 1 + r , F () = 1 . (15.62) (15.61)

(15.63)

and to the Schwarzschild metric in the limit q H() q0 F ()

Observe that this manifestly reduces to (15.33) F () 0 r H()

in the extremal limit, 1 m 1 + m/

(15.64)

0 r 0, 1 2m 1 2m/ . (15.65)

The form of the metric in (15.62) is representative of the form of a large class of solutions of higher-dimensional (super-)gravity theories describing black holes and black branes (spatially extended black objects).37 It also nicely illustrates a general recipe: Given an extremal solution, one can introduce non-extremality (or temperature) by dressing the extremal solution with Schwarzschild-like factors F , as in (15.62). Given a neutral (uncharged) solution, one can construct a charged solution by dressing the neutral solution with harmonic functions H, as in (15.62).

15.5

Motion of a Charged Particle: the Effective Potential

We now consider the motion of a test particle with mass and charge e in the Reissner - Nordstrm space-time with m2 > q 2 . This is evidently described by the geodesic equation modied by the Lorentz-force term, x + x x = (e/)F x . (15.66)

We will set = 1 in the following (the case = 1 can obviously be recovered from this by scaling e e/), so that quantities associated to the particle like charge, energy
37

See e.g. T. Ortin, Gravity and Strings for a detailed account.

288

and angular momentum that appear below are, as usual (cf. the discussion in section 2.4) to be thought of as quantities per unit particle mass. Proceeding in exact analogy with the derivation of the eective potential for geodesics in the Schwarzschild geometry in section 12.1, in order to exploit the symmetries and conserved charges of the system it will be convenient to work at the level of the Lagrangian which we can choose to be L = 1 g x x + eA x (15.67) 2 Plugging in the metric and gauge eld (and choosing rightaway equatorial paths at = /2 because of spherical symmetry), this Lagrangian becomes more explicitly L = 1 (f t2 + f 1 r 2 + r 2 2 ) eQt/r . 2 (15.68)

We now introduce the conserved quantities E (energy) associated to time-translation invariance, E= L = f t eAt t t = f 1 (E + eAt ) = f 1 (E eQ/r) (15.69)

and L = r 2 (angular momentum) associated to rotation invariance. Note that L has the standard form, and that E is shifted relative to the same quantity for the Schwarzschild solution precisely by the Coulomb electrostatic potential energy, E E eQ/r. Plugging this into g x x = 1 (15.70) (the condition that particle trajectories are time-like and parametrised by proper time) one deduces 1 = f 1 (EeQ/r)2 +f 1 r 2 +L2 /r 2 r 2 = (EeQ/r)2 f (1+L2 /r 2 ) (15.71)

In particular, for purely radial paths, L = 0, one has r 2 = (E eQ/r)2 f , or, separating out the constant contributions,
1 2 2r

(15.72)

eEQ m q 2 e2 Q2 + r 2r 2

= 1 (E 2 1) . 2

(15.73)

The term in brackets denes the eective potential (for radial motion) Vef f (r) = GN e2 eEQ GN M eEQ m q 2 e2 Q2 + = + Q2 , r 2r 2 r 2r 2 (15.74)

and the term on the right-hand side denes the eective energy Eef f , so that, as in the case of the Schwarzschild metric, we can write the (rst integral of the) radial geodesic equation in the suggestive Newtonian form
1 2 2r

+ Vef f (r) = Eef f . 289

(15.75)

From this one can then readily deduce the qualitative features of the worldlines of charged and uncharged particles in the Reissner-Nordstrm geometry.
Remarks:

1. For L = 0 this gets modied to Vef f (r) Vef f (r) + f (r)L2 /2r 2 , (15.76)

which includes the usual angular mometum barrier term L2 /r 2 as well as the familiar attractive general relativistic correction term mL2 r 3 and a novel repulsive correction term q 2 L2 r 4 . However, we will focus on radial motion in the following. 2. For massless particles ( = 0), which we will of course also consider to be uncharged (q = 0), the eective potential consists of just the above angular momentum term, =0: r 2 + f (r)L2 /r 2 = E 2 . (15.77)

In particular, for radial lightrays the eective potential is zero and r = E for outgoing (respectively ingoing) null geodesics, so that r() = r0 E , (15.78)

with the ane parameter. In particular, massless particles can reach the horizon (and r = 0) in nite ane time. 3. For certain purposes it is also useful to write the eective potential in terms of the horizons r instead of the parameters m and q using the relations r+ + r = 2m , r+ r = q 2 . (15.79)

Then one has, with e = e/ GN , 2E r+ r (r+ + r ) e r+ r Vef f (r) = + 1 e2 . 2r 2r 2

(15.80)

4. The interpretation of the rst term in (15.74) is pretty clear: it describes the competition between the leading Coulomb electrostatic and Newton gravitational 1/r interactions between the charged massive star and the charged massive test particle. The only thing that may require some explanation is the factor of E in the Coulomb interaction. But, as we know from the discussion of Schwarzschild, E is esentially the special-relativistic -factor and thus the substitution Q EQ accounts for the Lorentz contraction of the electric eld lines as seen by a particle with velocity r = E 2 1 at r = . 2

290

5. The second term is more mysterious and interesting in several respects. First of all, for a neutral test particle freely falling (following a geodesic) in the Reissner - Nordstrm geometry, it provides a repulsive potential at short distances, e=0 Vef f (r) = q2 m + 2 . r 2r (15.81)

mimicking the angular momentum barrier term L2 /2r 2 . This inevitably leads to a turning point of the trajectory, and we will see below that this turning point lies inside the inner horizon, i.e. in the region r < r . A heuristic but not entirely satisfactory explanation for the occurrence of this phenomeneon is that this is due to a mass renormalisation m m(r) = m q2 2r (15.82)

required to compensate the innite electrostatic energy density q 2 /r 4 of the star. Alternatively one may take this as an indication that the interior of the Reissner-Nordstrm solution is not particularly physical (we will come back to this below). 6. For a charged particle, the coecient q 2 = GN Q2 in the 1/r 2 term of the potential is replaced by Q2 (GN e2 ). Recalling that e is really the charge per unit mass and replacing e e/, one sees that the sign of this term is determined by the sign of G2 2 GN e2 , i.e. the relative size of the gravitational mass and charge radii N of the test particle. Reverting to = 1, we will call ordinarily charged particles those for which e2 < GN , extremal those with e2 = GN and overcharged those with e2 > GN . Thus the 1/r 2 term in the radial eective potential provides a repulsive potential at short distances for all ordinarily charged particles, but this term becomes attractive for overcharged particles. Note that this not somehow an electrostatic eect (in particular since it is independent of the sign of the charge e of the particle) but a purely gravitational eect. I do not have a good heuristic explanation for why overcharged particles all of a sudden experience an attractive 1/r 2 potential (and would be glad to learn of one . . . ). 7. If one gives the particle some angular momentum, no matter how tiny, i.e. if there is just the slightest deviation from radial motion, then the term q 2 L2 /r 4 will kick in at short distances to yet again provide a repulsive potential as a joint eect of the charge of the black hole and the angular momentum of the particle. Let us now take a closer look at some of the possible trajectories. First of all, for a given choice of parameters the allowed values of r are constrained by the condition r 2 = (E eQ/r)2 f (r)(1 + L2 /r 2 ) 0 291 (15.83)

and at a turning point rm (for maximal or minimal radius) of the trajectory one has rm r (15.84) Thus turning points can only occur either in the region outside the outer horizon or in the region inside the inner horizon. A simple (but nevertheless for present purposes suciently prototypical) example is the radial free fall of an uncharged particle, described by the simple eective potential (15.81). Turning points are determined by q2 2m + 2 = E2 1 . rm rm (15.85)
2 (E eQ/rm )2 = f (rm )(1 + L2 /rm )

f (rm ) 0

r m r+

or

For a particle initially at rest at innity, E = 1, one immediately reads o that the minimal radius is equal to the core radius rc (15.54), rm (E = 1) = rc = r+ r r q2 = < r . = 2m r+ + r 1 + (r /r+ ) (15.86)

It is also plausible (and moreover true) that the particle will penetrate slightly deeper into the Reissner-Nordtstrm core if it initially has a non-zero inward directed velocity, i.e. E > 1 rm < rc , (15.87) but clearly no nite energy particle can overcome the charge barrier to reach r = 0. These particles will turn around at rm (E) and then escape again to innity in a new branch of the universe (since they clearly cant cross the same inner horizon r in both directions). Particles with E < 1 have both a minimum and a maximum radius rm , located in the regions rm < r and rm+ > r+ respectively. Thus these particles appear to oscillate in and out of the black hole region r < r < r+ but this is clearly not possible (if r+ is a black hole horizon, you cannot just dance around and oscillate in and out of it to your hearts content). What is happening is that, after having reached its inner turning point at rm < r , the particle turns around to larger values of r, crosses a new r = r horizon into a new (time-reversed) version of the region r < r < r+ in which it can only move to larger values of r, crosses a white hole horizon at r = r+ into a new asymptotically at Reissner-Nordstrm patch, up to the maximal radius rm+ allowed by its energy, and then turns around again to enter another new region etc. etc. We can also consider charged particles. Their behaviour depends strongly on whether they are ordinarily charged or overcharged particles (the latter having a regretful suicidal tendency to end up in the singularity at r = 0 regardless of the sign of the charge), but also on the energy and on whether the Coulomb or gravitational 1/r interaction is dominant. Thus this requires a bit of a case by case analysis which we will not pursue 292

here. Suce it to say here that for all ordinarily charged particles one nds that the turning point of a radially infalling particle is located inside the inner horizon (and not outside the outer horizon, which would, in principle, have been the other option). 15.6 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates: General Considerations

In order to get a better picture of the Reissner-Nordstrm geometry, and in order to provide e.g. coordinates for the particles that appear to oscillate in and out of the black hole / white hole regions, we now introduce ingoing and outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, and we can do this in exactly the same way as for the Schwarzschild metric. In fact, the basic construction works for any metric of the form ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , where we asume f (r) to have a zero at r = rh . 1. We rst introduce the (generalised) tortoise coordinate r via ds2 = f (r)[dt2 + (dr )2 ] + r(r )2 d2 dr = f (r)1 dr . (15.89) (15.88)

2. We also introduce the retarded and advanced time-coordinates u and v by u = t r , v = t + r . (15.90)

Infalling radial null geodesics (dr /dt = 1) are characterised by v = const. and outgoing radial null geodesics by u = const. 3. In terms of (v, r) the metric reads ds2 = f (r)dv 2 + 2dv dr + r 2 d2 . (15.91)

(with an analogous expression for the metric written in terms of (u, r)). This metric is now regular at any zero rh of f , f (rh ) = 0. 4. In these coordinates, the Killing vector t of the original space-time, rendering the outside region f (r) > 0 static, takes the form t K = (t v)v + (t r)r = v . (15.92)

5. Ingoing radial light rays are characterised by dv = 0, and r is an ane parameter along these null geodesics. Outgoing radial light rays are characterised by 2dr = f (r)dv, i.e. by du = d(t r ) = d(t + r ) 2dr = dv 2f (r)1 dr = 0 . (15.93) In particular, at rh the outgoing light rays satisfy dr = 0, i.e. the surface r = rh is lightlike, and K becomes tangent to this surface there (Killing horizon). 2dr = f (r)dv 293

6. If f (r) changes sign from f (r) > 0 to f (r) < 0 as one moves from r > rh to r < rh , then the situation is identical to that for the Schwarzschild black hole: the Killing vector v becomes null on the horizon and spacelike for for r < rh r = rh is an event horizon and r will decrease along any future-directed causal (timelike or lightlike) path. On the other hand, if f (r) is non-negative, with a minimum f (rh ) = 0, the situation is qualitatively quite dierent: the metric possesses an everywhere causal Killing vector, null on the horizon and timelike away from the horizon. 15.7 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates: the Reissner-Nordstrm Metric

Now let us specialise to the non-extremal Reissner-Nordstrm metric, which in EddingtonFinkelstein coordinates has the form ds2 = (r r+ )(r r ) 2 dv + 2dv dr + r 2 d2 . r2 (15.94)

In that case f (r) has simple zeros at r = r+ and r = r , where f (r) changes sign. Crossing r+ from r > r+ to r < r+ is then like entering the Schwarzschild black hole region, while crossing r from r > r to r < r is (somewhat) like exiting the Schwarzschild white hole region (with the dierence that in the present case one is expelled from the region r < r < r+ in the direction of decreasing r). Let us now see what happens to the lightcones, and what are therefore the allowed paths for massless or massive particles, as one enters the Reissner-Nordstrm black hole thorugh the future outer horizon. [It would be extremely helpful to have some (Carter-Penrose) diagrams to look at during this discussion. I will try to supply these at a later stage. For the time being, depending on where you are reading this, please consult either another textbook for the diagrams, or, for the same eect, contemplate the tiles on the bathroom oor.] 1. The rst thing that will happen is, as alaready discussed above, and eactly as in the Schwarzschild case, that the lightcones tilt over at r = r+ . Subsequently both ingoing and (misleadingly still called) outgoing light rays will converge to smaller values of r, 2dr = f (r)dv dr/dv < 0 for r < r < r+ . (15.95)

In particular, once inside one must continue to smaller values of r until one reaches either a singularity (as for Schwarzschild) or another horizon.

294

2. In the Reissner-Nordstrm case there is indeed such a horizon, namely at r = r . The ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates are still valid at the inner horizon r = r because the metric is regular there, the horizon sits (tautologically) at the nite value r = r of the radial coordinate, while on that surface the coordinate v (and the angular coordinates) still label the ingoing lightrays crossing the inner horizon. Indeed, the coordinates continue to be valid all the way up to r = 0. Note that for this we do not need to know if the tortoise coordinate r is wellbehaved at r = r . As a matter of fact, it is not, but this does not aect the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. It will, however, aect the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates which will break down at r = r (but have a larger region of validity across the past white hole horizon of the original Reissner-Nordstrm patch). 3. At r = r , the function f (r) again changes sign and outgoing lightrays are indeed outgoing, i.e. moving to larger values of r. Once these outgoing light rays in the region r < r reach the new (white hole) inner horizon at r = r , the original set of Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (v, r) nally break down since v can only label the ingoing lightrays and the new r sits at advanced time v = . 4. But in this patch r < r (whose metric is identical to that in the outside patch r > r+ ), one can also construct and use outgoing Finkelstein coordinates (u, r), with u labelling the outgoing light rays. These coordinates will not only cover the region 0 < r < r , but they will extend across the new white hole inner and outer horizons r into a new asymptotically at Reissner-Nordstrm patch. 5. From that region one can in principle continue into a new black hole region across another r+ , but now it is evidently the outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates that break down and one returns to step 1 and again constructs ingoing EddingtonFinkelstein coordinates to describe this. 6. It is now evident that, proceeding in this way, one can pave / tessellate the entire innitely periodic fully extended non-extremal Reissner-Nordstrm solution with ingoing and outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (whose domains of validity overlap in the regions r < r and r > r+ where f (r) > 0). In the extremal case, when there is a double zero of f (r), the story is similar, the only dierence being that the region between r and r+ is absent. The metric has the form ds2 = 1 m r
2

dv 2 + 2dv dr + r 2 d2 .

(15.96)

In particular, r = m is a null surface and a horizon. In the patch covered by the above ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates one can only cross it along future-directed curves. The diference is that now f (r) is positive on both sides of the horizon, so that outgoing light rays are really outgoing on both sides of the horizon. Ingoing Eddington 295

Finkelstein coordinates can still also cover the patch r < m, but they cannot describe the new outgoing region beyond the new white whole inner horizon r = m. For this one needs to introduce outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates etc. Again one can pave the innitely periodic extremal Reissner-Nordstrm geometry in this way. 15.8 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates: General Considerations

One can also introduce Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates via the same chain of transformations (t, r) (u, v) (U, V ) (T, X) (15.97) as in the Schwarzschild case. We again start by setting up the problem in the general context of metrics of the form (15.89), ds2 = f (r)[dt2 + (dr )2 ] + r(r )2 d2 = f (r)du dv + r(u, v)2 d2 , (15.98)

and we will now be more specic and assume that f (r) has a simple zero at r = rh . Since the issue is the elimination of the coordinate singularity at rh , we can focus on the behaviour of f (r) near r = rh , f (r) (r rh )f (rh ) + . . . (15.99)

(here is where the treatment for a double zero, say, would of course be dierent). Thus the tortoise coordinate can be approximated by dr = f (r)1 dr dr (r rh )f (rh ) r 1 log |r rh | . f (rh ) (15.100)

Here f (rh ) has the same dual interpretation (14.109) as in section 14.7, namely on the one hand as the inanity, measuring the failure of the coordinate v to provide an ane parametrisation of the horizon generators K = v , and on the other hand as the surface gravity, providing a measure of the strength of the gravitational eld at the horizon, h = 1 f (r)|r=rh = 2 inanity: limrrh K K = h K surface gravity: h := limrrh f (r)1/2 a(r) (15.101)

To see this note that the derivation of the inanity given in (14.106) and (14.107) goes through verbatim in general, (K K) = = (f /2)(f r + v ) vv
rrh

lim K K =

1 2 f (r)|r=rh

K = h K .

(15.102)

and that the generalisation of the calculation of the acceleration for a stationary observer in section 13.1 gives u = (f (r)1/2 , 0, 0, 0) 296 ar = 1 f (r) . 2 (15.103)

In terms of h , the approximate expression for the tortoise coordinate is r 1 log |r rh | 2h (15.104)

(the suppressed subleading terms being regular as r rh ). Then near r = rh the function f (r) can be approximated by
f (r) f (rh )(r rh ) 2h e 2h r = 2h e h (r t) + h (r + t) = 2h e h u e +h v (15.105) and for the (t, r)-part of the metric one has

d +e +h v . (15.106) We thus introduce the Kruskal coordinates (uK , vK ) (with the normalisation as in (14.92)) by uK = (h )1 e h u , vK = +(h )1 e +h v (15.107) ds2 = f (r)du dv 2h e h u du e h v dv = 21 d e h u h and (if one doesnt like null coordinates) one can also introduce new time- and spacecoordinates (tK , xK ) via uK = t K xK , vK = tK + xK , (15.108)

and we have just seen that in terms of these Kruskal coordinates the metric near the horizon at r = rh takes the manifestly non-singular form
2 ds2 = f (r)du dv + r(u, v)2 d2 CduK dvK + rh d2 .

(15.109)

The precise value of the coecient C > 0 will depend on the non-singular terms in r (which we have suppressed here), evaluated at r = rh , and on the choice of integration constants, and is therefore arbitrary, and also irrelevant. Thus these Kruskal coordinates provide us with a good system of coordinates not just in the original patch where the coordinates (t, r) were valid, but also across the future horizon at uK = 0 and the past horizon at vK = 0. In the Schwarschild case, more than that was true, namely the Kruskal coordinates provided us with a coordinate system for the complete maximal extension of the Schwarzschild geometry. This is, however, not guaranteed by the above general construction and need not, and will not, be true in general. 15.9 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates: the Reissner-Nordstrm Metric

Indeed, already for the Reissner-Nordstrm metric we will be able to see this explicitly. To that end we will need the explicit expressions for the tortoise coordinate. In the non-extremal case we have f (r) = (r r+ )(r r ) . r2 297 (15.110)

The surface gravities at the two horizons r are

1 = 2 f (r ) =

r+ r . 2 2r

(15.111)

In terms of these we can write f (r)1 as f (r)1 = 1 + 1 1 1 1 + , 2+ r r+ 2 r r (15.112)

and it is elementary to determine r in this case, dr = r2 dr (r r+ )(r r ) r = r + 1 1 log |r r+ |+ log |r r | . (15.113) 2+ 2+

Thus r as r r+ and (recalling that < 0) r + as r r . Around each horizon one can introduce Kruskal coordinates, say uK+ = (+ )1 e + u , vK+ = +(+ )1 e ++ v (15.114)

to cover the region around r+ . This coordinate system does not just cover the future black hole region (until r = r , see below) but (as for Schwarzschild) also a past white hole region (until r = r ) and a mirror asymptotically at region of the ReissnerNordstrm patch. However, these coordinates break down as r r . This can be seen from the explicit expression of the metric in these coordinates, which display a (coordinate) singularity at r = r (but we will forego this here). It can also be seen, more directly, and more to the point, from the fact that, as noted above, r for r r , so that r r r vu uK+ vK+ , (15.115)

so that the outer Kruskal coordinates uK+ , vk+ are singular at, and can therefore not be extended beyond, the inner horizon. In the region between the horizons one can then introduce the inner Kruskal coordinates (uK , vK ) which extend beyond r (but become singular at r+ instead). These two types of Kruskal coordinate systems can then be used alternatingly, each an innite number of times, to pave the entire space-time. Since thus the space-time cannot be covered by a single Kruskal coordinate patch, typically not a whole lot is gained by using Kruskal coordinates and for most purposes the simpler Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates are actually more convenient. All in all, as in the case of the Kruskal diagram for the eternal fully extended Schwarzschild space-time, one should perhaps be somewhat skeptical of this intriguing and entertaining white hole - black hole narrative for the extended Reissner-Nordstrm spacetime and take it with a substantial grain of salt:

298

1. First of all, for a collapsing star settling down to the non-extremal ReissnerNordstrm solution, the exotic regions beyond (i.e. before) the past white hole horizon r+ are eliminated (as for Schwarzschild), as is the mirror region, but at rst the innite chain of white and black holes in the future remains intact. 2. Moreover, the outgoing inner horizon is known to be unstable to small perturbations via a phenomenon known as mass ination38 , loosely speaking an innite blue shift of infalling radiation experienced by an observer attempting to cross the horizon (anticipated by Penrose, 1968), and the inner horizon is expected to become singular in realistic situation. 3. One can repeat the story for the extremal case. In this case, the surface gravity is zero, but one can still construct Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (as we have seen above), so that one can describe the region behind the horizon in this case. The instability of the inner horizon of a non-extremal black hole may however limit the validity of this picture and, in fact, seems to suggest that in the extremal case the outer = inner horizon may become singular.39

E. Poisson, W. Israel, Internal Structure of Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 1796. D. Marolf, The dangers of extremes, arXiv:1005.2999 [gr-qc]; D. Garnkle, How extreme are extreme black holes?, arXiv:1105.2574.
39

38

299

16

Interlude: Maximally Symmetric Spaces

As a preparation for our discussion of cosmology in subsequent sections, in this section we will discuss some aspects of what are known as maximally symmetric spaces. These are spaces that admit the maximal number of Killing vectors (which turns out to be n(n + 1)/2 for an n-dimensional space or space-time). As we will discuss later on, in the context of the Cosmological Principle, such spaces, which are simultaneously homogeneous (the same at every point) and isotropic (the same in every direction) provide an (admittedly highly idealised) description of space in a cosmological space-time. If you already know (or are willing to believe) that in any spatial dimension n there are essentially only 3 such spaces, namely the Euclidean space Rn , the sphere S n , and its negative curvature counterpart, the hyperbolic space H n (all equipped with their standard metrics), you can skip this section, and may just want to refer to section 16.4 where it is shown that these 3 standard metrics can be written in a unied way as ds2 = for k = 0, 1 respectively. The discussion of maximally symmetric spaces and, in particular, space-times will be taken up again and continued in section 22 (which can also be read as a direct sequel to this section, without the intervening sections 17 - 20 on cosmology). 16.1 Homogeneous, Isotropic and Maximally Symmetric Spaces dr 2 + r 2 d2 n1 1 kr 2 (16.1)

In order to understand how to dene and characterise maximally symmetric spaces, we will need to obtain some more information about how Killing vectors can be classied. In section (8.5), for any Killling vector K we had obtained the identity (8.69) K (x) = R (x)K (x) . (16.2)

In particular, this shows that the second derivatives of the Killing vector at a point x0 are again expressed in terms of the value of the Killing vector itself at that point. But this means (think of Taylor expansions), that a Killing vector eld K (x) is completely determined everywhere by the values of K (x0 ) and K (x0 ) at a single point x0 . A set of Killing vectors {K (x)} is said to be independent if any linear relation of the form (i) ci K (x) = 0 , (16.3)
i (i)

with constant coecients ci implies ci = 0. 300

Since, in an n-dimensional space(-time) there can be at most n linearly independent vectors (K (x0 )) at a point, and at most n(n1)/2 independent anti-symmetric matrices ( K (x0 )), we reach the conclusion that an n-dimensional space(-time) can have at most n(n 1) n(n + 1) n+ = (16.4) 2 2 independent Killing vectors. An example of a metric with the maximal number of Killing vectors is, none too surprisingly, n-dimensional Minkowski space, where n(n+1)/2 agrees with the dimension of the Poincar group, the group of transformations that leave the e Minkowski metric invariant. We have seen above that Killing vectors K (x) are determined by the values K (x0 ) and K (x0 ) at a single point x0 . We will now see how these data are related to translations and rotations. We dene a homogeneous space to be such that it has innitesimal isometries that carry any given point x0 into any other point in its immediate neighbourhood (this could be stated in more fancy terms!). Thus the metric must admit Killing vectors that, at any given point, can take all possible values. Thus we require the existence of Killing vectors for arbitrary K (x0 ). This means that the n-dimensional space admits n translational Killing vectors. We dene a space to be isotropic at a point x0 if it has isometries that leave the given point x0 xed and such that they can rotate any vector at x0 into any other vector at x0 . Therefore the metric must admit Killing vectors such that K (x0 ) = 0 but such that K (x0 ) is an arbitrary antisymmetric matrix (for instance to be thought of as an element of the Lie algebra of SO(n)). This means that the n-dimensional space admits n(n 1)/2 rotational Killing vectors. Finally, we dene a maximally symmetric space to be a space with a metric with the maximal number n(n + 1)/2 of Killing vectors. Some simple and fairly obvious consequences of these denitions are the following: 1. A homogeneous and isotropic space is maximally symmetric. 2. A space that is isotropic for all x is also homogeneous. (This follows because linear combinations of Killing vectors are again Killing vectors and the dierence between two rotational Killing vectors at x and x + dx can be shown to be a translational Killing vector.) 3. (1) and (2) now imply that a space which is isotropic around every point is maximally symmetric. 4. Finally one also has the converse, namely that a maximally symmetric space is homogeneous and isotropic. 301

In practice the characterisation of a maximally symmetric space which is easiest to use is (3) because it requires consideration of only one type of symmetries, namely rotational symmetries. 16.2 The Curvature Tensor of a Maximally Symmetric Space

On the basis of these simple considerations we can already determine the form of the Riemann curvature tensor of a maximally symmetric space. We will see that maximally symmetric spaces are spaces of constant curvature in the sense that Rijkl = k(gik gjl gil gjk ) for some constant k. This result could be obtained by making systematic use of the higher order integrability conditions for the existence of a maximal number of Killing vectors. The argument given below is less covariant but more elementary. Assume for starters that the space is isotropic at x0 and choose a Riemann normal coordinate system centered at x0 . Thus the metric at x0 is gij (x0 ) = ij where we may just as well be completely general and assume that ij = diag(1, . . . , 1 +1, . . . , +1) ,
p times q

(16.5)

(16.6)

times

where p + q = n and we only assume n > 2. If the metric is supposed to be isotropic at x0 then, in particular, the curvature tensor at the origin must be invariant under Lorentz rotations. Now we know (i.e. you should know from your Special Relativity course) that the only invariants of the Lorentz group are the Minkowski metric and products thereof, and the totally antisymmetric LeviCivita tensor. Thus the Riemann curvature tensor has to be of the form Rijkl (x0 ) = aij kl + bik jl + cil jk + dijkl , (16.7)

where the last term is only possible for D = 4. The symmetries of the Riemann tensor imply that a = d = b + c = 0, and hence we are left with Rijkl (x0 ) = b(ik jl il jk ) , Thus in an arbitrary coordinate system we will have Rijkl (x0 ) = b(gik (x0 )gjl (x0 ) gil (x0 )gjk (x0 )) , (16.9) (16.8)

If we now assume that the space is isotropic around every point, then we can deduce that Rijkl (x) = b(x)(gik (x)gjl (x) gil (x)gjk (x)) (16.10) 302

for some function b(x). Therefore the Ricci tensor and the Ricci scalar are Rij (x) = (n 1)b(x)gij R(x) = n(n 1)b(x) . and the Riemann curvature tensor can also be written as Rijkl = while the Einstein tensor is Gij = b[(n 1)(1 n/2)]gij . (16.13) R (gik gjl gil gjk ) , n(n 1) (16.12) (16.11)

The contracted Bianchi identity i Gij = 0 now implies that b(x) has to be a constant, and we have thus established (16.5). Note that we also have Rij = k(n 1)gij , (16.14)

so that a maximally symmetric space(-time) is automatically a solution to the vacuum Einstein equations with a cosmological constant. In the physically relevant case p = 1 these are known as de Sitter or anti de Sitter space-times. We will come back to them in detail later on, in section 22. 16.3 Maximally Symmetric Metrics I: Solving the Einstein Equations

We are interested not just in the curvature tensor of a maximally symmetric space but in the metric itself. I will give you two derivations of the metric of a maximally symmetric space, one by directly solving the dierential equation Rij = k(n 1)gij (16.15)

for the metric gij , the other by a direct geometrical construction of the metric which makes the isometries of the metric manifest. As a maximally symmetric space is in particular spherically symmetric, we already know that we can write its metric in the form ds2 = B(r)dr 2 + r 2 d2 (n1) , (16.16)

2 where d2 (n1) = d + . . . is the volume-element for the (n 1)-dimensional sphere or its counterpart in other signatures. For concreteness, we now x on n = 3, but the argument given below goes through in general.

We have already calculated all the Christoel symbols for such a metric (set A(r) = 0, with due care, in the calculations leading to the Schwarzschild metric in section 11), and we also know that Rij = 0 for i = j and that all the diagonal angular components 303

of the Ricci tensor are determined by R by spherical symmetry. Hence we only need Rrr and R , which are Rrr = R and we want to solve the equations Rrr = 2kgrr = 2kB(r) R = 2kg = 2kr 2 . From the rst equation we obtain B = 2krB 2 , and from the second equation we deduce 2kr 2 = rB 1 +1+ B 2B 2 1 2kr 2 B 2 = +1+ B 2B 2 1 = + 1 + kr 2 . B (16.19) (16.18) 1 B rB 1 rB = +1+ , B 2B 2

(16.17)

(16.20)

This is an algebraic equation for B solved by B= 1 1 kr 2 (16.21)

(and this also solves the rst equation). Therefore we have determined the metric of a a maximally symmetric space to be ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 (n1) . 1 kr 2 (16.22)

Let us pass back from polar coordinates to Cartesian coordinates, with r 2 = x2 = ij xi xj . Then we have rdr = x.dx and dr 2 = (x.dx)2 /x2 . Hence this metric can also be written as k(x.dx)2 ds2 = dx2 + . (16.23) 1 kx2 Clearly, for k = 0 this is just the at metric on Rn . For k = 1, this should also look familiar as the standard metric on the sphere. If not, dont worry. We will discuss the k = 0 metrics in more detail in the next section. This will make the isometries of the metric manifest and will also exclude the possibility, not logically ruled out by the arguments given so far, that the metrics we have found here for k = 0 are spherically symmetric and have constant Ricci curvature but are not actually maximally symmetric.

304

16.4

Maximally Symmetric Metrics II: Embeddings

Recall that the standard metric on the n-sphere can be obtained by restricting the at metric on an ambient Rn+1 to the sphere. We will generalise this construction a bit to allow for k < 0 and other signatures as well. Consider a at auxiliary vector space V of dimension (n + 1) with metric 1 ds2 = dx2 + dz 2 , k (16.24)

where x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) and dx2 = ij dxi dxj . Thus the metric on V has signature (p, q + 1) for k positive and (p + 1, q) for k negative. The group G = SO(p, q + 1) or G = SO(p + 1, q) has a natural action on V by isometries of the metric. The full isometry group of V is the semi-direct product of this group with the Abelian group of translations (just as in the case of the Euclidean or Poincar group). e Now consider in V the hypersurface dened by kx2 + z 2 = 1 . (16.25)

This equation breaks all the translational isometries, but by the very denition of the group G it leaves this equation, and therefore the hypersurface , invariant. It follows that G will act by isometries on with its induced metric. But dim G = n(n + 1)/2. Hence the n-dimensional space has n(n+1)/2 Killing vectors and is therefore maximally symmetric.
Remarks:

1. In fact, G acts transitively on (thus is homogeneous) and the stabilizer at a given point is isomorphic to H = SO(p, q) (so is isotropic), and therefore can also be described as the homogeneous space k>0 = SO(p, q + 1)/SO(p, q) k<0 = SO(p + 1, q)/SO(p, q) . (16.26)

2. The Killing vectors of the induced metric are simply the restriction to of the standard generators of G on the vector space V . 3. For Euclidean signature, these spaces are spheres for k > 0 and hyperboloids for k < 0, and in other signatures they are the corresponding generalisations. In particular, for (p, q) = (1, n 1) we obtain de Sitter space-time for k = 1 and antide Sitter space-time for k = 1. We wil discuss their embeddings, and coordinate systems for them, in much more detail in section 22.

305

It just remains to determine explicitly this induced metric. For this we start with the dening relation of and dierentiate it to nd that on one has dz = so that dz 2 = kx.dx , z (16.27)

k2 (x.dx)2 . 1 kx2 Thus the metric (16.24) restricted to is 1 ds2 | = dx2 + dz 2 | k k(x.dx)2 . = dx2 + 1 kx2

(16.28)

(16.29)

This is precisely the same metric as we obtained in the previous section. It will be useful to see the maximally symmetric metrics in some other coordinate systems (for k = 0, there is nothing new to say since this is just the at metric): 1. First of all let us note that for k = 0 essentially only the sign of k matters as |k| only eects the overall size of the space and nothing else (and can therefore be absorbed in the scale factor a(t) of the metric (17.1) that will be the starting point for our investigations of cosmology). To see this note that a metric of the form (16.22), but with k replaced by k/R2 , ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 , 1 kr 2 /R2 d2 r + r 2 d2 1 k2 r (16.30)

can, by introducing r = r/R, be put into the form ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 = R2 1 kr 2 /R2 . (16.31)

We now see explicitly that a rescaling of k by a constant factor is equivalent to an overall rescaling of the metric, and thus we will just need to consider the cases k = 1. However, occasionally it will also be convenient to think of k as a continuous parameter, the 3 geometries then being distinguished by k < 0, k = 0 and k > 0 respectively. 2. For k = +1, we have dr 2 + r 2 d2 (16.32) (n1) . 1 r2 Thus, obviously the range of r is restricted to r 1 and by the change of variables r = sin , the metric can be put into the standard form of the metric on S n in polar coordinates, ds2 d2 = d 2 + sin2 d2 (16.33) n n1 . ds2 = This makes it clear that the singularity at r = 1 is just a coordinate singularity. 306

3. For k = 1, on the other hand, we have ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 n1 . 1 + r2 (16.34)

Thus the range of r is 0 r < , and we can use the change of variables r = sinh to write the metric as ds2 d2 = d 2 + sinh2 d2 n n1 . (16.35)

This is the standard metric of a hyperboloid H n in polar coordinates, and I have n introduced the notation d2 for the line-element on the unit n-hyperboloid in analogy with the standard notation d2 for the line-element on the unti n-sphere. n 4. Thus, collectively we can write the three metrics as ds2 = where dr 2 2 2 2 + r 2 d2 (n1) = d + gk () dn1 1 kr 2 k=0 gk () = sin k = +1 sinh k = 1 r = r(1 + k2 /4)1 , r one can put the metric into the isotropic form
2 2 ds2 = (1 + k2 /4)2 (d2 + r 2 d2 r r dx2 . (n1) ) = (1 + kx /4)

(16.36)

(16.37)

5. Finally, by making the change of variables

(16.38)

(16.39)

Note that this diers by the conformal factor (1 + k2 /4)2 > 0 from the at r metric. One says that such a metric is conformally at. Thus what we have shown is that every maximally symmetric space is conformally at. Conformally at, on the other hand, does not by any means imply maximally symmetric (the conformal factor could be any function of the radial and angular variables). Note also that the metric in this form is just the 3- (or n-) dimensional generalisation of the 2-dimensional constant curvature metric on the 2-sphere in stereographic coordinates (7.48) (for k = +1) or of the Poincar disc metric of H 2 (7.49) e (for k = 1).

307

17
17.1

Cosmology I: Basics
Preliminary Remarks

We now turn away from considering isolated systems (stars) to some (admittedly very idealised) description of the universe as a whole. This subject is known as Cosmology. It is certainly one of the most fascinating subjects of theoretical physics, dealing with such issues as the origin and ultimate fate and the large-scale structure of the universe. Due to the diculty of performing cosmological experiments and making precise measurements at large distances, many of the most basic questions about the universe are still unanswered today: 1. Is our universe open or closed? 2. Will it keep expanding forever or will it recollapse? 3. Why is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation so isotropic? 4. Where and what is the missing mass (Dark Matter)? 5. Why is the cosmological constant so small and what determines its value? 6. Is Dark Energy, responsible for what appears to be a current phase of acceleration of the universe, a cosmological constant? While recent precision data, e.g. from supernovae surveys and detailed analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation, suggest answers to at least some of these questions, these answers actually just make the universe more mysterious than ever. Of course, we cannot study any of these questions in detail, in particular because an important role in studying these questions is played by the interaction of cosmology with astronomy, astrophysics and elementary particle physics, each of these subjects deserving at least a course of its own. Fortunately, however, many of the important features any realistic cosmological model should display are already present in some very simple models, the so-called FriedmannRobertson-Walker Models already studied in the 20s and 30s of the last century. They are based on the simplest possible ansatz for the metric compatible with the assumption that on large scales the universe is roughly homogeneous and isotropic (cf. the next section for a more detailed discussion of this Cosmological Principle) and have become the standard model of cosmology. We will see that they already display all the essential features such as 1. a Big Bang 308

2. expanding universes (Hubble expansion) 3. dierent long-term behaviour (eternal expansion versus recollapse) 4. and the cosmological red-shift. Our rst aim will be to make maximal use of the symmetries that simple cosmological models should have to nd a simple ansatz for the metric. Our guiding principle will be the Cosmological Principle. 17.2 Fundamental Observations I: The Cosmological Principle

At rst, it may sound impossibly dicult to nd solutions of the Einstein equations describing the universe as a whole. But: If one looks at the universe at large (very large) scales, in that process averaging over galaxies and even clusters of galaxies, then the situation simplies a lot in several respects; 1. First of all, at those scales non-gravitational interactions can be completely ignored because they are either short-range (the nuclear forces) or compensate each other at large distances (electro-magnetism). 2. The earth, and our solar system, or even our galaxy, have no privileged position in the universe. This means that at large scales the universe should look the same from any point in the universe. Mathematically this means that there should be translational symmetries from any point of space to any other, in other words, space should be homogeneous. 3. Also, we assume that, at large scales, the universe looks the same in all directions. Thus there should be rotational symmetries and hence space should be isotropic. It thus follows from our discussion in section 16, that the n = d-dimensional space (of course d = 3 for us) has d translational and d(d 1)/2 rotational Killing vectors, i.e. that the spatial metric is maximally symmetric. For d = 3, we will thus have six Killing vectors, two more than for the Schwarzschild metric, and the ansatz for the metric will simplify accordingly. Note that since we know from observation that the universe expands, we do not require a maximally symmetric space-time as this would imply that there is also a timelike Killing vector and the resulting model for the universe would be static. What simplies life considerably is the fact that, as we have seen, there are only three species of maximally symmetric spaces (for any d), namely at space Rd , the sphere S d , and its negatively curved counterpart, the d-dimensional pseudosphere or hyperboloid we will call H d . 309

Thus, for a space-time metric with maximally symmetric spacelike slices, the only unknown is the time-dependence of the overall size of the metric. More concretely, the metric can be chosen to be ds2 = dt2 + a2 (t)( dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) , 1 kr 2 (17.1)

where k = 0, 1 corresponds to the three possibilities mentioned above. Thus the metric contains only one unknown function, the radius or cosmic scale factor a(t). This function will be determined by the Einstein equations via the matter content of the universe (we will of course be dealing with a non-vanishing energy-momentum tensor) and the equation of state for the matter. 17.3 Fundamental Observations II: Olbers Paradox

One paradox, popularised by Olbers (1826) but noticed before by others is the following. He asked the seemingly innocuous question Why is the sky dark at night?. According to his calculation, reproduced below, the sky should instead be innitely bright. The simplest assumption one could make in cosmology (prior to the discovery of the Hubble expansion) is that the universe is static, innite and homogeneously lled with stars. In fact, this is probably the naive picture one has in mind when looking at the stars at night, and certainly for a long time astronomers had no reason to believe otherwise. However, these simple assumptions immediately lead to a paradox, namely the conclusion that the night-sky should be innitely bright (or at least very bright) whereas, as we know, the sky is actually quite dark at night. This is a nice example of how very simple observations can actually tell us something deep about nature (in this case, the nature of the universe). The argument runs as follows. 1. Assume that there is a star of brightness (luminosity) L at distance r. Then, since the star sends out light into all directions, the apparent luminosity A (neglecting absorption) will be A(r) = L/4r 2 . (17.2) 2. If the number density of stars is constant, then the number of stars at distances between r and r + dr is dN (r) = 4r 2 dr . (17.3) Hence the total energy density due to the radiation of all the stars is

E=
0

A(r)dN (r) = L
0

dr = .

(17.4)

3. Therefore the sky should be innitely bright. 310

Now what is one to make of this? Clearly some of the assumptions in the above are much too naive. The way out suggested by Olbers is to take into account absorption eects and to postulate some absorbing interstellar medium. But this is also too naive because in an eternal universe we should now be in a stage of thermal equilibrium. Hence the postulated interstellar medium should emit as much energy as it absorbs, so this will not reduce the radiant energy density either. Of course, the stars themselves are not transparent, so they could block out light completely from distant sources. But if this is to rescue the situation, one would need to postulate so many stars that every line of sight ends on a star, but then the night sky would be bright (though not innitely bright) and not dark. Modern cosmological models can resolve this problem in a variety of ways. For instance, the universe could be static but nite (there are such solutions, but this is nevertheless an unlikely scenario) or the universe is not eternal since there was a Big Bang (and this is a more likely scenario). 17.4 Fundamental Observations III: The Hubble(-Lema tre) Expansion

We have already discussed one of the fundamental inputs of simple cosmological models, namely the cosmological principle. This led us to consider space-times with maximallysymmetric spacelike slices. One of the few other things that is denitely known about the universe, and that tells us something about the time-dependence of the universe, is that it expands or, at least that it appears to be expanding. In fact, in the 1920s and 1930s, the astronomer Edwin Hubble made a remarkable discovery regarding the motion of galaxies. He found that light from distant galaxies is systematically red-shifted (increased in wave-length ), the increase being proportional to the distance d of the galaxy, z := d . (17.5) Hubble interpreted this red-shift as due to a Doppler eect and therefore ascribed a recessional velocity v = cz to the galaxy. While, as we will see, this pure Doppler shift explanation is not tenable or at least not always the most useful way of phrasing things, the terminology has stuck, and Hubbles law can be written in the form v = Hd , (17.6)

where H is Hubbles constant. To set the historical record straight: credit for this fundamental discovery should perhaps (also) go to G. Lema 40 tre.
See e.g. M. Way, H. Nussbaumer, The linear redshift-distance relationship: Lematre beats Hubble by two years, arXiv:1104.3031v1 [physics.hist-ph]; J.-P. Luminet, Editorial note to The beginning of the world from the point of view of quantum theory, arXiv:1105.6271v1 [physics.hist-ph].
40

311

We will see later that in most cosmological models H is actually a function of time, so the H in the above equation should then be interpreted as the value H0 of H today. Actually, not only in cosmological toy-models but also in experiments, H is a function of time, with estimates uctuating rather wildly over the years. It is one of the main goals of observational cosmology to determine H as precisely as possible, and the main problem here is naturally a precise determination of the distances of distant galaxies. Galactic distances are frequently measured in mega-parsecs (Mpc). A parsec is the distance from which a star subtends an angle of 2 arc-seconds at the two diametrically opposite ends of the earths orbit. This unit arose because of the old trigonometric method of measuring stellar distances (a triangle is determined by the length of one side and the two adjacent angles). 1 parsec is approximately 3 1018 cm, a little over 3 light-years. The Hubble constant is therefore often expressed in units of km s1 (Mpc)1 . The best currently available estimates point to a value of H0 in the range (using a standard parametrisation) H0 = 100hkm/s/Mpc , h = 0.71 0.06 . (17.7)

We will usually prefer to express it just in terms of inverse units of time. The above result leads to an order of magnitude range of
1 H0 1010 years

(17.8)

(whereas Hubbles original estimate was more in the 109 year range). 17.5 Mathematical Model: the Robertson-Walker Metric

Having determined that the metric of a maximally symmetric space is of the simple form (16.22), we can now deduce that a space-time metric satisfying the Cosmological Principle can be chosen to be of the form (17.1), ds2 = dt2 + a2 (t) dr 2 + r 2 d2 1 kr 2 . (17.9)

Here we have used the fact that (as in the ansatz for a spherically symmetric metric) nontrival gtt and gtr can be removed by a coordinate transformation. This metric is known as the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric or just the Robertson-Walker metric, and spatial coordinates in which the metric takes this form are called comoving coordinates, for reasons that will become apparent below. Here is a list of the most important elementary geometrical features of these models that we will need and use (we will discuss their curvature tensor in section 18):

312

1. Spatial Geometry The metric of the three-space at constant t is gij = a2 (t)ij , g (17.10)

where gij is the maximally symmetric spatial metric. Thus for k = +1, a(t) directly gives the size (radius) of the universe. For k = 1, space is innite, so no such interpretation is possible, but nevertheless a(t) still sets the scale for the geometry of the universe, e.g. in the sense that the curvature scalar R(3) of the metric gij is related to the curvature scalar R(3) of gij by R(3) (t) = 1 a2 (t) R(3) . (17.11)

Finally, for k = 0, three-space is at and also innite, but one could replace R3 by a three-torus T 3 (still maximally symmetric and at but now compact) and then a(t) would once again be related directly to the size of the universe at constant t. Anyway, in all cases, a(t) plays the role of a (and is known as the) cosmic scale factor. Note that the case k = +1 opened up for the very rst time the possibility of considering, even conceiving, an unbounded but nite universe! These and other generalisations made possible by a general relativistic approach to cosmology are important as more naive (Newtonian) models of the universe immediately lead to paradoxes or contradictions (as we have seen e.g. in the discussion of Olbers paradox in section 17.3). 2. Geodesics and Comoving Coordinates Let us now look at geodesics. Note that, since gtt = 1 is a constant, one has 1 tt = (2t gt gtt ) = 0 . 2 (17.12)

Therefore the vector eld t is geodesic, which can be expressed as the statement that t t := = 0 . (17.13) tt In simpler terms this means that the curves x = const., (x( ), t( )) = (x0 , ) are geodesics. This also follows from the considerations around (2.48). Hence, in this coordinate system, observers remaining at xed values of the spatial coordinates are in free fall. In other words, the coordinate system is falling with them or comoving, and the proper time along such geodesics coincides with the coordinate time, d = dt. It is these observers of constant x or constant (r, , ) who all see the same isotropic universe at a given value of t. 313 (17.14)

X
X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

Figure 20: Illustration of a comoving coordinate system: Even though the sphere (universe) expands, the Xs (galaxies) remain at the same spatial coordinates. These trajectories are geodesics and hence the Xs (galaxies) can be considered to be in free fall. The gure also shows that it is the number density per unit coordinate volume that is conserved, not the density per unit proper volume. This may sound a bit strange but a good way to visualise such a coordinate system is, as in Figure 20, as a mesh of coordinate lines drawn on a balloon that is being inated or deated (according to the behaviour of a(t)). Draw some dots on that balloon (that will eventually represent galaxies or clusters of galaxies). As the ballon is being inated or deated, the dots will move but the coordinate lines will move with them and the dots remain at xed spatial coordinate values. Thus, as we now know, regardless of the behaviour of a(t), these dots follow a geodesic, and we will thus think of galaxies in this description as being in free fall. Recall, by the way, that we had already encountered such comoving coordinates in equation (14.125) of section 14.8, when we had introduced proper time of the freely falling particles on the surface of the star to describe the metric induced on the surface of the star. Another advantage of the comoving coordinate system is that the six-parameter family of isometries just acts on the spatial part of the metric. Indeed, let K i i be a Killing vector of the maximally symmetric spatial metric. Then K i i is also a Killing vector of the Robertson-Walker metric. This would not be the case if one had e.g. made an x-dependent coordinate transformation of t or a t-dependent coordinate transformation of the xi . In those cases there would of course still be six Killing vectors, but they would have a more complicated form. 3. Velocity - Distance Relation The Robertson-Walker metric immediately, and in complete generality, implies a crude distance - velocity relation reminiscent of Hubbles law. Namely, let us ego-

314

or geocentrically place ourselves at the origin r = 0 (remember that because of maximal symmetry this point is as good as any other and in no way privileged). Consider another galaxy following the comoving geodesic at the xed value r = r1 . Its instantaneous proper distance R1 (t) at time t can be calculated from dR = a(t) where dr (1 kr 2 )1/2 R1 (t) = a(t)fk (r1 ) , (17.15)

(the inverses of the functions gk () dened in (16.37), but the precise form of fk (r) will be irrelevant for this argument). It follows that V1 (t) d R1 (t) = a(t)fk (r1 ) = H(t)R1 (t) , dt (17.17)

r k=0 fk (r) = arcsin r k = +1 (sinh)1 r k = 1

(17.16)

where we have introduced the Hubble parameter H(t) = a(t) . a(t) (17.18)

The relation (17.17) clearly expresses something like Hubbles law v = Hd (17.6): all objects run away from each other with velocities proportional to their distance. We will have much more to say about H(t), and about the relation between distance and red-shift z, below. 4. Painlev-Gullstrand-like Metric for Comoving Observers e In section (14.1) we had introduced coordinates for the Schwarzschild metric that were adapted to radial geodesic observers (Painlev-Gullstrand coordinates). We e can do something analogous for the comoving observers of the Robertson-Walker metrics. We will just do this for the spatially at k = 0 metric, but a similar construction can be carried out in general. The k = 0 FRW metric is ds2 = dt2 + a(t)2 (dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) . (17.19)

To put this into PG-like form, we keep t (which is, after all, already the proper time of comoving observers) but introduce, instead of the comoving coordinate r the area radius r(, r) = a( )r . (17.20) In terms of this the FRW metric takes the PG-like form ds2 = (1 r 2 H(t)2 )dt2 2H(t)dtd + (d2 + r 2 d2 ) r r r = dt2 + (d r H(t)dt)2 + r 2 d2 , r 315 (17.21)

where, as above, H(t) = a(t)/a(t) is the Hubble parameter. This is clearly analo gous to the PG metric (14.11) ds2 = (1 2m/r)dT 2 + 2 = dT 2 + dr + 2m/rdT dr + (dr 2 + r 2 d2 )
2

2m/rdT

+ r 2 d2 .

(17.22)

Just as this metric is adapted to observers with dr = 2m/rdT (for which T = is proper time, r = 2m/r describing geodesic radial free fall with E = 1), the metric (17.21) is adapted to observers with d r = H(t) r dt (17.23)

which are precisely the comoving observers r (t) = a(t)r with r xed obeying the Hubble law (17.17). While these PG-like coordinates are not commonly used in the cosmological context, we will make use of them later on, in section 21.2, in the description of the interior geometry of a collapsing star. 5. Conformal Time Writing the Robertson-Walker metric as ds2 = dt2 + a(t)2 d2 = a(t)2 [dt2 /a(t)2 + d2 ] , s s (17.24)

where again a tilde refers to the maximally symmetric spatial metric, we see that it is natural to introduce a new time-coordinate through d = dt/a(t) , in terms of which the Robertson-Walker metric takes the simple form d = dt/a(t) ds2 = a2 ()(d 2 + d2 ) s (17.26) (17.25)

(a() is short (and sloppy) for a(t())). In terms of polar coordinates (16.36), this becomes ds2 = a2 ()(d 2 + d 2 + gk ()2 d2 ) . (17.27) Thus, in particular, radial null lines are determined by d = d, as in at space, and is also known as conformal time. This coordinate is very convenient for discussing the causal structure of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes. Since the -dependence resides exclusively in the overall conformal factor of the metric, the vector is a conformal Killing vector of the Robertson-Walker metric in the sense of (6.46), C = : C + C = 2 316 a () g = 2a(t) g . a() (17.28)

We will use conformal time in section 20.3 to solve the cosmological Einstein equations in a particular case, and we will use the above conformal Killing vector and the associated conserved charge for null geodesics (6.48) in the discussion of the cosmological red-shift in section 17.7. 17.6 Area Measurements and Number Counts

The aim of this and the subsequent sections is to learn as much as possible about the general properties of Robertson-Walker geometries (without using the Einstein equations) with the aim of looking for observational means of distinguishing e.g. among the models with k = 0, 1. To get a feeling for the geometry of the Schwarzschild metric, we studied the properties of areas and lengths in the Schwarzschild geometry. Length measurements are rather obvious in the Robertson-Walker geometry, so here we focus on the properties of areas. We write the spatial part of the Robertson-Walker metric in polar coordinates as
2 ds2 = a(t)2 [d 2 + gk ()d2 ] ,

(17.29)

where gk () = , sin , sinh for k = 0, +1, 1 (see (16.37)). Now the radius of a surface = 0 around the point = 0 (or any other point, our space is isotropic and homogeneous) is given by
0

=a
0

d = a0 .

(17.30)

On the other hand, the area of this surface is determined by the induced metric 2 a2 gk (0 )d2 and is
2 A() = a2 gk (0 ) 2

d
0 0

2 d sin = 4a2 gk (/a) .

(17.31)

For k = 0, this is just the standard behaviour A() = 42 , but for k = 1 the geometry looks quite dierent. For k = +1, we have A() = 4a2 sin2 (/a) . (17.33) (17.32)

Thus the area reaches a maximum for = a/2 (or = /2), then decreases again for larger values of and goes to zero as a. Already the maximal area, Amax = 4a2 is much smaller than the area of a sphere of the same radius in Euclidean space, which would be 42 = 3 a2 . This behaviour is best visualised by replacing the three-sphere by the two-sphere and looking at the circumference of circles as a function of their distance from the origin (see Figure 21). 317

psi psi=psi1

Circle of Radius psi1

Circle of Radius psi2

psi=psi2

Circle of Radius psi3 psi=psi3

Figure 21: Visualisation of the k = +1 Robertson-Walker geometry via a two-sphere of unit radius: Circles of radius , measured along the two-sphere, have an area which grows at rst, reaches a maximum at = /2 and goes to zero when . E.g. the maximum value of the circumference, at = /2, namely 2, is much smaller than the circumference of a circle with the same radius /2 in a at geometry, namely 2 /2 = 2 . Only for very small does one approximately see a standard Euclidean geometry. For k = 1, we have

A() = 4a2 sinh2 (/a) ,

(17.34)

so in this case the area grows much more rapidly with the radius than in at space. In principle, this distinct behaviour of areas in the models with k = 0, 1 might allow for an empirical determination of k. For instance, one might make the assumption that there is a homogeneous distribution of the number and brightness of galaxies, and one could try to determine observationally the number of galaxies as a function of their apparent luminosity. As in the discussion of Olbers paradox, the radiation ux would be proportional to F 1/2 . In Euclidean space (k = 0), one would expect the number N (F ) of galaxies with ux greater than F , i.e. distances less than to behave like 3 , so that the expected Euclidean behaviour would be N (F ) F 3/2 . (17.35)

Any empirical departure from this behaviour could thus be an indication of a universe with k = 0, but clearly, to decide this, many other factors (red-shift, evolution of stars, etc.) have to be taken into account.

318

17.7

The Cosmological Red-Shift

The most important information about the cosmic scale factor a(t) comes from the observation of shifts in the frequency of light emitted by distant sources. To calculate the expected shift in a Robertson-Walker geometry, let us again place ourselves at the origin r = 0. We consider a radially travelling electro-magnetic wave (a light ray) and consider the equation d 2 = 0 or dt2 = a2 (t) dr 2 . 1 kr 2 (17.36)

As in our discussion of the gravitational red-shift in section 2.8, I will analyse this situation in two ways, in a geometric optics approach, where we trace the lightrays in the above geometry, and in a slightly more covariant language using the geodesic equation and the symmetries and associated conserved charges. 1. Let us assume that the wave leaves a galaxy located at r = r1 at the time t1 . Then it will reach us at a time t0 given by
0

fk (r1 ) =
r1

dr = 1 kr 2

t0 t1

dt . a(t)

(17.37)

As typical galaxies will have constant coordinates, fk (r1 ) (17.16) is time-independent. If the next wave crest leaves the galaxy at r1 at time t1 + t1 , it will arrive at a time t0 + t0 determined by
t0 +t0

fk (r1 ) =
t1 +t1

dt . a(t)

(17.38)

Subtracting these two equations and making the (eminently reasonable) assumption that the cosmic scale factor a(t) does not vary signicantly over the period t given by the frequency of light, we obtain t0 t1 = . a(t0 ) a(t1 ) Indeed, say that b(t) is the integral of 1/a(t). Then we have b(t0 + t0 ) b(t1 + t1 ) = b(t0 ) b(t1 ) , and Taylor expanding to rst order, we obtain b (t0 )t0 = b (t1 )t1 , (17.41) (17.40) (17.39)

which is the same as (17.39). Therefore the observed frequency 0 is related to the emitted frequency 1 by a(t1 ) 0 . (17.42) = 1 a(t0 ) I will comment further on this result below. 319

2. As in derivation 2 of section 2.8, we describe a light ray by the null wave vector k = (, k). The frequency measured by an observer with velocity u is then = u k (2.114). In the present case of radial null rays we have k = (t, , 0, 0) where we have written the metric as ds2 = dt2 + a(t)2 (d 2 + gk ()2 d2 ) t2 + a(t)2 2 = 0 . (17.44) (17.43)

and restrict to motion in the (t, )-direction, so that t and are related by (17.45)

In section 2.8 we used the timelike Killing vector of the static spherically symmetric metric, and its associated conserved energy, to relate the measured frequencies for stationary obervers at dierent radial positions. Here we do not have a timelike Killing vector, but we have plenty of spacelike Killing vectors V (in particular, with V t = 0). Among them there will be -translational Killing vectors which have the form V = f (, ) + . . . (17.46) (the 3-dimensional counterparts of the Killing vectors V(1) , V(2) (6.39) of the 2sphere, say). Associated to any such Killing vector and the null geodesic there is the conserved momentum P = k V = a(t)2 f (, ) . (17.47)

Since and are constant along the lightray, we can absorb f (, ) into the denition of P , and thus we have = P/a2 t = |P |/a k = |P |/a (1, 1/a, 0, 0) . (17.48)

The observers we are interested in are the comoving observers at xed values of the spatial coordinates, i.e. with u = (1, 0, 0, 0). Thus these measure the frequency (t) = k u = |P |/a(t) . In particular, for the ratio of frequencies at times t0 and t1 one has (t0 ) a(t1 ) = , (t1 ) a(t0 ) in complete agreement with the result (17.42). Alternatively, and even more quickly (and to the point), one can use the conformal Killing vector (17.28) C = = a(t)t 320 or C = a(t)u (17.51) (17.50) (17.49)

of the Robertson-Walker metric, and the associated conserved quantity C x (6.48) for null geodesics, to deduce C k = a(t)(t) = const. , leading to the same conclusion (17.50).
Remarks:

(17.52)

1. Astronomers like to express this result in terms of the red-shift parameter (see the discussion of Hubbles law above) z= 0 1 , 1 (17.53)

which in view of the above result we can write as z= a(t0 ) 1 . a(t1 ) (17.54)

Thus if the universe expands one has z > 0 and there is a red-shift while in a contracting universe with a(t0 ) < a(t1 ) the light of distant glaxies would be blue-shifted. 2. This cosmological red-shift has nothing to do with the stars own gravitational eld - that contribution to the red-shift is completely negligible compared to the eect of the cosmological red-shift. 3. Unlike the gravitational red-shift we discussed before, this cosmological red-shift is symmetric between receiver and emitter, i.e. light sent from the earth to the distant galaxy would likewise be red-shifted if we observe a red-shift of the distant galaxy. 4. This red-shift is a combined eect of gravitational and Doppler red-shifts and, without additional choices and input, it is not very meaningful to separate this into the two and/or to interpret this only in terms of, say, a Doppler shift. Nevertheless, as mentioned before, astronomers like to do just that, calling v = zc the recessional velocity.41 5. Nowadays, astronomers tend to express the distance of a galaxy not in terms of light-years or megaparsecs, but directly in terms of the observed red-shift factor z, the conversion to distance then following from some version of Hubbles law, with z 0.1 corresponding to approximately 1 billion light-years. The largest observed redshift of a galaxy is currently z 10, corresponding to a distance of the order of 13 billion light-years.
For a lucid discussion of this issue, actually arguing in favour of the pure Doppler interpretation, see E. Bunn, D. Hogg, The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift, arXiv:0808.1081.
41

321

6. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), which originated just a couple of 100.000 years after the Big Bang, has z 1000. This was the time when atoms were formed, and the CMBR photons were decoupled and emitted. This happened at a temperature of Tdec 3000K. Comparing with the fact the temperature of the CMBR today is Tcmbr 3K and using T a1 (this is essentially a reformulation of our above result for the red-shift, since - up to conversion factors and k - frequency = energy = temperature), one then nds the above-quoted estimate for z.42 17.8 The Red-Shift Distance Relation (Hubbles Law)

We have seen that there is a cosmological red-shift in Robertson-Walker geometries. Our aim will now be to see if and how these geometries are capable of explaining Hubbles law that the red-shift is approximately proportional to the distance and how the Hubble constant is related to the cosmic scale factor a(t). Reliable data for cosmological red-shifts as well as for distance measurements are only available for small values of z, and thus we will consider the case where t0 t1 and r1 are small, i.e. small at cosmic scales. First of all, this allows us to expand a(t) in a Taylor series, 1 a(t) = a(t0 ) + (t t0 )a(t0 ) + 2 (t t0 )2 a(t0 ) + . . . (17.55) Let us introduce the Hubble parameter H(t) (which already made a brief appearance in section 17.5) and the deceleration parameter q(t) by H(t) = a(t) a(t) a(t)(t) a , q(t) = a(t)2

(17.56)

and denote their present day values by a subscript zero, i.e. H0 = H(t0 ) and q0 = q(t0 ). H(t) measures the expansion velocity as a function of time while q(t) measures whether the expansion velocity is increasing or decreasing. We will also denote a0 = a(t0 ) and a(t1 ) = a1 . In terms of these parameters, the Taylor expansion can be written as
2 1 a(t) = a0 (1 + H0 (t t0 ) 2 q0 H0 (t t0 )2 + . . .) .

(17.57)

Higher order terms in this expansion are known as jerk (3rd derivative) and snap (4th derivative).43
For an introduction to the rich physics of the CMBR see e.g. the review articles D. Samtleben, S. Staggs, B. Winstein, The Cosmic Microwave Background for Pedestrians: A Review for Particle and Nuclear Physicists, arXiv:0803.0834 [astro-ph], or A. Jones, A. Lasenby, The Cosmic Microwave Background, Living Rev. Relativity 1, (1998), 11; http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-1998-11. 43 If you want to know why the 5th and 6th order derivative terms are known as crackle and pop respectively, look at M. Dunajski, G. Gibbons, Cosmic Jerk, Snap and Beyond, arXiv:0807.0207 [gr-qc].
42

322

We can use the expansion (17.57) to express z as a function of (t0 t1 ), and we can in principle use (17.37) to express r1 as a function of (t0 t1 ). Combining the two results and eliminating (t0 t1 ), one therefore obtains the sought-for relation between the red-shift z and the (coordinate-) distance r1 . The result is given in (17.64). The derivation is primarily an exercise in inverting series expansions and not per se particularly enlightning. From (17.57) one nds that the red-shift parameter z, as a power series in time, is 1 a1 2 = = 1 + (t1 t0 )H0 1 q0 H0 (t1 t0 )2 + . . . 2 1+z a0 or
2 1 z = (t0 t1 )H0 + (1 + 2 q0 )H0 (t0 t1 )2 + . . .

(17.58)

(17.59)

For small H0 (t0 t1 ) this can be inverted, t0 t1 = 1 1 [z (1 + 2 q0 )z 2 + . . .] . H0 (17.60)

We can also use (17.37) to express (t0 t1 ) in terms of r1 . On the one hand we have
t0 t1

dt 3 = r1 + O(r1 ) , a(t)

(17.61)

while expanding a(t) in the denominator we get

t0 t1

dt a(t)

= = = =

1 a0

t0 t1 t0

1 dt [1 + (t0 t)H0 + . . .] a0 t1 1 [(t0 t1 ) + t0 (t0 t1 )H0 1 (t2 t2 )H0 + . . .] 1 2 0 a0 1 [(t0 t1 ) + 1 (t0 t1 )2 H0 + . . .] . 2 a0 1 [(t0 t1 ) + 1 (t0 t1 )2 H0 + . . .] . 2 a0 1 1 [z 2 (1 + q0 )z 2 + . . .] . a0 H0

dt (1 + (t t0 )H0 + . . .)

(17.62)

Therefore we get r1 =

(17.63)

Using (17.60), we nally obtain r1 =

Remarks:

(17.64)

1. This clearly indicates to rst order a linear dependence of the red-shift on the distance of the galaxy and identies H0 , the present day value of the Hubble parameter, as being at least proportional to the Hubble constant introduced in (17.6). 323

2. Note that the linear relation (17.17) between recessional velocity and distance of comoving objects is exact while (17.64) shows that the relation between redshift and distance is only approximately linear for small z. 3. However, this is not yet a very useful way of expressing Hubbles law. First of all, the distance a0 r1 that appears in this expression is not the proper distance (unless k = 0), but is at least equal to it in our approximation. Note that a0 r1 is the present distance to the galaxy, not the distance at the time the light was emitted. 4. Even proper distance is not directly measurable or observable and thus, to compare this formula with experiment, one needs to relate r1 to the measures of distance used by astronomers. One practical way of doing this is based on the so-called luminosity distance dL . If for some reasons one knows the absolute luminosity of a distant star (for instance because it shows a certain characteristic behaviour known from other stars nearby whose distances can be measured by direct means - such objects are known as standard candles), then one can compare this absolute luminosity L with the apparent luminosity A. Then one can dene the luminosity distance dL by (cf. (17.2)) L . 4A We thus need to relate dL to the coordinate distance r1 . The key relation is d2 = L 1 a1 A 1 1 = 2 r 2 1 + z a = 4a2 r 2 (1 + z)2 . L 4a0 1 0 0 1 (17.65)

(17.66)

Here the rst factor arises from dividing by the area of the sphere at distance a0 r1 and would be the only term in a at geometry (see the discssion of Olbers paradox). In a Robertson-Walker geometry, however, the photon ux will be diluted. The second factor is due to the fact that each individual photon is being red-shifted. And the third factor (identical to the second) is due to the fact that as a consequence of the expansion of the universe, photons emitted a time t apart will be measured a time (1+ z)t apart. Hence the relation between r1 and dL is dL = (L/4A)1/2 = r1 a(t0 )(1 + z) . (17.67)

Intuitively, the fact that for z positive dL is larger than the actual (proper) distance of the galaxy can be understood by noting that the gravitational red-shift makes an object look darker (further away) than it actually is. This can be inserted into (17.64) to give an expression for the red-shift in terms of dL , Hubbles law
1 1 dL = H0 [z + 2 (1 q0 )z 2 + . . .] .

(17.68)

The program would then be to collect as much astronomical information as possible on the relation between dL and z in order to determine the parameters q0 and H0 . 324

18

Cosmology II: Basics of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Cosmology

So far, we have only used the kinematical framework provided by the Robertson-Walker metrics and we never used the Einstein equations. The benet of this is that it allows one to deduce relations betweens observed quantities and assumptions about the universe which are valid even if the Einstein equations are not entirely correct, perhaps because of higher derivative or other quantum corrections in the early universe. Now, on the other hand we will have to be more specic, specify the matter content and solve the Einstein equations for a(t). We will see that a lot about the solutions of the Einstein equations can already be deduced from a purely qualitative analysis of these equations, without having to resort to explicit solutions (Chapter 17). Exact solutions will then be the subject of Chapter 18. 18.1 The Ricci Tensor of the Robertson-Walker Metric

Of course, the rst thing we need to discuss solutions of the Einstein equations is the Ricci tensor of the Robertson-Walker (RW) metric. Since we already know the curvature tensor of the maximally symmetric spatial metric entering the RW metric (and its contractions), this is not dicult. 1. First of all, we write the RW metric as ds2 = dt2 + a2 (t)ij dxi dxj . g (18.1)

From now on, all objects with a tilde, will refer to three-dimensional quantities , calculated with the metric gij . 2. One can then calculate the Christoel symbols in terms of a(t) and ijk . The non-vanishing components are (we had already established that = 0) 00 ijk = ijk a i ij0 = a j 0ij = aaij g (18.2) 3. The relevant components of the Riemann tensor are a i Ri0j0 = j a R0i0j = agij a Rkikj = Rij + 2a2 gij . 325

(18.3)

 4. Now we can use Rij = 2kij (a consequence of the maximal symmetry of gij ) to g calculate R . The non-zero components are R00 = 3 Rij a a = (a + 2a2 + 2k)ij a g 2 a a 2k = ( + 2 2 + 2 )gij . a a a 6 (a + a2 + k) , a a2

(18.4)

5. Thus the Ricci scalar is R= and

(18.5)

6. the Einstein tensor has the components G00 = 3( G0i = 0 Gij 18.2 = ( k 2 a2 a + 2 + 2 )gij . a a a (18.6) a2 k + ) a2 a2

The Matter Content: A Perfect Fluid

Next we need to specify the matter content. On physical grounds one might like to argue that in the approximation underlying the cosmological principle galaxies (or clusters) should be treated as non-interacting particles or a perfect uid. As it turns out, we do not need to do this as either the symmetries of the metric or comparison with the Einstein tensor determined above x the energy-momentum tensor to be that of a perfect uid anyway. Below, I will give a formal argument for this using Killing vectors. But informally we can already deduce this from the structure of the Einstein tensor obtained above. Comparing (18.6) with the Einstein equation G = 8GN T , we deduce that the Einstein equations can only have a solution with a Robertson-Walker metric if the energy-momentum tensor is of the form T00 = (t) T0i = 0 Tij = p(t)gij , where p(t) and (t) are some functions of time.
Here is the formal argument. It is of course a consequence of the Einstein equations that any symmetries of the Ricci (or Einstein) tensor also have to be symmetries of the energy-momentum

(18.7)

326

tensor. Now we know that the metric gij has six Killing vectors K (a) and that (in the comoving coordinate system) these are also Killing vectors of the RW metric, LK (a) gij = 0 LK (a) g = 0 . Therefore also the Ricci and Einstein tensors have these symmetries, LK (a) g = 0 LK (a) R = 0 , LK (a) G = 0 . Hence the Einstein equations imply that T should have these symmetries, LK (a) G = 0 LK (a) T = 0 . (18.10) (18.9) (18.8)

Moreover, since the LK (a) act like three-dimensional coordinate transformations, in order to see what these conditions mean we can make a (3 + 1)-decomposition of the energy-momentum tensor. From the three-dimensional point of view, T00 transforms like a scalar under coordinate transformations (and Lie derivatives), T0i like a vector, and Tij like a symmetric tensor. Thus we need to determine what are the three-dimensional scalars, vectors and symmetric tensors that are invariant under the full six-parameter group of the three-dimensional isometries. For scalars we thus require (calling K now any one of the Killing vectors of gij ), LK = K i i = 0 . (18.11)

But since K i (x) can take any value in a maximally symmetric space (homogeneity), this implies that has to be constant (as a function on the three-dimensional space) and therefore T00 can only be a function of time, T00 = (t) . (18.12) For vectors, it is almost obvious that no invariant vectors can exist because any vector would single out a particular direction and therefore spoil isotropy. The formal argument (as a warm up for the argument for tensors) is the following. We have LK V i = K j j V i + V j j K i . (18.13)

We now choose the Killing vectors such that K i (x) = 0 but i Kj Kij is an arbitrary antisymmetric matrix. Then the rst term disappears and we have LK V i = 0 Kij V j = 0 . To make the antisymmetry manifest, we rewrite this as Kij V j = Kkj k V j = 0 . i If this is to hold for all antisymmetric matrices, we must have k V j = ji V k , i (18.16) (18.15) (18.14)

and by contraction one obtains nV j = V j , and hence Vj = 0. Therefore, as expected, there is no invariant vector eld and T0i = 0 . (18.17)

327

We now come to symmetric tensors. Once again we choose our Killing vectors to vanish at a given point x and such that Kij is an arbitrary antisymmetric matrix. Then the condition LK Tij = K k k Tij + i K k Tkj + j K k Tik = 0 reduces to Kmn (mk n Tkj + g mk n Tik ) = 0 . g i j (18.19) If this is to hold for all antisymmetric matrices Kmn , the antisymmetric part of the term in brackets must be zero or, in other words, it must be symmetric in the indices m and n, i.e. g mk n Tkj + g mk n Tik = g nk m Tkj + g nk m Tik . i j i j Contracting over the indices n and i, one obtains nmk Tkj + g mk Tjk = g mk Tkj + m T k . g j k Therefore Tij = gij k T . n k (18.21) (18.20) (18.18)

(18.22)

But we already know that the scalar T k has to be a constant. Thus we conclude that the only k invariant tensor is the metric itself, and therefore the Tij -components of the energy-momentum tensor can only be a function of t times gij . Writing this function as p(t)a2 (t), we arrive at Tij = p(t)gij . (18.23)

We thus see that the energy-momentum tensor is determined by two functions, (t) and p(t).

A covariant way of writing this tensor is as T = (p + )u u + pg , (18.24)

where u = (1, 0, 0, 0) in a comoving coordinate system. This is precisely the energymomentum tensor of a perfect uid. u is known as the velocity eld of the uid, and the comoving coordinates are those with respect to which the uid is at rest. is the energy-density of the perfect uid and p is the pressure. In general, this matter content has to be supplemented by an equation of state. This is usually assumed to be that of a barytropic uid, i.e. one whose pressure depends only on its density, p = p(). The most useful toy-models of cosmological uids arise from considering a linear relationship between p and , of the type p = w , (18.25)

where w is known as the equation of state parameter. Occasionally also more exotic equations of state are considered. Here are the most common and useful special cases of this equation of state. 1. For non-interacting particles, there is no pressure, p = 0, i.e. w = 0, and such matter is usually referred to as dust. 328

2. The trace of the energy-momentum tensor is T = + 3p . (18.26)

For radiation, for example, the energy-momentum tensor is (like that of Maxwell theory) traceless, and hence radiation has the equation of state p = /3 , and thus w = 1/3. 3. For physical (gravitating instead of anti-gravitating) matter one usually requires > 0 (positive energy) and either p > 0, corresponding to w > 0 or, at least, + 3p > 0, corresponding to the weaker condition w > 1/3. 4. A cosmological constant , on the other hand, corresponds, as we will see, to a matter contribution with w = 1 and thus violates either > 0 or + 3p > 0. The equation of state parameter need not necessarily be a constant. Consider for instance a scalar eld in a cosmological FRW background. Such a eld will respect the symmetries if it depends only on t and not on the spatial coordinates, = (t). For such a scalar eld, the energy-momentum tensor (5.15), T = 1 g g g V () , 2 reduces to T00 = 1 2 + V () 2 , Tij =
1 2 2

(18.27)

(18.28)

V ()

gij .

(18.29)

Thus the energy and pressure density are

1 (t) = 2 2 + V ()

1 p(t) = 2 2 V () ,

(18.30)

leading to the time-dependent equation of state parameter p(t) w(t) = = (t)

1 2 2 1 2 2

V () + V ()

(18.31)

Notice that this mimicks a cosmological constant, i.e. w = 1, during periods (of the scalar eld slowly rolling down a very at potential) where the kinetic energy term is negligible compared with the potential energy term. This can also be seen directly from the action (5.14), a constant potential leading to a constant contribution to the matter or gravity Lagrangian, a.k.a. as a cosmological constant, and plays an important role in models of ination.

329

18.3

Conservation Laws

The same arguments as above show that a current J in a Robertson-Walker metric has to be of the form J = (n(t), 0, 0, 0) in comoving coordinates, or J = n(t)u (18.32)

in covariant form. Here n(t) could be a number density like a galaxy number density. It gives the number density per unit proper volume. The conservation law J = 0 is equivalent to J = 0 t ( gn(t)) = 0 . (18.33) Thus we see that n(t) is not constant, but the number density per unit coordinate volume is (as we had already anticipated in the picture of the balloon, Figure 20). For a RW metric, the time-dependent part of g is a(t)3 , and thus the conservation law says n(t)a(t)3 = const. (18.34)

Let us now turn to the conservation laws associated with the energy-momentum tensor, T = 0 . The spatial components of this conservation law, T i = 0 , (18.36) (18.35)

turn out to be identically satised, by virtue of the fact that the u are geodesic and that the functions and p are only functions of time. This could hardly be otherwise because T i would have to be an invariant vector, and we know that there are none (nevertheless it is instructive to check this explicitly). The only interesting conservation law is thus the zero-component T 0 = T 0 + T 0 + 0 T = 0 , which for a perfect uid with T00 = (t) and Tij = p(t)gij becomes t (t) + (t) + 000 (t) + 0ij T ij = 0 . 0 Inserting the explicit expressions (18.2) for the Christoel symbols, one nds a . (18.39) a Before discussing some special cases of this, it is instructive to rederive the above results in a somewhat more general and covariant manner.44 Thus we consider a general velocity eld u (x) with u u = 1, and the perfect uid energy-momentum tensor (18.24), = 3( + p) T = (p + )u u + pg ,
44

(18.37)

(18.38)

(18.40)

For a detailed exposition of cosmology in this covariant framework see e.g. G. Ellis, H. van Elst, Cosmological Models (Carg`se Lectures 1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9812046. e

330

with for the time being and p arbitrary functions of the space-time coordinates. Note that u is the covariant derivative along the integral curves of u , the object we denoted D/D in section 4.6. Acting on scalars we will simply denote it, as usual, by an overdot, i.e. u (18.41) etc. Let us now see what the conditon T = 0 (which has to hold if this energymomentum tensor is to give us a solution to the Einstein equations) tells us. 1. We rst consider the case p = 0, so this corresponds to a pressure free perfect uid (and is used in cosmology to e.g. model cold dark or baryonic matter). Then one has T = u u T = ( + u )u + u u . (18.42)

Here u is (and measures) the expansion of the velocity eld u (and was introduced previously, in the context of the Raychaudhuri equation, in (8.59)), and the last term u u a is its acceleration (4.66), so that we can also write this equation as ( + )u + a = 0 . (18.43) Since u and a are orthogonal to each other, u u = 1 u a = 0 , (18.44)

this equation breaks up into two independent pieces, T = 0 + = 0 and a = u u = 0 . (18.45)

Its time (energy ow) component is a continuity equation, while its space (momentum ow) part tells us that the particles have to move on geodesics. 2. Now what happens if we include pressure p? This corresponds to adding p(g + u u ) ph . But this tensor is orthogonal to u (cf. again the discussion in section 8.4 on the Raychaudhuri equation), u h u (g + u u ) = u u = 0 . Therefore the equation T = 0, with T = ( + ( + p))u + ( + p)a + ( p)h (18.47) tells us again breaks up nicely into two orthogonal pieces. The part tangent to u that + ( + p) = 0 , (18.48) T = ( + p)u u + pg 331 (18.46)

and the part orthogonal to u gives ( + p)a + ( p)h = 0 . (18.49)

In particular, now the velocity eld is not composed of geodesics unless the derivative of p in the directions orthogonal to u (i.e. the spatial derivative) is zero, h p = 0. But this is precisely the situation we are considering in cosmology, where = (t) and p = p(t) depend only on t, which is the proper time of the comoving observers described by the velocity eld u . Returning thus to the cosmological setting, where we have (correctly, and uniquely as we now know) chosen the matter to move along geodesics, we are left with the continuity equation (18.48), which is now the same as (18.39) because for u = (1, 0, 0, 0) in comoving coordinates one has 1 = u = ( gu ) = a(t)3 t (a(t)3 ) = 3a(t)/a(t) . g We now look at the solutions of (18.39) for some specic equations of state. 1. For instance, when the pressure of the cosmic matter is negligible, like in the universe today, and we can treat the galaxies (without disrespect) as dust, then one has a = 3 , (18.51) a and this equation can trivially be integrated to (t)a(t)3 = const. (18.52) (18.50)

2. On the other hand, if the universe is dominated by, say, radiation, then one has the equation of state p = /3, and the conservation equation reduces to a = 4 , a and therefore (t)a(t)4 = const. (18.54) The reason why the energy density of photons decreases faster with a(t) than that of dust is of course . . . the red-shift. 3. More generally, for matter with equation of state parameter w one nds (t)a(t)3(1+w) = const. (18.55) (18.53)

4. In particular, for w = 1, is constant and corresponds, as we will see more explicitly below, to a cosmological constant . This can also be deduced by comparing the covariant form (18.24) of the energy-momentum tensor with the contribution of a cosmological constant to the Einstein equations, which is proportional to g . By (18.24) this implies p = . 332

18.4

The Einstein and Friedmann Equations

After these preliminaries, we are now prepared to tackle the Einstein equations. We allow for the presence of a cosmological constant and thus consider the equations G + g = 8GN T . It will be convenient to rewrite these equations in the form R = 8GN (T 1 g T ) + g . 2 (18.57) (18.56)

Because of isotropy, there are only two independent equations, namely the 00-component and any one of the non-zero ij-components. Using (18.4), we nd a a a2 k a +2 2 +2 2 a a a 3 = 4GN ( + 3p) = 4GN ( p) + . (18.58)

We supplement this by the conservation equation = 3( + p) a . a (18.59)

Using the rst equation to eliminate a from the second, one obtains the set of equations

(F 1) (F 2) (F 3)

a2 a2

k + a2 = 8GN + 3 3 a 3 a = 4GN ( + 3p) a = 3( + p) a

(18.60)

Together, these are known as the Friedmann equations. They govern every aspect of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology. From now on I will simply refer to them as equations (F1), (F2), (F3) respectively. In terms of the Hubble parameter H(t) and the deceleration parameter q(t), these equations can also be written as (F 1 ) (F 2 ) (F 3 )
k H 2 = 8GN a2 + 3 3 1 q = 3H 2 [4GN ( + 3p) ] d 3 3 dt (a ) = 3Hpa .

Note that because of the Bianchi identities, the Einstein equations and the conservation equations should not be independent, and indeed they are not. It is easy to see that (F1) and (F3) imply the second order equation (F2) so that, a pleasant simplication, in practice one only has to deal with the two rst order equations (F1) and (F3). Sometimes, however, (F2) is easier to solve than (F1), because it is linear in a(t), and then (F1) is just used to x one constant of integration. 333

It is also equally to see that (F1) and (F2) imply (F3), i.e. that the gravity equations of motion imply the matter equations of motion, a general and fundamental feature of general relativity. Finally, formally (F2) and (F3) also imply (F1), with k (which only appears in (F1)) arising as an integration constant.

334

19

Cosmology III: Qualitative Analysis

A lot can be deduced about the solutions of the Friedmann equations, i.e. the evolution of the universe in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmologies, without solving the equations directly and even without specifying a precise equation of state, i.e. a relation between p and . In the following we will, in turn, discuss the Big Bang, the age of the universe, and its long term behaviour, from this qualitative point of view. I will then introduce the notions of critical density and density parameters, and discuss the structure of the universe, as we understand it today, in these terms. 19.1 The Big Bang

One amazing thing about the FRW models is that all of them (provided that the matter content is reasonably physical) predict an initial singularity, commonly known as a Big Bang. This is very easy to see. (F2) shows that, as long as the right-hand side is positive, one has q > 0, i.e. a < 0 so that the universe is decelerating due to gravitational attraction. This is for instance the case when there is no cosmological constant and + 3p is positive (and this is the case for all physical matter). It is also true for a negative cosmological constant (its negative energy density being outweighed by 3 times its positive pressure). It need not be true, however, in the presence of a positive cosmological constant which provides an accelerating contribution to the expansion of the universe. We will, for the time being, continue with the assumption that is zero or, at least, non-positive, even though, as we will discuss later, recent evidence (strongly) suggests the presence of a non-negligible positive cosmological constant in our universe today. Since a > 0 by denition, a(t0 ) > 0 because we observe a red-shift, and a < 0 because + 3p > 0, it follows that there cannot have been a turning point in the past and a(t) must be concave downwards. Therefore a(t) must have reached a = 0 at some nite time in the past. We will call this time t = 0, a(0) = 0. As a4 is constant for radiation (an appropriate description of earlier periods of the universe), this shows that the energy density grows like 1/a4 as a 0 so this leads to quite a singular situation. Once again, as in our discussion of black holes, it is natural to wonder at this point if the singularities predicted by General Relativity in the case of cosmological models are generic or only artefacts of the highly symmetric situations we were considering. And again there are singularity theorems applicable to these situations which state that, under reasonable assumptions about the matter content, singularities will occur independently of assumptions about symmetries.

335

19.2

The Age of the Universe

With the normalisation a(0) = 0, it is fair to call t0 the age of the universe. If a had been zero in the past for all t t0 , then we would have a = 0 a(t) = a0 t/t0 , and a(t) = a0 /t0 = a0 . This would determine the age of the universe to be t0 = a0 1 = H0 , a0 (19.3) (19.2) (19.1)

1 where H0 is the Hubble time. However, provided that a < 0 for t t0 (as discussed above, this holds under suitable conditions on the matter content - which may or may not be realised in our universe), the actual age of the universe must be smaller than this, 1 a < 0 t0 < H 0 . (19.4)

Thus the Hubble time sets an upper bound on the age of the universe. See Figure 22 for an illustration of this. 19.3 Long Term Behaviour

Let us now try to take a look into the future of the universe. Again we will see that it is remarkably simple to extract relevant information from the Friedmann equations without ever having to solve an equation. We will assume that = 0 and that we are dealing with physical matter with w > 1/3. The Friedmann equation (F1) can be written as a2 = 8GN 2 a k . 3 (19.5)

The left-hand side is manifestly non-negative. Let us see what this tells us about the right-hand side. Focus on the rst term a2 . This term is strictly positive and, according to (18.55), behaves as a2 a3(1+w)+2 = a(1+3w) . (19.6)

Thus for physical matter the exponent is negative, so that if and when the cosmic scale factor a(t) goes to innity, one has
a

lim a2 = 0 .

(19.7)

336

a(t)

k=-1

k=0

k=+1

t=0 -1 H0

t0

Figure 22: Qualitative behaviour of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models for = 0. All models start with a Big Bang. For k = +1 the universe reaches a maximum radius and recollapses after a nite time. For k = 0, the universe keeps expanding but the expansion velocity tends to zero for t or a . For k = 1, the expansion velocity approaches a non-zero constant value. Also shown is the signicance of the 1 Hubble time for the k = +1 universe showing clearly that H0 gives an upper bound on the age of the universe. Now let us look at the second term on the right-hand side of (19.5), and analyse the 3 choices for k. For k = 1 or k = 0, the right hand side of (19.5) is strictly positive. Therefore a is never zero and since a0 > 0, we must have a(t) > 0 t . (19.8)

Thus we can immediately conclude that open and at universes must expand forever, i.e. they are open in space and time. By taking into account (19.7), we can even be somewhat more precise about the long term behaviour. For k = 0, we learn that k=0:
a

lim a2 = 0 .

(19.9)

Thus the universe keeps expanding but more and more slowly as time goes on. By the same reasoning we see that for k = 1 we have k = 1 :
a

lim a2 = 1 .

(19.10)

Thus the universe keeps expanding, reaching a constant limiting velocity. For k = +1, validity of (19.7) would lead us to conclude that a2 1, but this is obviously a contradiction. Therefore we learn that the k = +1 universes never reach 337

a and that there is therefore a maximal radius amax . This maximal radius occurs for a = 0 and therefore 3 k = +1 : a2 = . (19.11) max 8GN Note that intuitively this makes sense. For larger or larger GN the gravitational attraction is stronger, and therefore the maximal radius of the universe will be smaller. Since we have a < 0 also at amax , again there is no turning point and the universe recontracts back to zero size leading to a Big Crunch. Therefore, spatially closed universes (k = +1) with physical matter are also closed in time. All of these ndings are summarised in Figure 22. If the cosmological constant is not zero, this correspondence (open/closed) in space (open/closed) in time is no longer necessarily true. 19.4 Density Parameters and the Critical Density

The primary purpose of this section is to introduce some convenient and commonly used notation and terminology in cosmology associated with the Friedmann equation (F1). We will now include the cosmological constant in our analysis. For starters, however, let us again consider the case = 0. (F1) can be written as 8GN k 1= 2 2 . 2 3H a H If one denes the critical density cr by cr = and the density parameter by = then (F1) becomes 1= k a2 H 2 (19.15) 3H 2 , 8GN , cr (19.13) (19.12)

(19.14)

Thus the sign of k is determined by whether the actual energy density in the universe is greater than, equal to, or less than the critical density, < cr k = 1 open = cr k = 0 at > cr k = +1 closed Note that, in particular, cr = 0 at a turning point (maximal radius, H = 0), and correspondingly there. This can be generalised to several species of (not mutually interacting) matter, characterised by equation of state parameters wb , subject to the condition wb > 0 or 338

wb > 1/3, with density parameters b = The total matter contribution M is then M =
b

b . cr

(19.16)

b .

(19.17)

Along the same lines we can also include the cosmological constant . Inspection of the Friedmann equations reveals that the presence of a cosmological constant is equivalent to adding matter ( , p ) with = p = 8GN w = 1 . (19.18)

Note that this identication is consistent with the conservation law (F3), since is constant. Note also that we could have alternatively read this o directly from the Einstein equations with a cosmological constant (9.38), G + g = 8GN T G = 8GN (T (/8GN )g ) T = g 8GN = p . T00 = 8GN

(19.19)

Then the Friedmann equation (F1) with a cosmological constant can be written as (F 1 ) where = M + = 1 + = . cr 3H 2 k , a2 H 2 (19.20)

(19.21)

The 2nd order equation (F2) can also be written in terms of the density parameters, q=
1 2 b

(1 + 3wb )b .

(19.22)

Finally, one can also formally attribute an energy density k and pressure pk to the curvature contribution k in the Friedmann equations. (F1), which does not depend on p, determines k , and then (F2), which does not depend on k, shows that wk = 1/3 (so that k + 3pk = 0). Thus the curvature contribution can be described as k k = 3pk = 3k 8GN a2 wk = 1/3 , (19.23)

with associated density parameter k . (F3) is identically satised in this case (or, if you prefer, requires that k is constant).

339

The Friedmann equation (F1) can now succinctly (if somewhat obscurely) be written as the condition that the sum of all density parameters be equal to 1, (F 1 ) M + + k = 1 . (19.24)

Clearly, it is thus of upmost importance to determine the various contributions a and to the matter density of the universe (and to determine cr e.g. by measurements of Hubbles constant). 19.5 The different Eras

In order to make the dependence of the Friedmann equation (F1) or (19.24) on the equation of state parameters wb and on a(t) more manifest, it is useful to use the conservation law (18.55,19.6) to write 8GN b (t)a(t)2 = Cb a(t)(1+3wb ) 3 b a(t)2 = Cb a(t)(1+3wb ) (19.25)

for some constant Cb . Then the Friedmann equation takes the more explicit (in the sense that all the dependence on the cosmic scale factor a(t) is explicit) form a2 =
b

Cb a(1+3wb ) k +

2 a . 3

(19.26)

In addition to the vacuum energy (and pressure) provided by , there are typically two other kinds of matter which are relevant in our approximation, namely matter in the form of dust (w = 0) and radiation (w = 1/3). Denoting the corresponding constants by Cm and Cr respectively, the Friedmann equation that we will be dealing with takes the form Cm Cr (F 1 ) a2 = + 2 k + a2 , (19.27) a a 3 illustrating the qualitatively dierent conntributions to the time-evolution. One can then characterise the dierent eras in the evolution of the universe by which of the above terms dominates, i.e. gives the leading contribution to the equation of motion for a. This already gives some insight into the physics of the situation. We will call a universe 1. matter dominated if Cm /a dominates 2. radiation dominated if Cr /a2 dominates 3. curvature dominated if k dominates 4. cosmological constant dominated if a2 dominates Here are some immediate consequences of the Friedmann equation (F1): 340

1. No matter how small Cr is, provided that it is non-zero, for suciently small values of a that term will dominate and one is in the radiation dominated era. In that case, one nds the characteristic behaviour a2 = Cr a2 a(t) = (4Cr )1/4 t1/2 . (19.28)

It is more informative to trade the constant Cr for the condition a(t0 ) = a0 , which leads to a(t) = a0 (t/t0 )1/2 . (19.29) 2. On the other hand, if Cm dominates, one has the characteristic behaviour a2 = or a(t) = a0 (t/t0 )2/3 3. For general equation of state parameter w = 1, one similarly has a(t) = a0 (t/t0 )h ; h= 2 . 3(1 + w) (19.32) (19.31) Cm a(t) = (9Cm /4)1/3 t2/3 a (19.30)

This describes a decelerating universe (h(h 1) < 0 0 < h < 1) for w > 1/3 and an accelerating universe (h > 1) for 1 < w < 1/3. 4. For suciently large a, the cosmological constant , if not identically zero, will always dominate, no matter how small the cosmological constant may be, as all the other energy-content of the universe gets more and more diluted. In particular, for k = 0, the Friedmann equation for a positive cosmological constant reduces to a2 = (/3)a2 a(t) = a(t0 )e /3(t t0 ) . (19.33)

5. Only for = 0 does k dominate for large a and one obtains, as we saw before, a constant expansion velocity (for k = 0, 1). 6. We will nd and discuss various other exact solutions in section 20. 19.6 The Universe Today: the -CDM Model

For a long time it was believed that the only non-negligible contribution to (t) today, let us call this 0 = (t0 ), is pressureless matter, p0 = 0. If there is only such matter, then by (F2) one has 3 a = 4GN a q= aa 1 = a2 2 c (19.34)

341

(this also follows on the nose from (F2) in the version (19.22)). Thus for the universe today this would imply 0 1 q0 = (19.35) = 2 M . 2cr,0 and thus the curvature parameter k would be directly related to the value q0 of the deceleration parameter today: q0 > 1/2 q0 < 1/2 0 > cr 0 < cr k = +1 k = 1 (19.36)

Moreover, observations indicated a value of 0 much smaller than cr , thus suggesting a decelerating open k = 1 universe. While perhaps not the most hospitable place in the long run, at least this scenario had the virtue of simplicity. However, exciting recent developments and observations in astronomy and astrophysics have provided strong evidence for a very dierent picture of the universe today. I will just the summarise the results here: 1. Estimates for the current matter contribution M = (M )0 0.3 .
b b

are (19.37)

2. Ordinary (visible, baryonic) matter only accounts for a small fraction of this, namely (M,visible)0 0.04 . (19.38) Most of the matter density of the universe must therefore be due to some form of (as yet ill-understood, non-relativistic, weakly intereacting) Dark Matter. 3. Independent observations from so-called Supernovae (as standard candles) and the study of the ne structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background both suggest that the universe is spatially at, k = 0, and that the missing energy-density is due to (something that behaves very much like) a positive cosmological constant (Dark Energy), ( )0 0.7 (M )0 + ( )0 = 1 . (19.39) 4. In particular, the cosmological constant is positive, leading to the conclusion that the universe is currently accelerating in its expansion rather than slowing down.45
For excellent recent introductions to cosmology which explain the signicance of these reults, how they were obtained and much more, see e.g. by M. Trodden and S. Carroll, TASI Lectures: Introduction to Cosmology, arXiv:astro-ph/0401547, and J. Frieman, M. Turner, D. Huterer, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe, arXiv:0803.0982v1 [astro-ph].
45

342

19.7

Flatness, Horizon & Cosmological Constant Problems

This currently favoured -CDM scenario with (M )0 = 0.3, ( )0 = 0.7 and k = 0 has been tested and conrmed in various independent ways. Nevertheless, it is a mystery and raises all kinds of questions and puzzles, in particular because the emergence of this particular universe appears to be somewhat unnatural (although it is may perhaps be dicult to quantify this sentiment) and to require an incredible amount of ne-tuning. I will not say anything about the dark matter component, since an explanation presumably needs to be found in the realm of particle physics (every model of physics beyond the standard model worth its salt has its own dark matter candidates), and since the story is in any case suciently strange and interesting even without worrying about, or having to put up with, things like WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles), or MACHOS (massive compact halo objects), or binos, winos and other neutralinos. Here, in a nutshell, are some of these problems (and for more in-depth and far-reaching discussions of these issues please consult the extensive literature on cosmology). The rst two are independent of the recent discovery of dark energy, and appear to require some ne-tuning or other mechanism to intervene in the very early universe. The third, on the other hand, has to do with dark energy / the cosmological constant today, and with the relatively recent period of accelerated expansion of the universe. I should stress that, while I generally make an attempt in these notes to present just the (well-established) facts, this is not entirely possible in this section, since there is no general consensus on how to resolve these issues (in particular those arising in connection with dark energy). As a consequence, this section contains not just facts but certainly also some opinions (whereas there was no point in sharing with you my opinion about the Riemann curvature tensor, say - I dont even have one). 1. The Flatness Problem The atness problem is the problem that a universe with a value of the density parameter 1 today appears to be unnatural. To see what the issue is, rewrite the Friedmann equation as H2 = 8GN ka2 3 (cr )a2 = 3k , 8GN (19.40)

the point of rewriting it in this way being that what now appears on the right-hand side is a constant. In terms of the desnity parameter we have (1 1)a2 = 3k . 8GN (19.41)

Since the right-hand side is a constant, the product of the two terms on the lefthand side is a constant. However, as we have already seen (and used) in section 19.3, for ordinary matter (w > 1/3) the factor a2 decreases (enormously) as the 343

universe expands. This has to be (and will be, by the above equation) compensated and accompanied by a huge increase in the rst factor. Thus to have ()0 1 today (whether to within a few percent, as observations suggest, or even give or take a couple of orders of magnitude) appears to require 1 with a huge accuracy at some given time in the early universe. The fact that was very close to 1 in the past is not in itself a ne-tuning issue (after all, this behaviour is implied by the Friedmann equations, no matter what the size of today), but it may become or look like one if one species a particular (earliest) time in the past. Concretely, if one e.g. assumes that the relevant early time is at the Planck scale, tp 1043 s, and that the age of the universe is (only orders of magnitude will be relevant for this argument) t0 1017 s, and if one assumes that matter consists of dust and radiation, radiation dominating at early times, so that r (t)a(t)2 a(t)2 t1 , then one nds that (1 1)t=t0 102 (1 1)t=tp 1062 . (19.43) (19.42)

In particular, any minuscule deviation from this tiny value at t = tp , i.e. a minuscule dierence between the actual and the critical density of the universe at that time, would have led to a universe completely incompatible with obervations. The universe would have most likely either recollapsed after a very short time ( ), or expanded so quickly as to prevent the formation of any structure in the universe ( 0). In fact, = 0 and = are the only attractors (attractive xed points) of the theory in the terminology of dynamical systems, while = 1 is a repeller (unstable xed point). What is one supposed to make of this? No explanation for this can be found in the standard model of cosmology we have been discussing here. Occasionally, therefore, weakly anthropic arguments of the kind if had not been ne-tuned to this value by some (unknown) mechanism/deity, we couldnt be here in the rst place to ask the question why takes the value it does today have been advocated. While this cannot be ruled out (this is the whole problem with this entire anthropic reasoning business), there is actually a mechanism which naturally leads to the required tiny value of 1 at early times, namely ination.46 As this mechanism
For introductions to ination, see e.g. D. Baumann, TASI Lectures on Ination, arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th], S. Tsujukawa, Introductory review of cosmic ination, arXiv:hep-ph/0304257, A. Liddle, An introduction to cosmological ination, arXiv:astro-ph/9901124, A. Linde, Inationary Cosmology, arXiv:0705.0164v2 [hep-th], R. Brandenberger, Inationary Cosmology: Progress and Problems, arXiv:hep-ph/9910410.
46

344

is also invoked to solve other problems of the standard model of cosmology (such as the horizon problem, see below) which are (a) more serious and (b) not obviously of anthropic signicance, one should perhaps rather consider the anthropophile value of 0 as an unintentional (but serendipitous) side-eect of ination. What ination does is to postulate, for a number of reasons, a brief but highly signicant period of exponential expansion in the very early universe, as could be triggered by the presence of a cosmological constant (19.33), H 2 = (/3) a(t) e Ht . (19.44)

or more precisely by something that acts like a cosmological constant during a certain period, e.g. an almost constant scalar eld (18.31). During such a period of exponential expansion, the factor a2 grown enormously, and correspondingly 1 1 can be driven arbitrarily close to zero. When, after the end of ination, the universe resumes its normal (radiation-dominated, say) decelerating expansion, the initial value of 1 1 for this phase can easily be small enough to account for 1 to within a few percent today. 2. The Horizon Problem The key issue here is the high degree of isotropy of the universe that we observe, in particular as manifested in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR, see the references in section 17.7), which is isotropic to better than one part in 104 . This is a puzzle because, as we will see below, according to the standard model of cosmology, the dierent regions of the spatial surface at t = tls (the time of last scattering) from which the CMBR photons that we observe today originated were not ever in causal contact since the beginning of the universe. Thus standard causal microphysics provides no explanation for why these dierent regions were so precisely at the same temperature. To quantify this somewhat, note that the maximal spatial coordinate distance photons could have travelled between the big bang at t = 0 and t = tls is (setting k = 0 for simplicity, the k-dependence is insignicant for this argument) dt2 = a(t)2 dr 2
tls

r(tls ) =
0

dt . a(t)

(19.45)

Converting this to proper distance at time t = tls , one obtains the quantity
tls

dH (tls ) = a(tls )
0

dt , a(t)

(19.46)

and for a radiation-dominated universe with a(t) t1/2 one nds dH (tls ) = tls
1/2 0 tls

dt t1/2 = 2tls .

(19.47)

345

The subscript H on dH stands for horizon; more precisely what occurs here is what is known as a cosmological particle horizon. Its signicance is that the past light cone of events that are further than 2dH (tls ) apart on the surface t = tls do not interesect, so that they are so far apart that they were never before in causal contact. In particular, in the present context, this means that no causal interaction can be responsible for the temperature being the same at the two events. Note, by the way, that the properties of this cosmological particle horizon, as well as of the dual comsological event horizon (delineating how much of the universe one can see at the end of the universe) are naturally described in terms of the conformal time = dt/a(t) introduced in (17.25). This is principally due to the fact that the causal (lightcone) structure can easily be read o from the metric (17.27). In particular, for k = 0 this is just conformal to Minkowski space, ds2 = a()2 (d 2 + dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) . (19.48)

These notions of horizons (and the related notion of the Hubble sphere, dened as the sphere beyond which the recessional velocity (17.17) exceeds the speed of light) play an important role in cosmology.47 To return to the CMBR story, in the (matter dominated) meantime (i.e. between tls and t0 , today) the size of such a causal patch of size dH (tls ) on the last scattering surface has expanded to proper size a(t0 ) 2/3 1/3 dH (tls ) (t0 /tls )2/3 tls = t0 tls . a(tls ) (19.49)

On the other hand, the distance over which the CMBR photons could have travelled since t = tls is
t0

a(t0 )
tls

dt 2/3 1/3 1/3 = 3t0 (t0 tls ) t0 , a(t)

(19.50)

where we have dropped the last term since t0 1010 years while tls 105 years (once again all numbers here and below are just meant to be order of magnitude estimates). Thus the region of the last scattering surface from which we receive the CMBR photons today is much larger than a causal patch, their ratio being (one can of course calculate this either at t = tls or at t = t0 , here we have chosen the latter option) 2/3 1/3 t0 /(t0 tls ) = (t0 /tls )1/3 105/3 . (19.51) What this means is that the sky splits into roughly 41010/3 104 disconnected patches, that were never in communication before sending light to us. In view
But confusions and misconceptions abound; see T. Davis, C. Lineweaver, Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe, arXiv:astro-ph/0310808, and P. van Oirschot, J. Kwan, G. Lewis, Through the Looking Glass: Why the Cosmic Horizon is not a horizon, arXiv:1001.4795 [astro-ph.CO] for illuminating discussions.
47

346

of this the observed isotropy of the CMBR is not only astounding but utterly implausible. However, we should not lay the blame on the CMBR but rather conclude that this makes the standard cosmological model implausible. Again, ination solves this in an extremely natural way. Ination operates at a time ti tls (perhaps between 1036 s and 1032 s after the big bang) and it can easily inate a tiny causally connected patch at that time t = ti to such a size that at time t = tls it is (more than) large enough to explain the isotropy of the CMBR. However, in order for ination to be considered a natural solution to the above problems (and others I have not mentioned - see the literature cited above), one needs to be able to show that ination arises fairly naturally and does not itself require a comparably huge amount of ne-tuning in order to resolve these problems. This is a complicated and intensely debated issue, and one I dont feel suciently competent and knowledgeable about to have an informed opinion, let alone utter an opinion in public. It will perhaps only be settled once one has a better understanding of the physics in the very early, pre-inationary, era that is supposed to be responsible for setting the initial conditions for ination. 3. The Cosmological Constant Problem This is a complex, confusing and multi-faceted problem that has been around for a long time, and I will not remotely be able to do justice to it here.48 It has been sharpened and brought to the forefront again by the discovery of dark energy. The interpretation of a cosmological constant as a vacuum-energy contribution to the matter-content of the universe would make it natural to imagine that contributions to the cosmological constant can arise from many quantum eld theory processes such as phase-transitions etc. Now in eld theory in a xed background, only energy-dierences matter, not absolute energies, but the inclusion of gravity changes this. Natural estimates for a cosmological constant produced in this way are many many orders of magnitude above what was compatible with observation, or the very existence of our universe, and it seemed natural to seek some mechanism that would simply make the cosmological constant identically zero. Nowadays, with the strong evidence for dark energy, this question/problem has morphed into at least 3 distinct questions, namely (a) Why is not huge?
For recent reviews see e.g. S. Carroll, The Cosmological Constant, Living Rev. Relativity 4 (2001) 1, http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-1; J. Polchinski, The Cosmological Constant and the String Landscape, arXiv:hep-th/0603249; T. Padmanabhan, Cosmological Constant - the Weight of the Vacuum, arXiv:hep-th/0212290; R. Bousso, TASI Lectures on the Cosmological Constant, arXiv:0708.4231 [hep-th].
48

347

This is the same problem as before, and is essentially the question why the vacuum does not gravitate (Polchinski; see his article for a very illuminating discussion of this issue). The whole thing may indicate some fundamental lack of (or perhaps mis-) understanding about how gravity couples to quantum elds.49 (b) Why is not zero, and why does it have the value (103 eV)4 ? It is not clear at all what kind of mechanism would produce an eect of such a size, but again anthropic reasoning (shudder!) can be invoked to argue that the above is a plausible value for the cosmological constant. It would be desirable to nd alternative explanations.

(c) Why is (constant in time) of the same order of magnitude as M (today)? This is weird, and one version of what is known as the Coincidence Problem in cosmology (another way of saying this is that two a priori completely dierent and unrelated time-scales, namely on the one hand the age of the universe, set approximately by the Hubble scale (H0 )1 , and on the other hand the scale 1/2 set by the cosmological constant / dark energy today, are approximately equal). To see why this is peculiar, note that is constant while M a3 so that the ratio of the two behaves as (t) a(t)3 . M (t) (19.52)

It is therefore, one might reason, extremely unlikely to nd oneself at a time when the two happen to be comparable in size, but nevertheless this is precisely the time we nd ourselves at. Now unlikely things happen all the time, so this may really just be a coincidence, but maybe it is not, and maybe, therefore, the if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . . argument fails and dark energy is not a cosmological constant.50 It is not clear if a fundamental physics (non-multiverse, non-anthropic) explanation for dark energy can be found that is capable of resolving all 3 of the cosmological constant problems at once, but perhaps one should at least be humble and continue to entertain the possibility, alluded to above, that this issue is telling us that we are missing something fundamental about the coupling of gravity and quantum elds.51
See S. Hollands, R. Wald, Quantum Field Theory Is Not Merely Quantum Mechanics Applied to Low Energy Eective Degrees of Freedom, arXiv:gr-qc/0405082 for some reections on this issue. 50 However, after writing this I became aware of the following quotation which, in the interest of a balanced presentation, I will not withhold: Why obfuscate? If a poet sees something that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, we will forgive him for entertaining more fanciful possibilities, It could be a unicorn in a duck suit - whos to say! But we know that more likely, its a duck. R. Bousso, TASI Lectures on the Cosmological Constant, arXiv:0708.4231 [hep-th]. 51 This is not to say that there is not a strong case to be made for what appears to be an extreme
49

348

20

Cosmology IV: Some Exact Solutions

We have seen that a lot can be learnt about the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models without ever having to solve a dierential equation. On the other hand, more precise information can be obtained by specifying an equation of state for the matter content and solving explicitly the Friedmann equations. We have already seen some special exact solutions (k = = 0 and only one species of matter) in section 19.5. Solutions with k = 0 but = 0 are also easy to obtain. Together with the exact solutions for just k = 0 and = 0, but with no other matter, these are the most useful solutions in practice, but it is also possible to solve the equations explicitly in some other cases.52 20.1 The Milne Universe

Let us start our excursion into exact solutions by looking at the totally unphysical case of a completely empty universe, i.e. = p = = 0, and only k possibly not zero. As trivial as this may be, it has its pedagogical value, which is why I am including this case here. In this case (F1) reduces to a2 + k = 0 k0 . (20.1)

For k = 0, one has a = 0 and thus a(t) = a0 , and the metric is ds2 = dt2 + a2 dx2 . 0 (20.2)

It should not come as a suprise that the metric we have found is just that of Minkowski space (the constant a0 can be absorbed into a rescaling of the spatial coordinates). The case k = 1 is a bit more interesting. In that case the equation to solve is (I will call the time-coordinate instead of t for reasons that will perhaps become apparent below) a2 = +1 a( ) = ( 0 ) . (20.3) and the resulting space-time metric is (choosing without loss of generakity 0 = 0) 3 ds2 = d 2 + 2 d2 where d2 is the line-element on the unit 3-hyperboloid (16.35). 3
ne-tuning of other (standard model) parameters to support everything from primordial nucleosynthesis to chemistry - see e.g. L. Barnes, The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life, arXiv:1112.4647 [physics.hist-ph] for a recent assessment of the situation. 52 For explicit solutions of the Friedmann equations for = 0 and non-trivial matter content (generalising the solution (20.55)) see e.g. B. Aldrovandi, R. Cuzinatto, L. Medeiros, Analytic solutions for the -FRW Model, arXiv:gr-qc/0508073.

(20.4)

349

This appears to describe a non-trivial universe (known as the Milne universe) with either (for a( ) = + ) a big bang at = 0 and with the universe subsequently expanding linearly with > 0, or (for a( ) = ) with a linearly contracting universe for < 0, ending in a big crunch at = 0, and all this in spite of the fact that the universe is empty. This is deceptive, however (not that it is empty, but that it is non-trivial). As always, we need to be careful to disentangle coordinate artefacts from genuine geometrical statements. Indeed, this space-time is again nothing other than (a part of) Minkowski space-time. To see this, start with the Minkowski metric ds2 = dt2 + dx2 (20.5)

and introduce coordinates that are adapted to the family of space-like hyperboloids t 2 x2 = 2 > 0 . (20.6)

For t > 0 these hyperboloids ll (foliate) the interior of the future lightcone at the origin (and the interior of the past lightcone for t < 0), and if you draw these hyperboloids you can perceive what appears to be a non-trivial dynamical evolution of these surfaces. To show that this fake dynamics is precisely the dynamics exhibited by the Milne metric, introduce new coordinates (, , angles) via t = cosh where n is a unit vector on S 2 , so that n.n = 1 , n.dn = 0 , dn.dn = d2 . 2 (20.8) , x = n sinh (20.7)

Then the Minkowski metric becomes precisely the Milne metric (20.4), ds2 = d 2 + 2 d2 + 2 sinh2 d2 . 2
Remarks:

(20.9)

1. These coordinates only cover a part of Minkowski space-time, namely the interior of the future (and past) lightcone of the origin. 2. They are, as may have occurred to you by now, the future and past relatives of the Rindler coordinates discussed (way back) in section 1.3 (and then again in the context of the near-horizon geometry of the Schwarzschild metric in section 13.5), which can be used to cover the left and right Rindler wedges of the Minkowski space-time. In the present 3+1 (rather than 1+1) dimensional setting, one can introduce Rindler-like coordinates (, , angles) adapted to the timelike hyperboloids x2 t 2 = 2 350 (20.10)

via t = sinh , x = n cosh . (20.11) In terms of these the Minkowski metric takes the familiar Rindler-like form ds2 = 2 d 2 + d2 + 2 cosh2 d2 = d2 + 2 (d 2 + cosh2 d2 ) 2 2 (20.12)

The metric in brackets will reappear below, in the guise of the (2+1)-dimensional de Sitter metric. 3. Thus, we see that we can foliate Minkowski space in dierent ways: in the standard intertial coordinates, slices of constant Minkowski time t are Euclidean spaces R3 , and slices of constant x3 , say, are Minkowski spaces R1,2 ; in terms of Minkowski time and spatial spherical coordinates, ds2 = dt2 + dr 2 + r 2 d2 2 (20.13)

slices of constant r are of the form S 2 R (and we will recognise these below, in more fancy terminology, as (2+1)-dimensional versions of the Einstein static universe); in Milne coordinates, slices of constant are hyperboloids H 3 ; in the Rindler-like coordinates (20.12), slices of constant are are de Sitter spaces dS3 . 4. The singularity of the Milne metric is of course just a coordinate singularity, but with some discrete identications on the hyperboloid this becomes an honest conical singularity at = 0. This is a nice (and much studied) toy-model of a big bang (everywhere at except at = 0). 20.2 The Einstein Static Universe

This particular solution is mainly of historical interest. Before the discovery and understanding of the Hubble expansion of the universe, it was natural to assume that the universe can be described by a static solution compatible with the cosmological principle (homogeneity and isotropy). This led Einstein to introduce the (in-)famous cosmological constant. Let us see how this comes about. Static means that a(t) = 0, a(t) = a0 . Thus (F3) implies (F3) (F2) then tells us that (F2) 4GN ( + 3p) = . 351 (20.15) =0 . (20.14)

In particular, this implies that also p = 0, and for a standard matter content of the universe, say = m + r , this moreover requires that > 0, 4GN ( + 3p) = p=0 , >0 . (20.16)

Finally, the rst Friedmann equation (F1) now becomes an algebraic equation for a(t) = a0 , namely 8GN k = + = 4GN ( + p) (F1) 2 a 3 3 (20.17) 1 2 k = +1 and a0 = (4GN ( + p)) . This is thus a static solution of the Friedmann equations, ds2 = dt2 + a2 d2 , 0 3 the Einstein Static Universe.
Remarks:

(20.18)

1. The topology of the solution is R S 3 , the radius a0 of the S 3 being smaller for larger energy and pressure density (bigger gravitational attraction) and vice-versa. 2. In this solution, the gravitational attraction is precisely balanced by the positive cosmological constant. Note that even though a positive cosmological constant has a positive energy density > 0, it has a negative pressure, and the net eect of a positive cosmological constant in (F2) is that of gravitational repulsion rather than attraction, + 3p = 2 < 0 . (20.19) 3. The precise balance between matter and cosmological constant required by this solution also implies that it is unstable to perturbations of either or , p: a slight increase in relative to + p, no matter how small, will make the universe expand, and a slight decrease will make it collapse. This alone is enough to make this particular solution unphysical and shows that, even with inclusion of a cosmological constant, an expanding or collapsing universe is practically inevitable, thus undermining the original motivation for introducing the cosmological constant in the rst place. 20.3 The Matter Dominated Era

We now return to somewhat more realistic solutions of the Friedmann equations. In a matter dominated era (but retaining the curvature term) we have to solve the equation a2 = Cm k . a (20.20)

We will now look in turn at the cases k = 0, +1, 1. 352

1. For k = 0, this is the equation we already discussed above, leading to the solution (19.31), a(t) = a0 (t/t0 )2/3 (20.21) This solution is also known as the Einstein - de Sitter universe. It describes a universe expanding from an initial singularity at t = 0. Another solution, arising from taking the negative square root of the Friedmann equation a2 = Cm /a, a1/2 a = (Cm )1/2 a(t) = a0 (tf t)2/3 /(tf t0 )2/3 , (20.22)

describes a universe collapsing to a big crunch at t = tf . 2. For k = +1, the equation is Cm 1 . (20.23) a We recall that in this case we will have a recollapsing universe, with amax = Cm attained for a = 0, a = 0 a = amax = Cm . (20.24) a2 = The equation (20.23) can be solved in closed form for t as a function of a, and the solution to a dt =( )1/2 (20.25) da amax a is amax arccos(1 2a/amax ) aamax a2 , t(a) = (20.26) 2 as can easily be veried. The universe starts at t = 0 with a(0) = 0, reaches its maximum a = amax at tmax = amax arccos(1)/2 = amax /2 , and ends in a Big Crunch at t = 2tmax . The curve a(t) is a cycloid, as is most readily seen by writing the solution in parametrised form. For this it is convenient to use the conformal time coordinate introduced in (17.25) through d = dt/a(t) t = a()1 , = a(t)t . (20.28) (20.27)

Denoting a derivative with respect to by a prime, and noting that a = a /a, one then nds that for k = 0 the Friedman equation (20.20) can be written as a2 + k = Cm a (a )2 + ka2 = Cm a ((a Cm /2k) ) + k(a Cm /2k) =
2 2 2 kCm /4

(20.29) .

Thus for k = +1, the solution to the Friedmann equation can be written as () Cm /2 = (Cm /2) cos( 0 ) . 353 (20.30)

Choosing 0 = (so that a( = 0) = 0), and integrating the relation dt/d = a() to nd t(), one then nds the solution a() = t() = amax (1 cos ) 2 amax ( sin ) , 2

(20.31)

which makes it transparent that the curve is indeed a cycloid, roughly as indicated in Figure 22. The maximal radius is reached at tmax = t(a = amax ) = t( = ) = amax /2 (20.32)

(with amax = Cm ), as before, and the total lifetime of the universe is 2tmax . 3. Analogously, for k = 1 the Friedmann equation in parametrised form (20.29) can be solved in terms of hyperbolic (rather than trigonometric) functions, a() = t() =
Remarks:

Cm (cosh 1) 2 Cm (sinh ) . 2

(20.33)

1. We see that for small times (for which matter dominates over curvature) the solutions for k = 0 reduce to t 3 , a 2 and therefore a t2/3 which is indeed the exact solution for k = 0. 2. Analogously, for late times in the k = 1 model one nds that a() t(), reproducing the expected late-time behaviour a 1 of section 19.3. 3. In section 21 we will use the exact solutions of this matter dominated phase to describe the interior geometry of collapsing stars. 20.4 The Radiation Dominated Era

We now consider the situation when radiation is dominant (as is expected during some time in the very early universe). In this case we need to solve a2 a2 = Cr ka2 . (20.34)

Because a(t) appears only quadratically, it is convenient to make the change of variables b = a2 . Then one obtains b2 + kb = Cr . (20.35) 4 354

1. For k = 0 we had already seen the solution in (19.29), a(t) = a0 (t/t0 )1/2 (and there is also evidently a corresponding collapsing solution). 2. For k = 1, one necessarily has b(t) = b0 + b1 t + b2 t2 . Fixing b(0) = 0, one easily nds the solution 1/2 a(t) = [2Cr t kt2 ]1/2 . (20.37)
Remarks:

(20.36)

1. As expected this reduces to a(t) t1/2 for small times. 2. For k = +1 one has
1/2 a(0) = a(2Cr ) = 0 .

(20.38)

Thus already electro-magnetic radiation is sucient to shrink the universe again and make it recollapse. 3. For k = 1, on the other hand, the universe expands forever, the late-time behaviour being given by a(t) = (kt2 )1/2 = t, again as expected. All this is of course in agreement with the results of the qualitative discussion given earlier. 20.5 The Cosmological Constant Dominated Era: (Anti-) de Sitter Space

This case is of considerable interest for two reasons. On the one hand, as we know, is the dominant driving force for a very large, and may therefore, if current observations are to be believed, dominate the late-time behaviour of our universe. On the other hand, the currently most popular cosmological models trying to also address and solve the so-called horizon problem and atness problem of the standard FRW model of cosmology (as well as a number of other issues) use a mechanism called ination based on an era of exponential expansion during some time in the very early universe. This is typically generated by something that acts eectively like a cosmological constant. Thus the equations to solve are, setting = 0 and p = 0 but retaining and k, 2 a . (20.39) 3 We see immediately that has to be positive for k = +1 or k = 0, whereas for k = 1 both positive and negative are possible, a2 = k + a2 = k + 2 a 3 if > 0 k = 0, 1 possible if < 0 k = 1 355 (20.40)

This is one instance where the solution to the second order equation (F2), a= a , 3 (20.41)

is more immediate, namely trigonometric functions for < 0 (only possible for k = 1) and hyperbolic functions for > 0. The rst order equation then xes the constants of integration according to the value of k. It will be convenient to express in terms of a length-scale (which will turn out to be the curvature radius of the space-time) through ||/3 = 2 (20.42) so that the two Friedmann equations read a2 = k a/2 , a = a/2 , (20.43)

the plus/minus referring to > 0 and < 0 respectively. Solutions for > 0: 1. k = 0: The solutions are evidently (cf. (19.33)) a (t) e t/ leading to the two metrics (related by t t) ds2 = dt2 + e 2t/ dx2 2. k = +1: The solution is ds2 = dt2 + 2 cosh2 t/ d2 . 3 3. k = 1: The solution is ds2 = dt2 + 2 sinh2 t/ d2 . 3
Remarks:

(20.44)

(20.45)

(20.46)

(20.47)

1. The k = 1 metric appears to exhibit a big bang singularity as t 0, but this is an illusion. Indeed, as t 0 the metric approaches the metric (20.4) of the Milne universe, and we already know that the singularity at = 0 of the Milne metric is just a coordinate singularity. 2. In fact, all 3 metrics represent the same space-time in dierent coordinates, namely the de Sitter space-time. One way to establish this would be to directly exhibit the coordinate transformations that map one metric to the other, but this is messy and does not provide any additional insight. We will proceed in a dierent way below. 356

3. Indeed, it turns out that the de Sitter solution is the unique maximally symmetric space-time with positive curvature (cf. the discussion in section 16), and this perspective will provide us with a more ecient and insightful way of constructing dierent coordinate systems and exploring the relations among them. 4. All 3 metrics exhibit an exponential expansion or collapse at early and/or late times. 5. These 3 metrics exhibit dierent slicings of the de Sitter space-time (or, henceforth, de Sitter space for short, or just dS space), with the t = const. slices being R3 , S 3 and H 3 respectively. 6. The coordinates appearing in the k = +1 metric turn out to cover de Sitter space globally. 7. The (2+1)-dimensional counterpart of the k = +1 metric is the metric that appeared in the Rindler-like coordinate system (20.12). Thus we can say that these Rindler-like coordinates provide a (radial) foliation of the left- and right Rindler wedges by de Sitter spaces. Solution for < 0: In this case, the only possibility (within the Robertson-Walker ansatz for the metric) is k = 1, and the solution is 3 ds2 = dt2 + 2 sin2 t/ d2 .
Remarks:

(20.48)

1. This solution is nowadays known as the anti-de Sitter space-time (or anti-de Sitter space or AdS space for short). 2. As its > 0, k = 1 counterpart, it appears to exhibit a big bang singularity as t 0, but this is again an illusion since this metric also approaches the nonsingular Milne metric (20.4) as t 0. 3. AdS space turns out to be the unique maximally symmetric space-time with negative curvature. 20.6 The -CDM Solution

The exact solution for a spatially at universe dominated by non-interacting (cold dark) matter was already given in (19.31), a(t) = a0 (t/t0 )2/3 . 357 (20.49)

and that for a spatially at universe dominated by a cosmological constant was given in (19.33), (20.50) a(t) = a0 e /3(t t0 ) . An exact solution of the Friedmann equations can also be written down when both types of energy/matter are present simultaneously (as in the universe today). In this case the Friedmann equation is just M + = 1 . (20.51) Now one has = and M =
2 H0 ( )0 H2

(20.52)

M M (cr )0 a3 H 2 0 (M )0 = (M )0 = 3 0 (M )0 . (M )0 (M )0 cr a H2

(20.53)

Thus the Friedmann equation of the -CDM Model (cold dark matter with a cosmological constant) can be written as
2 H 2 = H0

a3 0 (M )0 + ( )0 a3

(20.54)

An exact solution of this equation is a(t) = a0 (M )0 ( )0

1/3

sinh((3/2)

( )0 H0 t)

2/3

(20.55)

This evidently reproduces the above power-law (exponential) behaviour at early (late) times.

358

21

Interior Solution for a Collapsing Star

In section 11.7 we had described the general set-up (as well as a special solution) for the interior solution of a static spherically symmetric star. In section 14.8 we had described the exterior (Schwarzschild) geometry of a collapsing star. We will now use cosmological solutions to give an idealised description of the interior of a star during the time-dependent phase of gravitational collapse, and also make sure that the exteriod and interior descriptions of the surface of the star match. 21.1 The Set-Up: Geometry and Matter Content

If we assume that matter inside the spherically symmetric star can be modelled by a perfect uid with spatially uniform energy density = (t) and pressure p = p(t), then the spatial geometry is both isotropic and homogeneous. Thus (see section 16.1) the spatial geometry of the star is that of a maximally symmetric space, and solutions are then governed by the Friedmann equations. Let us rst address the geometry of this problem. The spherically symmetric star is a 3-ball B 3 , i.e. a 3-dimensional space with boundary a 2-sphere S 2 . Its 2-dimensional counterpart would usually be called a disc (or 2-disc) D 2 , a surface with boundary a circle S 1 . A priori, one could model the geometry of this disc e.g. as the subset of the Euclidean plane (with its induced maximally symmetric at metric), ds2 (D 2 ) = dr 2 + r 2 d2 (r r0 ) (21.1)

or as the cap of a sphere (with its induced maximally symmetric positive curvature metric), ds2 (D 2 ) = d 2 + sin2 d2 ( 0 ) (21.2) or even as its negative curvature counterpart. Likewise, one can model the 3-ball geometry of a spherically symmetric star in terms of bounded subsets of any of the k = 0, 1 3-geometries that we have been considering, e.g. the spatially at 3-ball or 3-disc for k = 0 or the cap of a 3-sphere for k = +1, k = 0 : ds2 (B 3 ) = dr 2 + r 2 d2 2 k = +1 : ds2 (B 3 ) = d 2 + sin2 d2 2 (r r0 ) ( 0 ) (21.3)

(we had already encountered the k = +1 cap/disc as the spatial geometry underlying a static spherically symmetric star in section 11.7). As far as the matter content is concerned, a spatially constant non-zero pressure would in particular lead to a non-zero pressure at the surface of the star. This would need to be compensated by a non-zero surface tension, a further contribution to the energymomentum tensor, -function localised on the surface of the star. In order not to have 359

to deal with this situation, we will only consider the simplest possibility, namely that of pressureless dust, p = 0 (Oppenheimer and Snyder, 1939). In this case, the interior solution is provided by the cosmological solutions of the matter dominated era derived in section 20.3, with the radial coordinate of the star restricted to run over a nite range, as in (21.3). The exterior solution would then, as in our discussion of section 14.8, be given by the Schwarzschild metric, and one thing we need to do is make sure that the exterior and interior descriptions of the surface of the star agree. In order to understand the role of the spatial curvature k and how to glue the interior and exterior solutions together, recall that we had already seen in section 18.3, in (18.45), that pressureless dust necessarily moves along geodesics of the space-time geometry. In the present case these are the geodesics of comoving observers (dust particles) and the cosmological time t is their proper time. In particular, if we think of a(t) as (proportional to) the time-dependent radius of the collapsing star, then a(t) describes the geodesic trajectories of particles at the surface of the star. However, these surface particles should follow geodesics as if the total mass of the star were concentrated at the center of the star, i.e. they should also move along geodesics of the outside Schwarzschild geometry with that mass. Thus we are led to the, a priori perhaps somewhat surprising, statement that the Friedmann equations for dust must agree with the geodesic equation for radially freely falling particles in the Schwarzschild geometry. This is indeed the case: On the one hand, the evolution of the cosmic scale factor is governed by the Friedmann equation (20.20), Cm a2 + k = . (21.4) a On the other hand, according to the results of section 13.2, radial free fall is governed by the equation (13.13), r2 + 2m 2m , = ri r (21.5)

where ri is the radius where the particle is initially at rest, r(r = ri ) = 0. We see that these really do have the same form (and we will match them more precisely below). We also see that the choice of pressureless matter, i.e. the equation of state parameter w = 0, for the interior of the star is essential for this (other values of w leading to other powers of a on the right-hand side of (21.4)). This similarity of the equations in the case w = 0 is also reected in the explicit solutions of the geodesic and Friedmann equations, as for example in the solution (14.126) of the radial geodesic equation in the Schwarzschild geometry and the recollapsing solution (20.31) of the Friedmann equations for a spatially closed dust-lled universe. In 360

particular, the spatially at k = 0 3-disc geometry corresponds to ri = , i.e. the case where the surface of the star behaves as if it had been released from rest at innity, while a nite ri corresponds to k = +1. Thus a matching with the exterior geometry of the collapsing star discussed in section 14.8 (where we assumed free fall from rest from a nite radius r0 ) requires k = +1. However, the k = 0 solution is also instructive in its own right, and we will analyse both possibilities below. In order to match the exterior and interior geometries, we should start by matching the coordinates used for the two solutions. In both cases, due to spherical symmetry (and due to having chosen coordinates that make this symmetry manifest), there is a transverse 2-sphere with line-element d2 = d 2 + sin2 d2 , and we will simply identify 2 the coordinates (, ) of the two solutions. This leaves us with the temporal and radial directions. The time coordinate of the cosmological (interior) metrics is the proper time of comoving observers (in particular those on the surface of the star), and this is a natural choice which we will maintain. It follows that also for the exterior Schwarzschild geometry we should choose coordinates such that the time-coordinate is the proper time of these comoving = freeely falling observers, and we have already constructed various such coordinate systems in section 14. In particular, we could use either Painlev-Gullstrand coordinates (section 14.1), adapted to ri = , i.e. e k = 0 (or their ri < counterparts which we did not discuss explicitly - see the reference in footnote 19), and their cosmological counterpart (which we had already briey introduced in section 17.5); or comoving Lema (k = 0) or Novikov (k = +1) coordinates (section 14.2, the tre latter already featured in our discussion of the exterior solution for gravitational collapse in section 14.8) and their cosmological counterpart (which are just the standard comoving coordinates of the Robertson-Walker metrics). In order to illustrate the procedure, we will pursue both options and discuss the case k = 0 in terms of PG-like coordinates and the case k = +1 in terms of comoving coordinates. Other simple toy-models of gravitational collapse can be based on considering collapsing shells of matter.53
See e.g. E. Poisson, A Relativists Toolkit or R. Adler, D. Bjorken, P. Chen, J. Liu, Simple Analytic Models of Gravitational Collapse, arXiv:gr-qc/0502040 for pedagogical discussions.
53

361

21.2

k = 0 Collapse and Painlev-Gullstrand Coordinates e

We model the exterior geometry by the Schwarzschild metric in PG coordinates (section 14.1) ds2 = dT 2 + (dr + 2m/rdT )2 + r 2 d2 . (21.6) This is adapted to radially infalling observers with dr = 2m/rdT (so that dT = d is proper time). These are the radial geodesics with E = 1 ri = . We assume that from the exterior point of view particles on the surface of the star follow such geodesics, so that the surface of the star is described by r = R0 ( ), with R0 ( ) = 2m(R0 ( ))1/2 R0 ( ) = (3 2m/2)2/3 (0 )2/3 . (21.7)

We model the interior geometry by the spatially at k = 0 Robertson-Walker metric in PG-like coordinates (17.21), ds2 = d 2 + (d rH( )d )2 + r 2 d2 . r (21.8)

Here we have already identied the cosmological time t = as the proper time of comoving observers, H( ) = a( )/a( ) is the Hubble parameter, and the radial coordinate r is related to the usual comoving radial coordinate of the Robertson-Walker metric (now denoted rc , to avoid confusion with the radial coordinate of the Schwarzschild or PG metric) 2 2 ds2 = d 2 + a( )2 (drc + rc d2 ) (21.9) by r = a( )rc . (21.10) This form of the metric is adapted to comoving observers (xed rc ), which obey the Hubble relation d/d = rH( ). We assume that the surface of the star has xed r (comoving) radial coordinate rc,0 , and is thus described by r = R0 ( ), R0 ( ) = a( )rc,0 R0 = arc,0 = H R0 . (21.11)

Its time-dependence (i.e. the collapse of the star) is governed by the negative square-root of the k = 0 Friedmann equation for pressureless matter, a( ) = Cm a( )1/2 R0 ( ) = Cm (rc,0 )3/2 R0 ( )1/2 R0 ( ) = rc,0 (3 Cm /2)2/3 (0 )2/3 . (21.12)

Thus more explicitly the interior metric can now be written as ds2 = d 2 + (d + 2d /3(0 ))2 + r 2 d2 . r r (21.13)

Comparison of the two metrics makes it manifest that we should identify not only PG time T with FRW time t = (as already anticipated above), but also (on the 362

surface of the star) the PG-Schwarzschild radial coordinate r with the cosmological radial coordinate r . In other words we need R0 ( ) = R0 ( ). Note that this necessarily leads to the requirement (that we had already imposed) that the interior of the star is described by pressureless dust, in order to reproduce the characteristic 2/3 -behaviour of the geodesic. Either from the explicit expression for the two solutions, or from comparing the geodesic equation in (21.7) with the Friedmann equation in (21.12), one nds that R0 ( ) = R0 ( ) is equivalent to 3 R0 ( ) = R0 ( ) 2m = Cm rc,0 . (21.14) This condition can be demystied by recalling the denition (19.25) of Cm as the constant 8GN Cm = ( )a( )3 . (21.15) 3 Then (21.14) becomes
3 2m = Cm rc,0

m 4 4 = (a( )rc,0 )3 ( ) = R0 ( )3 ( ) , GN 3 3

(21.16)

which is simply the statement that at all times the Schwarzschild gravitational massenergy M of the star felt by the freely-falling particles on the stars surface is precisely the total mass-energy (density times volume) of the star. This encapsulates the essence of the Oppenheimer-Snyder construction. With this identication, the induced metric on the surface of the star satises ds2 ext dT 2 + (dr + 2m/rdT )2 + r 2 d2
T =,r=R0 ( )

= d 2 + R0 ( )2 d2 = d 2 + R0 ( )2 d2

(21.17)
r =R0 ( )

= d 2 + (d rH( )d )2 + r 2 d2 r

ds2 int .

Thus the metric is now certainly continuous across the surface of the star and, to complete the story, one should also check that its rst derivatives match on the two sides as well, and this can be veried (but we will not do this here). Second derivatives, however, will not and cannot be continuous across the surface, because the energy momentum tensor has spatially constant density inside the star and is identically zero outside the star, so that by the Einstein equations also the Einstein tensor necessarily has a discontinuity across the surface of the star. 21.3 k = +1 Collapse and Comoving Coordinates

We model the exterior geometry by the Schwarzschild metric in comoving Novikov coordinates (14.43),
2 ds2 = d 2 + f (ri )1 r (, ri )2 dri + r(, ri )2 d2 ,

(21.18)

363

ri is a comoving coordinate, and we assume that particles on the the surface of the star move along the geodesics with ri = r0 , r0 labelling the maximal radius of the star. As already described in section 14.8, the restriction of the Novikov metric (14.43) to the surface of the star, i.e. to the comoving radial coordinate ri = r0 , is
2 ds2 ext = d 2 + f (ri )1 r (, ri )2 dri + r(, ri )2 d2 ri =r0

= d + R0 ( ) d

(21.19)

where R0 ( ) = r(, r0 ) solves the geodesic equation (21.5) (with ri r0 ), 2 2m = 2m . R0 + r0 R0 As in (14.126), we write the solution in parametrised form as
1 R0 () = 2 r0 (1 + cos )

(21.20)

() =

3 r0 8m

1/2

(21.21) ( + sin ) ,

with the collapse beginning at = 0 = 0, when R0 (0) = r0 . We model the interior geometry by the spatially closed k = +1 Robertson-Walker metric in the standard comoving coordinates (where we now, in analogy with the notation of the previous section, write rc for the comoving radial coordinate) ds2 = d 2 + a( )2 (
2 drc 2 + rc d2 ) . 2 1 rc

(21.22)

We assume that from the interior point of view the surface of the star is at the xed comoving radius rc = rc,0 , so that the induced metric on the surface of the star is ds2 int = d 2 + a( )2 ( = d +
2 2 drc 2 + rc d2 ) 2 1 rc 2 2

rc =rc,0

(21.23)

2 a( )2 rc,0

d d + R( )2 d2 . Cm , a

Now a( ) satises the k = +1 Friedmann equation a2 + 1 = (21.24)

whose solution in parametrised form is (20.31). Shifting (by ) and t = (by amax /2) so that the maximal radius amax = Cm is reached at = 0, = 0, the solution takes the form Cm a() = (1 + cos ) 2 (21.25) Cm ( + sin ) . () = 2 0 ( ) = rc,0 a( ) satises the equation Thus R
3 rc,0 Cm 2 . R( )2 + rc,0 = R0

(21.26)

364

 Continuity of the metric across the surface of the star requires R0 ( ) = R0 ( ), and comparison of (21.20) and (21.26), say, gives us two conditions. The rst, 2m 2 = rc,0 r0 rc,0 = 2m/r0 < 1 (21.27)

just provides us with the relation between the comoving Novikov coordinate r0 and the comoving Robertson-Walker coordinate rc,0 . The second,
3 2m = Cm rc,0 ,

(21.28)

is identical to the condition (21.14) found in the previous section, in the context of the k = 0 PG collapse, with the same consequence M m 4 ( )R0 ( )3 . = GN 3 (21.29)

The physical content of this equation is again that the (constant) Schwarzschild mass M , i.e. the gravitational mass of the collapsing star as seen from the outside, is at any time given by the product of the density and the (coordinate) volume of the star (cf. also the comment on coordinate versus proper volume in this context in section 11.6). The two conditions (21.27) and (21.28) can also equivalently be written as
3 Cm = (r0 /2m)1/2

and r0 = Cm rc,0 ,

(21.30)

and with these identication it is now manifest that the solution for R0 ( ) given in (21.21) is identical to the solution for R0 ( ) = rc,0 a( ) obtained from (21.25). Thus the metric is now manifestly continuous across the surface of the star (with analogous comments regarding its 1st and 2nd derivatives as in the case k = 0).

365

22

de Sitter and anti-de Sitter Space

(Anti-) de Sitter spaces are the simplest solutions of the Einstein equations with = 0. As such they are the curved counterparts of the = 0 Minkowski space-time. In particular, they are the unique constant curvature (or maximally symmetric) spacetimes, just as Minkowski space is the unique at (or Poincar-symmetric) space-time. e Thus they are the Lorentzian-signature counterparts of spheres and hyperboloids, and made a rst appearance as such in section 16. Since they are thus in some sense the simplest non-trivial space-times, it is worthwhile to study them in some detail. The de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spaces subsequently reappeared in the context of cosmology in section 20.5, but it may not be immediately apparent that what we called (anti-) de Sitter there is indeed identical to what we called (anti-) de Sitter in section 16. In order to bridge this gap, we will in particular redo the analysis of section 16.4 in the special case of interest. We will realise the (A)dS spaces via embeddings into a higher-dimensional vector space, and we will use this embedding to express the resulting induced metric in various coordinate systems. In this way we will, in particular, also recover the metrics encountered in the cosmological context above. This will complete the proof that the solution of the Friedmann equations in the cosmological constant dominated phase is unique (for a given cosmological constant ) and uniquely given by the maximally symmetric (A)dS space. 22.1 Embeddings, Isometries and Coset Space Structure

We will now discuss the embeddings of (A)dS space, beginning with the more familiar cases of Euclidean signature spheres and hyperboloids, already discussed at some length in section 16. We will denote the coordinates of the 5-dimensional embedding space by z A , the range of the indices (e.g. 1 to 5 or 0 to 4) being chosen to be whatever is convenient or suggestive in the case at hand. 1. We can realise the (unit-radius) sphere S 4 by embedding it into R5 via S4 : (z 1 )2 + . . . + (z 5 )2 = +1 . (22.1)

If we equip R5 with the standard Euclidean metric, which is invariant under translations ( R5 ) and rotations SO(5) of R5 , then the dening equation above is invariant under the SO(5)-rotations, and the induced metric on S 4 will therefore be SO(5)-invariant. This gives rise to the standard SO(5)-invariant line element d2 . The dimension of the isometry group is 5(5-1)/2=10. This is the same as 4 the dimension of the Poincar (or Euclidean) group in 4 dimensions, and thus the e 4 equipped with this metric is maximally symmetric. S 366

If we wanted to discuss the sphere of radius R, we would replace the +1 on the right-hand side of the above equation by R2 (and likewise for the radius R or curvature radius below). 2. Likewise, we can realise the (unit curvature radius) hyperboloid H 4 by embedding it into R5 via H 4 : (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + . . . + (z 4 )2 = 1 . (22.2) We will now of course correspondingly choose the embedding space to be R1,4 , i.e. the space equipped with the Lorentz-singnature metric ds2 = (dz 0 )2 + (dz 1 )2 + . . . + (dz 4 )2 . (22.3)

Its isometry group is the (4 + 1)-dimensional Poincar group, which has dimension e 4 is left invariant by its SO(4, 1) Lorentz-subgroup 15. The equation dening H which has dimension 10, and thus the metric induced on H 4 by the Minkowski metric on the embedding space will have isometry-group SO(4, 1) and is maximally symmetric. This metric has Euclidean signature because the (-1) on the right-hand side of (22.2) allows one to completely eliminate the time-like direction z 0 , and the corresponding line element is denoted by d2 . 4 3. If we change the sign on the right-hand side of (22.2), the equation will still be invariant under SO(4, 1), but now the signatue of the induced metric will be Lorentzian instead of Euclidean and we obtain a realisation of a maximally symmetric space-time, namely de Sitter space, dS4 : (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + . . . + (z 4 )2 = +1 . (22.4)

4. By the same token, we can obtain a maximally symmetric Lorentzian signature space-time from the embedding equation AdS4 : (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 + (z 3 )2 (z 4 )2 = 1 . (22.5)

Since this equation is SO(3, 2)-invariant, this space-time will have isometry group SO(3, 2), induced from the signature (2,3) metric on the embedding-space R2,3 . The dimension of SO(3, 2) is also 10, just like that of SO(4, 1) or SO(5), and (22.5) denes the maximally symmetric Anti-de Sitter space (actually, for AdS we will take the universal covering space of the space described by (22.5) - we will come back to this below). As already indicated in section 16, the statements about the isometries of maximally symmetric space(-time)s can be compactly summarised by writing them as homogeneous spaces of the isometry groups. This generalises the statement that the 2-sphere can be written as the homogeneous space (or coset space) SO(3)/SO(2), which itself comes about as follows: 367

1. It is clear that the SO(3) rotations act transitively on the 2-sphere, i.e. that any point can be mapped to any other point (this is the property of homogeneity discussed in section 16). 2. Moreover, given any point p on the 2-sphere, there is an SO(2) subgroup of SO(3), SO(2)p SO(3), consisting of rotations around the axis passing through that point, that leaves the point p invariant but acts on the vectors at that point by 2-dimensional rotations (isotropy). 3. Since this SO(2)p -transformation must also be a symmetry of the metric at that point, this shows in particular that the metric has a Euclidean signature at each point. 4. Putting all this together, given any point p, we can establish a 1:1 correspondence between points on S 2 and elements of SO(3) modulo elements of SO(2)p , and we write this as S 2 SO(3)/SO(2) , (22.6) = the set on the right-hand side considered as the set of equivalence classes [g] with g SO(3) and [gh] = [g] for h SO(2), say (this denes right-cosets, SO(2) acting on the right on an SO(3)-element). These statements generalise straightforwardly to the 4-sphere, and also to the other maximally symmetric space-times discussed above, and we summarise these facts in the following table, adding also the notation we will occasionally use for the corresponding line-element (when we do not just write it anonymously as ds2 ), and giving the embedding (with z 2 = (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 + (z 3 )2 ): M M M M M G/H G H d2 = = S4 SO(5) SO(4) d2 4 4 2 =H SO(4, 1) SO(4) d4 = dS4 SO(4, 1) SO(3, 1) d2 1,3 2 = AdS4 SO(3, 2) SO(3, 1) d1,3 embedding + (z 4 )2 + (z 5 )2 (z 0 )2 + z 2 + (z 4 )2 (z 0 )2 + z 2 + (z 4 )2 (z 0 )2 + z 2 (z 4 )2 +z 2

= +1 = 1 = +1 = 1

(22.7)

The G-isometries are generated by the 5(5-1)/2 = 10 rotational Killing vectors JAB = AC z C B BC z C A = JBA (22.8)

of the metric AB of the embedding space, and they satisfy the Lie bracket algebra [JAB , JCD ] = AD JBC + BC JAD AC JBD BD JAC which provides a realisation of the Lie algebra of G. (22.9)

368

22.2

Some Coordinate Systems for de Sitter space

For de Sitter space, we have the dening equation (22.4), (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + . . . + (z 4 )2 = +1 . (22.10)

This describes a time-like hyperboloid with topology R S 3 , the S 3 arising from the slicing at xed z 0 , (z 1 )2 + . . . + (z 4 )2 = +1 + (z 0 )2 = const. > 0 . (22.11)

We can introduce suitable coordinates by solving (22.10), i.e. by parametrising the hyperboloid, either globally or at least locally. As we will see in the following, dierent coordinatisations are naturally suggested by grouping the terms in (22.10) in dierent ways. 1. Global Coordinates Writing (22.10) as in (22.11) as (z 1 )2 + . . . + (z 4 )2 = +1 + (z 0 )2 , we see that the general solution is z 0 = sinh , z a = na cosh , (22.13) (22.12)

where na , with a = 1, . . . , 4, is a unit vector on S 3 . This means that ab na nb = 1 , ab na dnb = 0 , ab dna dnb = d2 3 (22.14)

(analogous identities will be used repeatedly in the following). Then one nds the metric ds2 =
Remarks:

(dz 0 )2 +

(dz a )2
a

|(22.10) = d 2 + cosh2 d2 . 3

(22.15)

(a) This is the k = +1, > 0 solution (20.46) of the Friedmann equations, thus conrming that the solution found there is maximally symmetric. (b) The manifest symmetries in this coordinate system are the symmetries of S 3 , i.e. the subgroup SO(4) SO(4, 1) of the total isometry group (thus 6 out of 10 isometries are manifest). (c) It can be read o from (22.10) that these coordinates cover the hyperboloid globally (modulo the usual, and utterly harmless, issues with spherical coordinates at the poles of a sphere). 369

(d) These are the Lorentzian-signature counterparts of the standard (hyper)spherical coordinates on S 4 , and are related to these by Wick rotation (continuation to imaginary time), = i d 2 + cosh2 d2 d 2 + cos2 d2 = d2 3 3 4 (22.16)

(with /2 /2). 2. Hyperbolic Slicing Coordinates We observe that (22.10) can also be written as
3

(z 0 )2 +

k=1

(z k )2 z z = +1 (z 4 )2 .

(22.17)

For z 4 > 1, the right-hand side is negative and slices of constant z 4 are therefore hyperboloids H 3 . In that case it is natural to introduce z 4 = cosh , z = n sinh with n n = 1 . (22.18)

The n thus parametrise H 3 , and one nds that the de Sitter metric can be written as 3 ds2 = d 2 + sinh2 d2 , (22.19) with d2 the line-element on the unit hyperboloid in any coordinate system. 3
Remarks:

(a) This is evidently the k = 1 metric (20.47). (b) The manifest symmetries in this coordinate system are the symmetries of H 3 , i.e. the subgroup SO(3, 1) SO(4, 1) of the total isometry group (thus again 6 out of 10 isometries are manifest). (c) Note that these coordinates only cover the region z 4 > 1, which is only a part of de Sitter space. We will discuss coordinates in the range |z 4 | < 1 below. 3. de Sitter Slicing Coordinates Curiously, de Sitter space can be foliated by de Sitter spaces of one dimension less. To see this note that when |z 4 | < 1 the right-hand side of (22.17) is positive. Thus the slices of constant z 4 are then indeed dS3 spaces, and adapted coordinates are z = rn with 0 < r < 1, or z = sin n with n n = 1 , z 4 = cos . (22.21) with n n = 1 , z 4 = (1 r 2 )1/2 (22.20)

370

The n parametrise dS3 , and one nds the metric ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 = d 2 + sin2 d2 , 1,2 1,2 1 r2 (22.22)

with d2 the line-element on the unit curvature radius (2 + 1)-dimensional de 1,2 Sitter space dS3 . 4. Planar Coordinates In order to reproduce the spatially at k = 0 metric (20.45), we introduce (admittedly with a certain amount of hindsight) coordinates t and xk through z 4 z 0 = e t , z 4 + z 0 = e t x2 e t , z k = e t xk . (22.23)

It is evident that this also solves (22.10). Then one nds the metric ds2 = dt2 + e 2t dx2 .
Remarks:

(22.24)

(a) This is indeed the k = 0 metric (20.45). (b) By sending t t, one sees that the metric can be written in either of the two ways ds2 = dt2 + e 2t dx2 . (22.25) (c) The manifest symmetries in this coordinate system are the Euclidean group, i.e. the translational and roational symmetries of R3 , as well as the timetranslation plus scaling symmetry tt+ , x e x . (22.26)

Thus in this coordinate system, at least 7 of the 10 isometries are reasonably manifest. (d) These coordinates only cover the half-space z 4 z 0 = e t 0 . This is precisely one-half of de Sitter space. (e) Writing the metric (22.25) as ds2 = e 2t (e 2t dt2 + dx2 ) (22.28) (22.27)

and introducing a new time coordinate = exp t, the metric takes the form ds2 = 2 (d 2 + dx2 ) (22.29) with (, 0) or (0, ) respectively. This is the positive curvature space-time counterpart of the generalised Poincar upper half plane metric e (7.50) and the de Sitter counterpart of the anti-de Sitter Poincar coordinates e (22.71). 371

5. Static Coordinates So far, the metric in all the coordinate systems was explicitly time-dependent (with a dierent time-coordinate in each case). It is possible to locally introduce a coordinate system that is time-independent. Namely, let us write (22.10) as (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 + (z 3 )2 (z k )2 = 1 + (z 0 )2 (z 4 )2
k (z k )2

(22.30)

and introduce a spatial radial coordinate r via (z k )2 = r 2

k

= r 2 . Then one has (22.31)

(z 4 )2 (z 0 )2 = 1 r 2 .

Provided that r 2 1, a natural choice for the coordinates is z 0 = (1 r 2 )1/2 sinh t , leading to the metric ds2 = (1 r 2 )dt2 + (1 r 2 )1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 . 2
Remarks:

z k = rnk

z 4 = (1 r 2 )1/2 cosh t ,

(22.32)

(22.33)

(a) In this coordinate system the metric is time-independent, i.e. t is a Killing vector. It is adapted to a stationary and geodesic observer at r = 0, the coordinate r taking the values 0 r 1. Indeed, the equations for a radial geodesic read (1 r 2 )t = E , r 2 r 2 = E 2 1 . (22.34) In particular, for E = 1, one has r = r, and one particular solution is = 1 and t = is proper time for this observer. r = r = 0, so t More generally, for the E = 1 (and r = +r, say) observers one has r( ) = r0 e ,
1 t( ) = 2 ln(1 r( )2 ) .

(22.35)

These reach r = 1 in nite proper time = ln r0 , while t( ) diverges as r 1. (b) Of course r = 1 is not a real singularity but signals the location of an observerdependent horizon beyond which a static coordinate system cannot be extended. Indeed, in spite of the many symmetries of the de Sitter metric, it has no everywhere timelike Killing vector, and the above is the best that one can do. In fact, the above form of the static metric already suggests that the metric becomes time-dependent, with t a spacelike Killing vector, for r > 1. This can be conrmed explicitly by introducing coordinates that are appropriate in that range, namely instead of (22.32) z 0 = (T 2 1)1/2 cosh R , z k = T nk 372 , z 4 = (T 2 1)1/2 sinh R , (22.36)

leading to the metric ds2 = (T 2 1)1 dT 2 + (T 2 1)dR2 + T 2 d2 . 2 Since T 2 > 1, it is also natural to parametrise T = cosh , so that ds2 = d 2 + sinh2 dR2 + cosh2 d2 . 2 (22.38) (22.37)

The existence of this alternative form of the metric beyond the horizon of the static metric is not surprising: we did (but then quickly dismissed as not particularly insightful) something analogous in the Schwarzschild case, introducing the time coordinate T = r and the radial coordinate R = t in the region 0 < r < 2m (14.1), and we will also briey consider something analogous in the anti-de Sitter case below - see (22.83). 6. Interlude on (A)dS Schwarzschild The above form (22.33) of the de Sitter metric in static coordinates should be familiar from (what appeared to be) quite a dierent context in section 11, in particular the discussion of Birkhos theorem in section 11.6. In that context we had noted that the characteristic form (11.57), ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 (22.39)

of the metric is implied not just by the vacuum Einstein equations for spherical symmetry but, more generally, by the Einstein equations in spherical symmetry whenever T t = T r . This condition is, in particular, satised, when the matter t r content is that of a cosmological constant, T = g 8GN Tt = Tr = t r . 8GN (22.40)

Then the Einstein equations (11.51) reduce to the simple equation m (r) = 4GN r 2 (T t ) = r 2 /2 t for the mass function m(r), which is evidently solved by m(r) = m0 + r 3 /6 = m0 r 3 /22 , leading to f (r) = 1
Remarks:

(22.41)

(22.42)

2m(r) 2m0 =1 r 2 /2 . r r

(22.43)

(a) In particular, for m0 = 0 and a positive cosmological constant we recover the above static metric (22.33) (for = 1, but we could have done all the contructions for any ). 373

(b) Likewise, we learn that for < 0 there will be a static coordinate system in which the anti-de Sitter metric takes the form (22.33) with r 2 +r 2 . We will recover and reconrm this below, see (22.56), when studying the AdS metrics more systematically. (c) Remarkably, by including the integration constant m0 we have actually found a more general class of solution of the Einstein equations with a cosmological constant, which are interesting in their own right, namely the (A)dS Schwarzschild solutions ds2 = 1 2m0 2m0 r 2 /2 dt2 + 1 r 2 /2 r r
1

dr 2 + r 2 d2 , 2

(22.44) already mentioned briey in section 14.9. These descibe a black hole of mass m0 immersed in an (A)dS background. 7. Painlev-Gullstrand-like Coordinates e In section 14.1 we had seen how to construct, from a static spherically symmetric metric of the standard (and, as it subsequently turned out, ubiquitous) form (22.39) e.g. a metric with with at constant-time slices by a coordinate transformation T (t, r) = t + (r). In the case at hand (22.33), with f (r) = 1 r 2 , the condition (14.18) leads to 1 C(r)2 = f (r) which is solved by
1 (r) = 2 ln(1 r 2 ) .

C(r) = r

(r) = r/(1 r 2 ) ,

(22.45)

(22.46)

Performing the coordinate transformation form the static metric (22.33) with this choice of (r) leads to the metric ds2 = (1 r 2 )dT 2 2rdT dr + (dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) = dT 2 + (dr rdT )2 + r 2 d2 , (22.47)

which is the de Sitter analog of Poincar-Gullstrand coordinates for the Schwarze schild metric, and which now allows one to extend the metric beyond the past or future horizon at r = 1.54
Remarks:

(a) The Killing vector T = t becomes space-like for r > 1, so while this is an extension of the static metric of de Sitter space, the metric is no longer static outside the original static patch.
See M. Parikh, New Coordinates for de Sitter Space and de Sitter Radiation, arXiv:hep-th/0204107 for some applications of this PG-form of the de Sitter line-element.
54

374

(b) It is evident, by imitating the argument in (14.15), that T is nothing other than the proper time along the family of E = 1 geodesics (22.35) of the static metric, T 2 + (r r T )2 = 1 and T = r=r and E = 1 . (22.48)

(c) This metric can also be obtained from the metric (22.25) in planar coordinates (we give these a subscript p now)
2 2 ds2 = dt2 + e 2tp dx2 = dt2 + e 2tp (drp + rp d2 ) p p

(22.49)

by the simple coordinate transformation ds2 = (1 r 2 )dT 2 2rdrdT + (dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) . (22.50) This also identies the metric (22.47) as the special H = case (H the Hubble parameter) of the general PG-like form of cosmological RobertsonWalker metrics given in (17.21). (d) In an analogous way, one can constuct de Sitter analogues of EddingtonFinkelstein coordinates etc. With these explicit parametrisations of dS space giving rise to various coordinate systems, it is now possible to also determine directly the coordinate transformations between these dierent coordinate systems, but this is unenlightning (and typically rather messy), and it is usually more convenient to refer everything back to the embedding space, as we have done here. Clearly, there are many more possiblities, but this shall suce. It should be clear from the above examples how to construct other coordinate systems for dS adapted to ones needs.55 22.3 Some Coordinate Systems for anti-de Sitter space (T, r) = (tp , e tp rp )

Coordinates for anti-de Sitter space can be described in precise analogy with the de Sitter case. Our starting point is the dening equation (22.5), (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 + (z 3 )2 (z 4 )2 = 1 . This has the topology S 1 R3 , as can be seen by writing the equation as (z 0 )2 + (z 4 )2 = 1 + (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 + (z 3 )2 . (22.52) (22.51)

For z k xed, this descibes a circles in the (z 0 , z 4 )-plane. As the metric is negativedenite on that plane, this show that the surface dened by (22.51) has closed timelike
And for more information about the interesting physics of de Sitter space see e.g. M. Spradlin, A. Strominger, A. Volovich, Les Houches Lectures on de Sitter Space, arXiv:hep-th/0110007.
55

375

curves through every point. To avoid such a paradoxical and pathological situation, we will pass to the covering space, which amounts to replacing S 1 R. It is actually this resulting space, without closed timelike curves, that is usually referred to as anti-de Sitter space, and we will follow that convention. 1. Global Coordinates Global coordinates are provided by writing the general solution of (22.52) as (z 0 )2 + (z 4 )2 = cosh2 , (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 + (z 3 )2 = sinh2 , (22.53)

and by, in turn, writing the general solution to these equations as z 0 = cosh sin , z k = nk sinh , z 4 = cosh cos . (22.54)

Then one nds the metric ds2 = cosh2 d 2 + d2 + sinh2 d2 2 with 0 < and < < .
Remarks:

(22.55)

(a) Alternatively, one can write r = sinh , with 0 r < , and now one recognises the metric ds2 = (1 + r 2 )dt2 + (1 + r 2 )1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 . 2 (22.56)

as the negative curvature counterpart of the static de Sitter metric (22.33), already anticipated in connection with the general solution (22.43) of the spherically symmetric Einstein equations with a cosmological constant. (b) Note that, in contrast to the dS case, AdS has a global timelike Killing vector, namely . It follows from the parametrisation of the embedding coordinates that -translations are the same thing as a rotation in the (negative denite) (z 0 , z 4 )-plane, and thus is identied with the Killing vector J04 (22.8) of the embedding space. 2. Cosmological (Hyperbolic Slicing) Coordinates Let us write the dening equation 22.51 as (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 + (z 3 )2 z z = (z 4 )2 1 . (22.57)

We see that the slices of constant z 4 are hyperboloids H 3 for |z 4 | < 1 and de Sitter spaces dS3 for z 4 > 1. In the fomer case, adapated coordinates to this slicing are z = sin t n leading to the metric ds2 = dt2 + sin2 t d2 3 (22.59) which is precisely the k = 1, < 0 solution (20.48) of the Friedmann equations. 376 with n n = 1 , z 4 = cos t , (22.58)

3. de Sitter Slicing Coordinates When z 4 > 1, the slices of constant z 4 are de Sitter spaces dS3 , and we obtain an analogue of the de Sitter Slicing coordinates (22.22) of de Sitter space. Corresponding adapted coordinates are z = sinh n leading to the metric ds2 = d2 + sinh2 d2 . 1,2 or, with r = sinh , ds2 = (22.61) with n n = +1 , z 4 = cosh , (22.60)

dr 2 + r 2 d2 . (22.62) 1,2 1 + r2 We had seen in section 16, that the metrics on the three types of maximally symmetric Riemannian spaces R3 , S 3 and H 3 could be written collectively as R3 , S 3 , H 3 : ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 . 2 1 kr 2 (22.63)

Analogously, we now see from (22.22), (22.62) and the form of the Minkowski metric (20.12) in Rindler-like coordinates, that the metrics on R1,3 , dS4 and AdS4 can collectively be written as R1,3 , dS4 , AdS4 : 4. anti-de Sitter Slicing Coordinates Anti-de Sitter space also has a coordinate systems in which constant radial slices are themselves again anti-de Sitter spaces (of one dimension less, of course). This is obtained by a simple variant of the previous construction. Namely, instead of introducing n that parametrise a dS3 , split the dening equation as (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 (z 4 )2 = 1 (z 3 )2 (22.65) ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 , 1,2 1 kr 2 (22.64)

and note that for xed z 3 the left-hand side denes an AdS3 . Noting also that the right-hand side is 1, write 1 + (z 3 )2 = cosh2 and introduce the parametrisation z = cosh n ( = 0, 1, 2, 4) with n n = 1 (22.67) z 3 = sinh (22.66)

so that the n parametrise AdS3 , with dn dn = d2 . 1,2 Then one nds the metric 1,2 ds2 = d2 + cosh2 d2 . 377 (22.69) (22.68)

5. Poincar Coordinates e A somewhat unobvious but particularly interesting and useful way of parametrising the solution to (22.51) is to write (a certain amount of hindsight helps) z = rx ( = 0, 1, 2) , z4 z3 = r , z 4 + z 3 = r 1 + r x x (22.70)

Even though this is obscure, in these coordinates the metric takes the particularly simple and easy-to-use form ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 dx dx r2 = z 2 ( dx dx + dz 2 ) (r = z 1 ) = d2 + e 2 dx dx (r = e ) .

(22.71)

Remarks:

(a) These are the AdS counterpart of the planar coordinates for dS space, and the space-time counterpart of the uppper-half-plane model of hyperbolic geometry discussed in section 7.6, see in particular (7.50). (b) In these coordinates, a (2+1)-dimensional Poincar symmetry is manifest, as e well as a scaling symmetry (t, x, z) (t, x, z). (c) These coordinates do not cover all of AdS, as can for instance be seen by noting that radial null-geodesics can reach r = 0 (or z = , say), at nite values of the ane parameter: null condition and conserved energy give (x1 and x2 are kept xed, and we set x0 = t) r 2 = r 4 t2 and r2t = E r2 = E 2 . (22.72)

The solution for decreasing r is therefore r() = r0 E, which reaches r = 0 for = r0 /E. (d) Note that, by the same equation above, r() can reach r = only for innite values of the ane parameter , r() = r0 + E, so r = appears to be innitely far away. However, and this is one of the curious and characteristic features of AdS, playing a crucial role in many aspects of physics on AdS spaces, it does so in nite coordinate time t (which, as usual, is proportional to the proper time of a stationary observer). To see this, note that the above equations imply t() r()1 so r = is reached at t = 0 (or some other nite value of t, depending on ones choice of integration constant). Thus for such an observer, it matters what happens at r = , and this leads to the requirement to treat r = as some kind of boundary on which boundary conditions need to be imposed. This boundary metric at r = const, r is, up to an innite overall constant factor of r 2 , just the Minkowski metric in one dimension less. 378

These sorts of things, combined with the above observation that isometries of the bulk AdS space-time include scalings (dilatations) of the boundary coordinates (and that, moreover, the isometry group of the bulk is actually the conformal group of the boundary) lie at the heart of the celebrated anti-de Sitter / conformal eld theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence.56 The region of AdS space covered by the Poincar coordinates is frequently e referred to as the Poincar patch, and z = or r = 0 as the Poincar e e horizon. (e) We had already seen in section 20.5, in equations (20.45), (20.46) and (20.47), and then again in section 22.2 that the de Sitter metric could be written in such a way that the constant time slices are maximally symmetric spatial slices with either k = 0 (Planar Coordinates (22.25)), or k = +1 (Global Coordinates, (22.15)), or k = 1 (Hyperbolic Coordinates (22.19)). Analogously, the anti-de Sitter metric can be written in such a way that the metric on radial slices are maximally symmetric space-times with any sign of the curvature, k = 0 Minkowski space-time in Poincar coordinates (22.71), e k = +1 de Sitter slices in the coordinates (22.61), or k = 1 anti-de Sitter slices in the coordinates (22.69), AdS4 : where exp for k = 0 fk () = sinh for k = +1 cosh for k = 1 and d2 (k) dx dx for k = 0 = for k = +1 d2 1,2 2 d1,2 for k = 1 (22.74) ds2 = d2 + fk ()2 d2 , (k) (22.73)

6. Codimension-2 Hyperbolic Slicing Coordinates Yet another possiblity is to split (22.51) as (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 = 1 + (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 . (22.75)

Codimension-2 Slices of constant (z 3 , z 4 ) are thus either 2-dimensional hyperboloids H 2 or 2-dimensional de Sitter spacetimes dS2 , depending on whether (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 < 1 (for H 2 ) or (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 > 1 (for dS2 ). We will only consider the former case here (but it should by now be evident how to treat the latter, or other variations of this theme). Even with the condition (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 < 1 it turns out that there are still two dierent cases to consider, namely either (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 < 0 or 0 < (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 < 1.
56

See e.g. J. Polchinski, Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality, arXiv:1010.6134 for an introduction.

379

(a) (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 < 0

In this case we solve (22.75) in terms of a radial coordinate r by (z 0 )2 + (z 1 )2 + (z 2 )2 = r 2 and (z 3 )2 (z 4 )2 = r 2 1 > 0 . (22.76)

This is accomplished by writing z = rn for = 0, 1, 2 where the n parametrise a hyperboloid H 2 , i.e. (n0 )2 + (n1 )2 + (n2 )2 = 1, and identifying the time-coordinate with a boost in the (3,4)-plane, so that z = rn , z 3 = (r 2 1)1/2 cosh t , z 4 = (r 2 1)1/2 sinh t . (22.77) (22.78)

Then one nds the metric ds2 = (r 2 1)dt2 + (r 2 1)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 . 2

Remarks:

i. Since r 1, it is perhaps more natural to parametrise this as r = cosh , upon which the metric takes the form ds2 = sinh2 dt2 + d2 + cosh2 d2 . 2 (22.79)

This bears a supercial (and perhaps confusing) resemblance to global AdS coordinates (22.55), in which the metric was ds2 = cosh2 d 2 + d2 + sinh2 d2 , 2 (but note the exchange cosh sinh and S 2 H 2 ). (22.80)

ii. For AdS, the metric in global coordinates (22.56), Poincar coordinates e (22.71) and the above hyperbolic coordinates (22.78) can be written collectively as ds2 = (r 2 + k)dt2 + (r 2 + k)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 (k) 2 for k = +1 d2 2 d(k) = dx2 for k = 0 2 d2 for k = 1

(22.81)

(b) 0 < (z 4 )2 (z 3 )2 < 1

This corresponds to 0 < r 2 < 1 in the above parametrisation, and the form (22.78) of the metric already suggests that r is really a time coordinate in this case (and what appeared as t above is a spatial coordinate). Indeed, with the parametrisation z = T n , z 3 = (1 T 2 )1/2 sinh R , z 4 = (1 T 2 )1/2 cosh R (22.82) (22.83)

(22.75) is also solved, and gives rise to the metric 2 ds2 = (1 T 2 )1 dT 2 + (1 T 2 )dR2 + T 2 d2 .

Note that this metric is time-dependent but invariant under R-translations. It is the AdS analogue of the de Sitter metric (22.37). 380

7. Painlev-Gullstrand-like Coordinates? e In item 7 of section 22.2, we had introduced PG-like coordinates (22.47) ds2 = (1 r 2 )dT 2 2rdT dr + (dr 2 + r 2 d2 ) ds2 = (1 r 2 )dt2 + (1 r 2 )1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 . 2 (22.84)

for de Sitter space by starting with the static spherically symmetric form (22.33) (22.85)

of the metric (to which we could thus apply the general t t + (r) procedure outlined in section 14.1). We had also seen there that the PG coordinates could be thought of as interpolating between static and planar coordinates (22.49),
2 2 ds2 = dt2 + e 2t dx2 = dt2 + e 2t (drp + rp d2 ) , 2

(22.86)

being related to them by the simple coordinate transformation r = rp exp t, T = t. Is there a counterpart of these relations for anti-de Sitter? At rst sight, the answer to this question seems to be a clear no. Indeed, the counterpart of static coordinates for de Sitter space are the static spherically symmetric and global coordinates ds2 = (1 + r 2 )dt2 + (1 + r 2 )1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 . (22.87) 2 of anti-de Sitter space, in which the metric takes the standard form (22.39), with f (r) = 1 + r 2 . However, attempting to shift t T (t, r) = t + (r) in order to nd a metric with at constant T spatial slices, grr = 1, requires solving the condition (14.18), which in the present case reads 1 C(r)2 = f (r) = 1 + r 2 .
!

(22.88)

This is evidently not possible, so in this strict sense there are no PG-like coordinates for anti-de Sitter space. However, there is something analogous that one can do. Comparing the de Sitter planar coordinates (22.86) with the anti-de Sitter metric in Poincar coordinates e (22.71), ds2 = d2 + e 2 (dt2 + dx2 ) , (22.89) and introducing, in analogy with (22.86), polar Milne coordinates (section 20.1), ds2 = d2 + e 2 (d 2 + 2 d2 ) 2 (22.90)

one sees that, roughly speaking (22.86) and (22.90) dier from each other by an exchange of a radial with a time coordinate. And indeed, taking this hint seriously, one can construct analogues of PG coordinates that are adapted to a suitable family of spacelike geodesics, and which restrict to the at Minkowski metric on radial slices of constant R, with R being proper distance along this family of spacelike geodesics. While this is a useful exercise, we can also turn the procedure around, i.e. 381

 start with the metric (22.90) in Poincar / Milne coordinates and perform e the coordinate transformation T = exp to obtain a PG-like metric (with roles of time and radius exchanged); nd a new radial coordinate R(, T ) through = R + (T ) such that the metric is again diagonal, say. The resulting metric should then be the analogue of the static spherically symmetric de Sitter metric, and turns out to be the metric (22.83) (which is indeed the analogue of the continuation (22.37) of the static de Sitter metric (22.85) beyond the horizon). Implementing the rst step, from (22.90) one nds = e T 2 ds2 = (1 T 2 )d2 + 2T dT d + (dT 2 + T 2 d2 ) 2 = d2 (dT T d)2 + T 2 d2 . (22.91)

In particular, in this PG-like metric the metric on slices of constant is exactly the Minkowski metric (in Milne coordinates). For the next step we consider the transformation = R + (T ) . Choosing (T ) to satisfy = T /(1 T 2 )
1 (T ) = 2 ln(1 T 2 )

(22.92)

(22.93)

(note the analogy with (22.46)) one nds precisely the anti-de Sitter metric in the form (22.83), ds2 = (1 T 2 )1 dT 2 + (1 T 2 )dR2 + T 2 d2 . 2 (22.94)

Thus the PG-like AdS metric (22.91) interpolates between the Poincar (planar) e metric (22.90) and the metric (22.94). To see the relation between this PG-like metric and spatial geodesics, we observe the following: (a) In the metric (22.94), radial spatial geodesics satisfy (1 T 2 )1 (T )2 + (1 T 2 )(R )2 = +1 a prime denoting a derivative with respect to proper distance . (b) There is a conserved momentum P conjugate to R, P = (1 T 2 )R P 2 (T )2 = 1 T 2 , (22.96) (22.95)

and geodesics with P = 1 are characterised by T = T . 382

(c) The coordinate of the PG-like metric (22.91) is precisely the proper distance along the spacelike radial geodesics with P = 1 and T = +T , ( )2 (T T )2 = 1 and = T = T and P = 1 . (22.97)

Clearly, there are many more possiblities, but this shall suce. It should be clear from the above examples how to construct other coordinate systems for AdS adapted to ones needs.57 22.4 Warped Products, Cones, and Maximal Symmetry

We have seen in the previous sections that the metrics of maximally symmetric spacetimes can frequently be written in a way which exhibits their slicing by lower-dimensional maximally symmetric spaces or space-times. Typically, in the codimension-1 case these metrics have the general form
2 dSK = d 2 + f ()2 ds2 , k

(22.98)

where
2 dSK is the line-element of a maximally symmetric space(-time) with constant curvature K

ds2 is the line-element of a maximally symmetric space(-time) of one dimension k less, with constant curvature k is a radial (space) or time coordinate, depending on whether = +1 or = 1 f () is an elementary function, typically f () = , or trigonometric, or hyperbolic. For = +1, thus = r a radial coordinate, and f (r) = r, one obtains what is known as the metric on the cone over the space-(time) with line-element ds2 , in general given by k gij (x)dxi dxj Cone Metric: ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 gij dxi dxj . (22.99)

A familiar example is the Euclidean metric on Rn+1 , which can be written in polar coordinates as the cone metric over S n , dx2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 n+1 n (22.100)

so in this case the cone has actually been attened out to Rn+1 . However, if one were to replace S n by a less symmetric space, there would be a (conical) singularity at the tip r = 0 of the cone.
And for more erudite and advanced investigations of the AdS geometry see the 1998 lectures by G. Gibbons, Anti-de-Sitter spacetime and its uses, arXiv:1110.1206 [hep-th].
57

383

I will refer to the general class of metrics in (22.98) as (generalised) spacelike or timelike cone metrics. They can also be considered as special cases of so-called warped product metrics, which are metrics of the form ds2 = hab (y)dy a dy b + f (y)2 gij (x)dxi dxj (22.101)

(the metric on a product of space(-time)s with metrics hab (y) and gij (x), twisted or warped by the function f (y)). Returning to the issue of writing maximally symmetric metrics in the form (22.98), we now want to address the question what determines in general what choice of , k, f () is required or possible to realise a maximally symmetric space(-time) with a given K, say (or any variation of this question). A quick way to answer this question is to make use of the fact that maximally symmetric spaces are characterised by the property of having constant curvature, in the sense of (16.5) R = k(g g g g ) . (22.102)

Using this result for the Riemann curvature tensor of ds2 , it is straightforward to calk culate the curvature tensor of the generalised cone metric ds2 . This is just a minor K generalisation of the calculation of the Riemann tensor of the FRW metric ds2 = dt2 + a(t)2 ds2 k (22.103)

(the = 1 version of (22.98)) performed in section 18.1. Requiring that the cone metric with line-element ds2 be maximally symmetric, i.e. that its curvature tensor K also has this form, one nds the constraint (K1) : k = (f )2 + Kf 2 (22.104)

between the various objects appearing in (22.98), as well as the condition (K2) : f + (K/)f = 0 . (22.105)

A special (and especially boring) case that we will take care of (and dismiss) rst is f = 0, i.e. f constant, so that (22.98) describes a direct product metric. Then one nds K = k = 0, and this just corresponds to the possibilities dx2 = +dr 2 + dx2 n+1 n dx2 = +dr 2 + dx2 1,n 1,n1 dx2 1,n = dt +
2

(22.106)

dx2 n

of trivially extending a at space(-time) to a higher-dimensional at space(-time) by adding a direction. We now concentrate on f = 0. Then (K1) implies (K2) (by dierentiation) and conversely (K2) implies (K1), with k arising as an integration constant (in fact, (K1) is the energy/Hamiltonian corresponding to the equation of motion (K2)). 384

 = +1: Spacelike Cones In this case, is a spatial coordinate (which we will call r or or ) and we have f + Kf = 0 and 1. K = 0: The solution is f = ar + b k = a2 0 (22.108) for constants a and b, and dismissing the case of constant f we have already dealt with, we can without loss of generality choose f (r) = r, so that we are dealing with a standard cone metric. Then k = +1 and we nd either the usual polar coordinate decomposition (22.100) of the Euclidean metric, or its Lorentzian signature counterpart dx2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 1,n 1,n1 (22.109) k = (f )2 + Kf 2 . (22.107)

with d2 1,n1 the de Sitter (Lorentzian positive curvature) line-element. This is the Minkowski metric in the Rindler-like coordinates (20.12). 2. K = +1: The solution is f = a sin + b cos k = a2 + b2 > 0 . (22.110)

Without loss of generality we can choose k = +1 and (by a suitable shift of ) a = 1, b = 0. In Euclidean signature, this gives d2 = d 2 + sin2 d2 n+1 n (22.111)

which is the standard nested form (16.33) of the line-element on a sphere, and its Lorentzian signature counterpart is d2 = d 2 + sin2 d2 1,n 1,n1 (22.112)

which is the de Sitter metric in de Sitter slicing coordinates (22.22). 3. K = 1: The solution is f = ae + be k = 4ab , (22.113)

and in this case there are essentially 3 distinct choices of a and b, leading to the 3 dierent possible values of k. (a) k = 0: This arises for a = 0 or b = 0, thus f () = exp , leading to d2 = d2 + exp 2 dx2 n+1 n 2 2 d1,n = d + exp 2 dx2 1,n1 (22.114)

which is the metric on H n+1 or the AdS metric in Poincar coordinates e (22.71). 385

(b) k = +1: This arises for a = 1/2, b = 1/2 (say), thus f () = sinh , leading to d2 = d2 + sinh2 d2 n+1 n (22.115) 2 = d2 + sinh2 d2 d
1,n 1,n1

which is the standard form (16.35) of the metric on H n+1 and the AdS metric in de Sitter slicing coordinates (22.61) respectively. (c) k = 1: This arises for a = b = 1/2. Thus f () = cosh , and this gives rise to n+1 n d2 = d2 + cosh2 d2 (22.116) 1,n 1,n1 d2 = d2 + cosh2 d2 The former is the hyperbolic analogue of the nested coordinates for the sphere, the latter the AdS metric in AdS slicing coordinates (22.69) . = 1: Timelike Cones

In this case, is a time coordinate (which we will call t), and in order for ds2 to K have Lorentzian signature (and not two time directions), the metric to be warped (with line element ds2 ) necessarily has Euclidean signature, so this reduces the k number of possibilities somewhat compared to the case = +1.

The equations governing this case are f Kf = 0 and k = (f )2 + Kf 2 . 1. K = 0: The solution is f = at + b k = a2 0 (22.118) and discarding the case of constant f we are left with f (t) = t and k = 1. The corresponding metric dx2 = dt2 + t2 d2 1,n n is the Minkowski metric in Milne coordinates (20.4). 2. K = +1: The solution is f = ae t + be t k = 4ab (22.120) and in this case there are 3 distinct choices of a and b, leading to the 3 dierent possible values of k. (a) k = 0: This arises for a = 0 or b = 0, thus f (t) = exp t, and one nds d2 = dt2 + e 2t dx2 1,n n (22.121) which is the de Sitter metric in planar coordinates (22.25), equivalently the k = 0 cosmological FRW solution for a positive cosmological constant. 386 (22.119) (22.117)

(b) k = +1: This arises for a = b = 1/2, say, so the solution is f (t) = cosh t, leading to the de Sitter metric in global coordinates (22.15), d2 = dt2 + cosh2 t d2 1,n n (22.122)

or, equivalently, to the k = +1 cosmological FRW solution for a positive cosmological constant. (c) k = 1: This arises for a = b = 1/2, i.e. f (t) = sinh t, leading to n d2 = dt2 + sinh2 t d2 1,n (22.123)

which is the de Sitter metric in hyperbolic slicing coordinates (22.19) or, equivalently, the k = 1 cosmological FRW solution for a positive cosmological constant. 3. K = 1: The solution is f = a sin t + b cos t k = (a2 + b2 ) < 0 . (22.124)

Choosing a = 1, b = 0, with k = 1, one recovers the AdS metric in hyperbolic slicing coordinates (22.59), 1,n n d2 = dt2 + sin2 td2 , (22.125)

equivalently the k = 1 cosmological FRW solution for a negative cosmological constant. We thus see that we have been able to reproduce many of the metrics found in sections 22.2 and 22.3 from this more general perspective, perhaps shedding some light on the zoo of coordinate systems found there. In particular, we have seen how the conditions (K1) (22.104) and (K2) (22.105) correlate the choice of curvatures k and K, the signature of the cone direction, and the choice of warping function f . All of this can be straightforwardly generalised to multiple warpings / cones related to slicings of higher codimensions, but we will not pursue this here since it is not particularly enlightning in its own right and simply requires a steady hand.

387

23
23.1

Linearised Gravity and Gravitational Waves

Preliminary Remarks

In previous sections we have dealt with situations in General Relativity in which the gravitational eld is strong and the full non-linearity of the Einstein equations comes into play (Black Holes, Cosmology). In most ordinary situations, however, the gravitational eld is weak, very weak, and then it is legitimate to work with a linearisation of the Einstein equations. When we rst derived the Einstein equations we checked that we were doing the right thing by deriving the Newtonian theory in the limit where 1. the gravitational eld is weak 2. the gravitational eld is static 3. matter is non-relativistic The fact that the 2nd condition had to be imposed in order to recover the Newtonian theory is interesting in its own right, as it suggests that there are novel features in general relativity, even for weak elds, when the 2nd condition is not imposed. Indeed, as we will see, in this more general setting one discovers that general relativity also predicts the existence of gravitational waves, i.e. linearised perturbations of the gravitational eld propagating like ordinary waves on the (Minkowski) background geometry. Our principal aim in this section will be to derive these linearised equations, show that they are wave equations, and study some of their consequences. An important next step would be to study and understand how or under which circumstances gravitational waves are created and how they can be detected. These, unfortunately, are rather complicated questions in general and I will not enter into this. The things I will cover in the following are much more elementary, both technically and conceptually, than anything else in Part II of these notes. 23.2 The Linearised Einstein Equations

We express the weakness of the gravitational eld by the condition that the metric be close to that of Minkowski space, i.e. that
(1) g = g + h

(23.1)

with |h | 1. This means that we will drop terms which are quadratic or of higher power in h . Here and in the following the superscript (1) indicates that we keep only up to linear (rst order) terms in h . In particular, the inverse metric is g(1) = h 388 (23.2)

where indices are raised with . As one has thus essentially chosen a background metric, the Minkowski metric, one can think of the linearised version of the Einstein equations (which are eld equations for h ) as a Lorentz-invariant theory of a symmetric tensor eld propagating in Minkowski space-time. I wont dwell on this but it is good to keep this in mind. It gives rise to the eld theorists picture of gravity as the theory of an interacting spin-2 eld (which is useful for many purposes but which I do not subscribe to unconditionally because it is an inherently perturbative and background dependent picture). It is straightforward to work out the Christoel symbols and curvature tensors in this approximation. The terms quadratic in the Christoel symbols do not contribute to the Riemann curvature tensor and one nds
(1) 1 = 2 ( h + h h ) 1 2 ( h

(1) R =

+ h h h )

(23.3)

(this result for the Riemann tensor can also be inferred directly from the expression (7.12) of the Riemann tensor at the origin of an inertial coordinate system). Hence the linearised Ricci tensor is
(1) 1 R = 2 ( h + h h 2h ) ,

(23.4)

where h h = h = h00 + ik hik is the trace of h and 2 = = (0 )2 + . the linearised Ricci scalar is
(1) R(1) = R = h 2h ,

(23.5) (23.6)

(23.7)

the linearised Einstein tensor is

(1) G(1) = R 1 R(1) 2 1 = 2 ( h + h h 2h h + 2h) .

(23.8)

and the linearised vacuum Einstein equations are h + h h 2h = 0 , or, equivalently, h + h h 2h h + 2h = 0 . 389 (23.10) (23.9)

The latter can be derived from the quadratic Minkowski space (Poincar invariant) eld e theory action S[h ] = d4 x L(h , h ) (23.11)

1 1 1 L(h , h ) = 4 h, h, 1 h. h, 4 h, h, + 2 h, h , 2

for a free massless spin-2 eld described by the Lorentz tensor h . Indeed, variation of the action with respect to the h (and the usual integration by parts) leads to h h + h
Remarks:

S[h ] =

d4 x G(1) h .

(23.12)

1. Note that the Lagrangian is not the linearised Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian, i.e. the linearised Ricci scalar (23.7) (as the latter is, by construction, linear in h ). Rather, 1 (23.13) L = 2 h G(1) + total derivative , which is quadratic in h , as it should be. The total derivative is there to turn (1) the terms of the form h 2 h arising from h G into the standard (h)2 -form. 2. Note that we can indeed take the integration measure to be the at Minkowski measure d4 x, as L is already quadratic in h and its derivatives, so that any contribution of h to the measure would give a subleading contribution. 3. This theory, just like its spin-1 Maxwell counterpart, has a local gauge invariance which we will return to and make use of below. 4. In the presence of matter the linearised Einstein equations are
(0) G(1) = 8GN T .

(23.14)

Note that only the zeroth order term in the h-expansion appears on the right hand side of this equation. This is due to the fact that T must itself already (0) be small in order for the linearised approximation to be valid, i.e. T should be of order h . Therefore, any terms in T depending on h would already be of order (h )2 and can be dropped. 5. The conservation law for the energy-momentum tensor is therefore just T (0) = 0 , and this is indeed compatible with the linearised Bianchi identity G(1) = 0 , (23.16) (23.15)

which can easily be veried, and which reects the invariance of the theory under the linearised coordinate transformations to be discussed below. 390

23.3

Newtonian Limit Revisited

In section 9.3 we veried that the Newtonian (weak eld, static, non-relativistic matter) limit of the Einstein equations reduces to the Newtonian (Poisson) equation = 4GN . This is a special case of the above general weak-eld limit equations (23.14), (1) with G given in (23.8), and it will be instructive to redo the calculation of section 9.3 from this more general perspective. We thus assume an energy-momentum tensor whose only non-negligible component is the energy density T00 = , with static and GN 1. Then we can assume that the deviations of the space-time geometry from the Minkowksi metric are small and time-independent, (1) g = g = + h , 0 h = 0 . (23.17) Then the (00)-component of the Einstein tensor reduces (after some cancellations) to G00 = 1 (ik hik ) + 1 i k hik . 2 2
(1)

(23.18)

In particular, h00 and its derivatives have dropped out of this expression, which appears to be at odds with the desired G00 = g00 for Newtonian elds (section 9.3). However, we have not yet used at all the condition that Tik = 0 Gik = 0. In particular, for static perturbations we nd from (23.8) that the trace of the spatial components of the Einstein tensor is (1) 1 ik Gik = 2 (ik hik ) 1 i k hik h00 (23.19) 2 so that Gik = 0
(1)

G00 = h00 .

(1)

(23.20)

This is precisely the relation required (and veried) in the analysis of section 9, in order to have the correct Newtonian limit. 23.4 ADM and Komar Energies of an Isolated System

As we are in the realm of a Poincar-invariant classical eld theory, we can dene the e total energy of the system as the integral of the energy-density T00 = over a spatial constant time x0 = const. slice , E=

d3 x T00

(23.21)

(another way to see that we can take the integration measure to be the at Euclidean measure d3 x is to recall that T00 is small by assumption). If the linearised Einstein equations are satised, we can express the total energy in terms of the Einstein tensor, E= 1 8GN d3 x G00 .
(1)

(23.22)

391

Now we have two distinct expressions for G00 in terms of the derivatives of the metric and, interestingly, both of them are spatial total derivatives, namely
1 1 G00 = 2 (ik hik ) + 1 i k hik = i ( 1 i hkk + 2 k hik ) 2 2 (1)

(1)

(23.23)

and G00 = h00 = i ( i h00 ) .

(1)

(23.24)

This allows us to write the total energy E of the system as a boundary integral over the boundary 2 = S (23.25) of the spatial slice at innity in two dierent ways, namely as E= or as E= 1 16GN
2 S

dSi (k hik i hkk ) dSi i h00 .

(23.26)

1 8GN

(23.27) of the gravitational is weak there transIt is thus tempting asymptotically at)

2 S

Note that these nal expressions only depend on the asymptotics eld at spatial innity (the assumption that the gravitational eld lating into the statement that the metric is asymptotically at). to adopt E as the denition of the total energy of an isolated (i.e. system in general, even when the eld in the interior is not weak:

1. Thus in general the ADM Energy (Arnowitt - Deser - Misner, see the reference in footnote 5, section 9.5) of such a system is dened by EADM = 1 16GN dSi (k hik i hkk ) , (23.28)

2 S

this expression relying on a Cartesian coordinate system at innity (which is why we can permit ourselves to be careless with the positioning of the indices - repeated indices are to be summed, as usual). The justication for the identication of this quantity with the energy is substantially strengthened by the canonical (Hamiltonian) analysis of general relativity performed by ADM. 2. The second expression is actually a special case of the Komar charges briey mentioned in section 8.5, here applied to the (asymptotic) timelike Killing vector t (the generator of time-translations, and thus naturally associated with the energy or Hamiltonian). Indeed, recall that for any Killing vector K we had the conserved current J = R K (8.77), which was itself a divergence of an anti-symmetric tensor, J = A , with A = A = K . Thus the corresponding conserved charge QK (V ) contained in a volume V can be written as a surface integral of K over the boundary V of the volume V , QK (V )
V

dS K .

(23.29)

392

2 Applying this to V = , V = S , and K = t , we nd (asymptotically)

0 K i = 0 K i = i K = i = i00 = + 1 i h00 . 0 00 2 Thus the second expression (23.27) can be written as E= 1 8GN 1 = 8GN dSi i h00 = dS K . 1 4GN dS0i 0 K i

i K 0 = i K 0 = 0 K = 0 = 0i0 = 1 i h00 i i0 2

(23.30)

2 S

2 S

(23.31)

2 S

This xes the normalisation of the Komar charge QK (V ) (23.29) in this case, EKomar (V ) QK=t (V ) = 1 8GN dS K (23.32)

and we can identify (23.27) with the total Komar energy (V = ) associated to the Killing vector K = t , EKomar () = 1 8GN dSi i h00 = 1 8GN dS K . (23.33)

2 S

2 S

As our primary litmus test, let us apply these expressions to the Schwarzschild metric. In standard coordinates the asymptotic behaviour of the spatial part of the metric is (1 2m/r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 (1 + 2m/r)dr 2 + r 2 d2 so that (2m/r)dr 2 measures the departure from at space, (1 + 2m/r)dr 2 + r 2 d2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 + (2m/r)dr 2 = dx2 + (2m/r)dr 2 with r 2 = x2 . Thus one has 2m 2 2m dr = 3 xi xk dxi dxk r r hik = 2m xi xk . r3 (23.36) (23.35) (23.34)

2 It follows that the ADM integrand is (taking a sphere Sr of large but nite radius, and letting r at the end) 4m k hik i hkk = 3 xi . (23.37) r

Thus, with m = GN M and EADM = lim 1 r 16GN

dSi xi = dSi

r 2 dni xi = 4r 3 one has (23.38)

2 Sr

4m i 4m 1 x = lim 4r 3 = M . 3 r 16GN r 3 r

Since the ADM expression for the energy appeals to an asynmptotically Cartesian coordinate system, this is one instance where it is perhaps more natural (and safer) to

393

use the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates (11.35). The asymptotic ( , with 2 = x2 ) behaviour of the spatial part of the metric is (1 + m/2)4 dx2 (1 + 2m/)dx2 hik = 2m ik . (23.39)

Note that this is not the same as (23.36). Nevertheless, calculating k hik i hkk in this case, one nds the same expression as in Schwarzschild coordinates (with r ), k hik i hkk = 4m xi , 3 (23.40)

and the remainder of the calculation is then identical, leading again to EADM = M . From the alternative Komar expression (23.33) for the energy, this (eminently reasonable and respectable) result arises not from the asymptotic behaviour of the spatial components of the metric but instead form that of the (00)-component of the metric (the relation between the two being provided by the Einstein equations). We have g00 = 1 + leading to
2 Sr

2m r

h00 =

2m , r

(23.41)

dSi i h00 = 4r 2 r (2m/r) = 8m .

(23.42)

Note that for the special case of the Schwarzschild metric, for which (23.41) is exact (and not just true asymptotically), this is independent of r, and thus EKomar = lim
r

1 8GN

2 Sr

dSi i h00 =

1 8GN

2 Sr

dSi i h00 = M .

(23.43)

However, more generally, for any metric with the asymptotic behaviour g00 = 1 + a + O(r 2 ) r (23.44)

this calculation shows that the mass / energy of the solution is determined by the 1/r term of the (00)-component of the metric, EKomar = lim 1 r 8GN dSi i h00 = a/2GN . (23.45)

2 Sr

In particular, this applies e.g. to the Reissner-Nordstrm metric of section 15 and shows that the parameter m appearing in the solution ds2 = f (r)dt2 + f (r)1 dr 2 + r 2 d2 , f (r) = 1 2m q 2 + 2 r r (23.46)

has the interepretation of the total energy of the system, E = m/GN , even in the presence of charge and electrostatic elds. This also generalises to higher dimensions. Thus in D = d + 1 dimensions, the mass is determined by the coecient of r 2d in g00 , as in the higher-dimensional SchwarzschildTangherlini black hole (14.140) with f (r) = 1 /r d2 . The proportionality factor 394

between and the mass is also dimension-dependent, as it involves the area of the transverse (d 1)-sphere.
Remarks:

1. The independence of EKomar of the 2-surface over which one integrates in the Schwarzschild case (indeed, one could choose any 2-surface in the region r > 2m enclosing the black hole) can be understood as a consequence of the relation (8.73), which says that ( K ) = R K . (23.47) In particular, therefore, in source-free regions of spacetime (T = 0 R = 0) one has ( K ) = 0 and by the usual arguments the surface integral of K is then independent of the choice of surface. The Reissner-Nordstrm metric, on the other hand, is a solution of the combined Einstein-Maxwell equations with a non-trivial energy-momentum tensor throughout spacetime. In this case ( K ) = 0, and the Komar integral will depend on the radius of the sphere, say, as dierent surface-integrals will enclose dierent amounts of electrostatic energy. 2. One may be a bit concerned by the fact that we obtained a non-zero result for the ADM or Komar energy for the Schwarzschild metric, allegedly a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations, even though in order to arrive at the expressions for the energy, we started o with a non-trivial energy-momentum tensor, either in the linearised theory, with T00 = = 0, or via the Komar charge associated to the current 1 J = R K = 8GN (T 2 R)K (23.48) (which is identically zero for a vacuum solutions, so it appears that one doesnt have a leg to stand on in that case). This seeming conict can be resolved in a number of ways: If the Schwarzschild metric describes the gravitational eld outside a star, then the constant time 3-surface also includes the interior of the star, and one will get just the right contribution to the mass from the interior solution (see the remarks in sections 11.6 and 11.7). If one chooses the 3-volume V to remain outside the star or black hole, bounded by 2 spheres at radii r1 > r0 (radius of the star) or r1 > rs , and r2 > r1 , then one just reproduces the statement that the 2-surface integral is independent of the radius. If one is dealing with a black hole, and is a complete constant time 3surface, then it naturally extends to the mirror region III of the KruskalSchwarzschild spacetime (section 14.6), and then the fact that the total integral should be (and is) zero just says that one gets the same contibution 395

with opposite signs from the spatial innities in regions I and III respectively. Any local observer only has access to one of those regions. Thus the fact that 2 the total integral is zero is irrelevant, and the integral over the surface S of region I gives E = M , which is the physically relevant statement. 3. In the same way one can also introduce various notions of momentum or angular momentum of an isolated system (the latter for instance being non-zero for the Kerr metric (14.133) describing a rotating star or black hole), but we will not pursue this here. 23.5 Gauge Invariance, Gauge Conditions and Polarisation Vector in Maxwell Theory

We will now abandon the assumption of static non-relativistic elds and return to the general weak-eld linearised Einstein equations (23.14). In order to understand how to proceed from there, in this section we will briey recall in a condensed way the analagous steps in the case of Maxwell theory. 1. The Maxwell equations (in a Minkowski background) are already linear (no need to linearise) and read F = J . (23.49) In terms of the potentials A these equations are 2A ( A ) = J . (23.50)

These are to be thought of as the analogue of the linearised Einstein equations (23.14), with the linearised Einstein tensor given in (23.8). These are almost of the form of decoupled wave equations (with a source) for the individual components A , but due to the second term on the left-hand side the potentials are not decoupled. 2. Maxwell theory has the gauge invariance A A + V (23.51)

(in particular, the eld strenghts F are invariant) which allows one to choose for instance the Loren(t)z gauge condition58 A = 0 .
58

(23.52)

Credit for this should really go the Danish physicist Ludvig V. Lorenz (who used this condition in its Lorent(!)z non-invariant form already in 1867, just 3 years after the publicaton of Maxwells treatise) rather than the more famous Dutch physicist Hendrik A. Lorentz. See J. Jacksons Electrodynamics (note at the end of chapter 6).

396

Indeed, if V is chosen to satisfy the dierential equation 2V = A , then (A + V ) = 0 . (23.54) (23.53)

With this choice of gauge the Maxwell equations become decoupled wave equations, 2A = J , (23.55) and can now be straightforwardly solved in terms of Green functions etc. 3. The vacuum Maxwell equations can now be solved in terms of plane waves, A = e ik x

with k k = 0

(23.56)

(or wave packets constructed from them), and the Lorenz gauge constrains the polarisation vector by k = 0 . (23.57) For a wave travelling in the x3 -direction, this implies for the polarisation vector k = (, 0, 0, k3 = ) 4. One still has the residual gauge invariance A = A + , 2 = 0 (23.59) 3 = 0 . (23.58)

leaving the Lorenz gauge condition invariant. Choosing a particular solution of this homegenous wave equation, say = 0 e ik x

(23.60)

now completely xes this residual gauge invariance. Under this residual gauge transformation the polarisation vector transforms as = + i0 k , in particular = 0 i0 . 0 (23.62) Thus choosing 0 = 0 /i, one has = 0, implying = 0, and one is left with 3 0 the polarisation vector = (0, 1 , 2 , 0) (23.63) displaying the two physical transverse polarisations of an electromagnetic wave. (23.61)

397

23.6

Linearised Gravity: Gauge Invariance and Coordinate Choices

We now proceed analgously in the case of linearised gravity. First of all we need to understand the gauge invariance (or the counterpart of gauge invariance) in the present case. The original non-linear Einstein equations have a local invariance consisting of general coordinate transformations. What remains of general coordinate invariance in the linearised approximation are, naturally, linearised general coordinate transformations. Indeed, h and h = h + LV (23.64) represent the same physical perturbation because + LV is just an innitesimal coordinate transform of the Minkowski metric . Therefore linearised gravity has the gauge freedom h h + V + V . (23.65) For example, the linearised Riemann tensor R is, rather obviously, invariant under this transformation. As a consequence, in particular also the Einstein tensor, and hence the vacuum linearised Einstein equations, have this local gauge invariance. This can be understood without any calculation by noting that under the variation V h = LV (23.66)
(1)

the linearised Riemann tensor transforms into the Riemann tensor for the Minkowski metric, (1) V R = LV R ( ) = 0 . (23.67) However, in contrast to the Lagrangian of Maxwell theory, say, the Lagrangian (23.11) for linearised gravity is not strictly gauge invariant, but only invariant up to a total derivative. Given this gauge invariance of the linearised theory, for explicit calculations it is useful to make a particular gauge choice and, as in Maxwell theory, a good choice of gauge can simplify things considerably (and a bad choice of gauge can have the opposite eect). It turns out that, in general, a very useful gauge condition is g = 0 . (23.68)

It is called the harmonic gauge condition (or Fock, or de Donder gauge condition), and the name harmonic derives from the fact that in this gauge the coordinate fuctions x are harmonic: 2x g x = g , (23.69) and thus 2x = 0 g = 0 . 398 (23.70)

It is the analogue of the Lorenz gauge A = 0 in Maxwell theory. Moreover, in at space Cartesian coordinates are obviously harmonic, and in general harmonic coordinates are (like geodesic coordinates) a nice and useful curved space counterpart of Cartesian coordinates. In the linearised theory, this gauge condition becomes h 1 h = 0 . 2 The gauge parameter V which will achieve this is the solution to the equation
1 2V = ( h 2 h) .

(23.71)

(23.72)

Indeed, with this choice one has (h + V + V ) 1 ( h + 2 V ) = 0 . 2 (23.73)

Note for later that, as in Maxwell theory, this gauge choice does not necessarily x the gauge completely. Any transformation x x + with 2 = 0 will leave the harmonic gauge condition invariant. 23.7 The Wave Equation

Now let us use this gauge condition in the linearised Einstein equations. In this gauge they simplify somewhat to
(0) 1 2h 2 2h = 16GN T .

(23.74)

In particular, the vacuum equations are just

(0) T = 0 2h = 0 ,

(23.75)

which is the standarad relativistic wave equation. Together, the equations 2h = 0 (23.76)

1 h 2 h = 0

determine the evolution of a disturbance in a gravitational eld in vacuum in the harmonic gauge. It is often convenient to dene the trace reversed perturbation h = h 1 h , 2 with h = h . 399 (23.78) (23.77)

Note, as an aside, that with this notation and terminology the Einstein tensor is the trace reversed Ricci tensor, R = R 1 g R = G . 2 In terms of h , the Einstein equations and gauge conditions are just 2h h
(0) = 16GN T

(23.79)

= 0 .

(23.80)

In this equation, the h are now decoupled, just as the covariant Lorentz gauge A = 0 decouples the Maxwell equations which, in this gauge read 2A j (the proportionality factor depending strongly on ones conventions and choice of units for Maxwell theory). One solution is, of course, the retarded potential h (x, t) = 4GN d x
3

T (x , t |x x |) |x x |

(0)

(23.81)

Note that, as a consequence of T (0) = 0, this solution is automatically in the harmonic gauge. 23.8 The Polarisation Tensor

The linearised vacuum Einstein equation in the harmonic gauge, 2h = 0 , is clearly solved by h = e ik x

(23.82)

(23.83)

where is a constant, symmetric polarisation tensor and k is a constant wave vector, provided that k is null, k k = 0. (In order to obtain real metrics one should of course use real solutions.) Thus plane waves are solutions to the linearised equations of motion and the Einstein equations predict the existence of gravitational waves travelling along null geodesics (at the speed of light). The timelike component of the wave vector is often referred to as the frequency of the wave, and we can write k = (, ki ). Plane waves are of course not the most general solutions to the wave equations but any solution can be written as a superposition of plane wave solutions (wave packets). So far, we have ten parameters and four parameters k to specify the wave, but many of these are spurious, i.e. can be eliminated by using the freedom to perform linearised coordinate transformations and Lorentz rotations. 400

First of all, the harmonic gauge condition implies that h = 0 k = 0 . (23.84)

Now we can make use of the residual gauge freedom x x + with 2 = 0 to impose further conditions on the polarisation tensor. Since this is a wave equation for , once we have specied a solution for we will have xed the gauge completely. Taking this solution to be of the form = B e ik x

(23.85)

one can choose the B in such a way that the new polarisation tensor satises k = 0 (as before) as well as 0 = = 0 . (23.86) All in all, we appear to have nine conditions on the polarisation tensor but as both (23.84) and the rst of (23.86) imply k 0 = 0, only eight of these are independent. Therefore, there are two independent polarisations for a gravitational wave. For example, we can choose the wave to travel in the x3 -direction. Then k = (, 0, 0, k3 ) = (, 0, 0, ) , (23.87)

and k = 0 and 0 = 0 imply 3 = 0, so that the only independent components are ab with a, b = 1, 2. As ab is symmetric and traceless, this wave is completely characterised by 11 = 22 , 12 = 21 and the frequency . Now we should not forget that, when talking about the polarisation tensor of a gravitational wave, we are actually talking about the space-time metric itself. Namely, since for a traceless perturbation we have h = h , we have deduced that the metric describing a gravitational wave travelling in the x3 -direction can always be put into the form ds2 = dt2 + (ab + hab )dxa dxb + (dx3 )2 , (23.88)

with hab = hab (t x3 ). This neatly encodes and describes the distortion of the spacetime geometry in the directions transverse to the gravitational wave. 23.9 Physical Effects of Gravitational Waves

To determine the physical eect of a gravitational wave racing by, we cannot just look at the gravitational eld (23.88) at a point (by the equivalence principle), i.e. we cannot detect the presence of such a wave (ultra-)locally. However, we can consider its inuence on the relative motion of nearby particles. In other words, we look at the geodesic deviation equation (8.28).

401

Consider a family of nearby particles described by the velocity eld u (x) and separation (deviation) vector S (x). Then the change of the deviation vector along the ow lines of the velocity eld is determined by ( )2 S = R u u S . (23.89)

We consider the situation where the test particles are initially, in the absence of the gravitational wave, at rest, u = (1, 0, 0, 0). Then the gravitational wave will lead, to lowest order in the perturbation h , to a 4-velocity u = (1, 0, 0, 0) + O(h) . (23.90)

However, because the Riemann tensor is already of order h, to lowest order the right hand side of the geodesic deviation equation reduces to
1 R00 = 2 0 0 h (1)

(23.91)

(because h0 = 0). On the other hand, to lowest order the left hand side is just the ordinary time derivative. Thus the geodesic deviation equation becomes (an overdot denoting a t-derivative) (23.92) S = 1 h S . 2 In particular, we see immediately that the gravitational wave is transversally polarised, i.e. the component S 3 of S in the longitudinal direction of the wave is unaected and the particles are only disturbed in directions perpendicular to the wave. The movement of the particles in the 1-2 plane is then governed by S a = 1 hab S b (2 )ab S b , 2 (23.93)

which is the equation of a 2-dimensional time-dependent harmonic oscillator, giving rise to characteristic oscillating movements of the test particles in the 1-2 plane. With
3 hab = e i(t x ) a , b

(23.94)

as above, one has

1 (2 )ab = 2 2 hab ,

(23.95)

and we can consider separately the two cases (1) 12 = 0 and (2) 11 = 22 = 0. 1. For 12 = 0 one has
1 S 1 (t) = 2 11 2 e it S 1 (t) e ix 1 S 2 (t) = + 2 11 2 e it S 2 (t) e ix 3 3

(23.96)

Recalling that ab is small, the solution to lowest order is simply

3 1 S 1 (t) = (1 + 2 11 e i(t x ) )S 1 (0) 3 1 S 2 (t) = (1 2 11 e i(t x ) )S 2 (0)

(23.97)

402

x2

x1

Figure 23: Eect of a gravitational wave with polarisation 11 moving in the x3 -direction, on a ring of test particles in the x1 x2 -plane.
x2

x1

Figure 24: Eect of a gravitational wave with polarisation 12 moving in the x3 -direction, on a ring of test particles in the x1 x2 -plane. Given the interpretation of S as a separation vector, this means that particles originally separated in the x1 -direction will oscillate back and forth in the x1 direction and likewise for x2 . A nice (and classical) way to visualise this (see Figure 23) is to start o with a ring of particles in the 1 2 plane. As the wave passes by the particles will start bouncing in such a way that the ring bounces in the shape of a cross +. For this reason, 11 is also frequently written as + . 2. If, on the other hand, 11 = 0 but 12 = 21 = 0, then the lowest order solution is
3 S 1 (t) = S 1 (0) + 1 12 e i(t x ) S 2 (0) 2 3 S 2 (t) = S 2 (0) + 1 12 e i(t x ) S 1 (0) . 2

(23.98)

This time the deplacement in the x1 -direction is governed by the original deplacement in the x2 -direction and vice-versa, and the ring of particles will bounce in the shape of a (12 = ) - see Figure 24. 3. Of course, one can also construct circularly polarised waves by using 1 R,L = (11 i12 ) . 2 403 (23.99)

These solutions display the characteristic behaviour of quadrupole radiation, and this is something that we might have anticipated on general grounds. First of all, we know from Birkhos theorem that there can be no monopole (s-wave) radiation. Moreover, dipole radiation is due to oscillations of the center of charge. While this is certainly possible for electric charges, an oscillation of the center of mass would violate momentum conservation and is therefore ruled out. Thus the lowest possible mode of gravitational radiation is quadrupole radiation, just as we have found. Now that we have found the solutions to the vacuum equations, we should include sources and study the production of gravitational waves, characterise the type of radiation that is emitted, estimate the energy etc. I will not do this59 but just make some general comments on the detection of gravitational waves. In principle, this ought to be straightforward. For example, one might like to simply try to track the separation of two freely suspended masses. Alternatively, the particles need not be free but could be connected by a solid piece of material. Then gravitational tidal forces will stress the material. If the resonant frequency of this antenna equals the frequency of the gravitational wave, this should lead to a detectable oscillation. This is the principle of the so-called Weber detectors or Weber bars (1966-. . . ). While ne in principle, in practice gravitational waves are extremely weak (so weak, in fact, that the quantum theory of the detectors needs to be taken into account) and, to the best of my knowledge, such detectors have not produced conclusive results so far (2011). More sensitive modern experiments use detectors based on huge laser Michelson interferometers (arms several kilometers long), e.g. LIGO (Laser Interferometer GravitationalWave Observatory) and VIRGO, and these (or their upgrades) are widely expected to nally directly detect gravitational waves in the next couple of years. However, there is indirect (and very compelling) evidence for gravitational waves. According to the theory (we have not developed), a binary system of stars rotating around its common center of mass should radiate gravitational waves (much like electromagnetic synchroton radiation). For two stars of equal mass M at distance 2r from each other, the prediction of General Relativity is that the power radiated by the binary system is 2 G4 M 5 N P = . (23.100) 5 r5 This energy loss has actually been observed. In 1974, Hulse and Taylor discovered a binary system, aectionately known as PSR1913+16, in which both stars are very small and one of them is a pulsar, a rapidly spinning neutron star. The period of the orbit is only eight hours, and the fact that one of the stars is a pulsar provides a highly accurate clock with respect to which a change in the period as the binary loses energy can be measured. The observed value is in good agreement with the theoretical prediction for
See e.g. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology or S. Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry for detailed discussionss.
59

404

loss of energy by gravitational radiation and Hulse and Taylor were rewarded for these discoveries with the 1993 Nobel Prize. Other situations in which gravitational waves might be either detected directly or inferred indirectly are extreme situations like gravitational collapse (supernovae) or matter orbiting black holes.

405

24

Exact Wave-like Solutions of the Einstein Equations

In the previous section we discussed wave-like solutions to the linearised Einstein equations. In this section, we will briey discuss a class of solutions to the full non-linear Einstein equations which are also wave-like and thus generalise the solutions of the previous section (to which they reduce in the weak-eld limit). These solutions are called plane-fronted waves with parallel rays or pp-waves for short. A special subset of these solutions are the so-called exact gravitational plane wave metrics or simply plane waves. Such wave-metrics have been studied in the context of four-dimensional general relativity for a long time even though they are not (and were never meant to be) phenomenologically realistic models of gravitational plane waves. The reason for this is that in the far-eld gravitational waves are so weak that the linearised Einstein equations and their solutions are adequate to describe the physics, whereas the near-eld strong gravitational eects responsible for the production of gravitational waves, for which the linearised equations are indeed insucient, correspond to much more complicated solutions of the Einstein equations (describing e.g. two very massive stars orbiting around their common center of mass). However, pp-waves have been useful and of interest as a theoretical play-ground since they are in some sense the simplest essentially Lorentzian metrics with no non-trivial Riemannian counterparts. As such they also provide a wealth of counterexamples to conjectures that one might like to make about Lorentzian geometry by naive extrapolation from the Riemannian case. They have also enjoyed some popularity in the string theory literature as potentially exact and exactly solvable string theory backgrounds. However, they seem to have made it into very few textbook accounts of general relativity, and the purpose of this section is to at least partially ll this gap by providing a brief introduction to this topic. 24.1 Plane Waves in Rosen Coordinates: Heuristics

We have seen in the previous section that a metric describing the propagation of a plane wave in the x3 -direction (23.88) can be written as ds2 = dt2 + (ab + hab )dxa dxb + (dx3 )2 , with hab = hab (t x3 ). In terms of lightcone coordinates U = z t, V = (z + t)/2 this can be written as ds2 = 2dU dV + (ij + hij (U ))dy i dy j . (24.2) We will now simply dene a plane wave metric in general relativity to be a metric of the above form, dropping the assumption that hij be small, d2 = 2dU dV + gij (U )dy i dy j . s 406 (24.3) (24.1)

We will say that this is a plane wave metric in Rosen coordinates. This is not the coordinate system in which plane waves are usually discussed, among other reasons because typically in Rosen coordinates the metric exhibits spurious coordinate singularities. This led to the mistaken belief in the past that there are no non-singular plane wave solutions of the non-linear Einstein equations. We will establish the relation to the more common and much more useful Brinkmann coordinates below. Plane wave metrics are characterised by a single matrix-valued function of U , but two metrics with quite dierent gij may well be isometric. For example, d2 = 2dU dV + U 2 dy 2 s (24.4)

is isometric to the at Minkowski metric whose natural presentation in Rosen coordinates is simply the Minkowski metric in lightcone coordinates, d2 = 2dU dV + dy 2 . s (24.5)

This is not too dicult to see, and we will establish this as a consequence of a more general result later on (but if you want to try this now, try scaling y by U and do something to V . . . ). That (24.4) is indeed at should in any case not be too surprising. It is the null counterpart of the spacelike fact that ds2 = dr 2 + r 2 d2 , with d2 the unit line element on the sphere, is just the at Euclidean metric in polar coordinates, and the timelike statement that ds2 = dt2 + t2 d2 , (24.6) with d2 the unit line element on the hyperboloid, is just (a wedge of) the at Minkowski metric. In cosmology this is known as the Milne Universe. It is easy to check that this is indeed a (rather trivial) solution of the Friedmann equations with k = 1, a(t) = t and = P = 0. It is somewhat less obvious, but still true, that for example the two metrics d2 = 2dU dV + sinh2 U dy 2 s d2 = 2dU dV + e 2U dy 2 s are also isometric. 24.2 From pp-waves to plane waves in Brinkmann coordinates

(24.7)

In the remainder of this section we will study gravitational plane waves in a more systematic way. One of the characteristic features of the above plane wave metrics is the existence of a nowhere vanishing covariantly constant null vector eld, namely V . We thus begin by deriving the general metric (line element) for a space-time admitting 407

such a covariantly constant null vector eld. We will from now on consider general (d + 2)-dimensional space-times, where d is the number of transverse dimensions. Thus, let Z be a parallel (i.e. covariantly constant) null vector of the (d+ 2)-dimensional Lorentzian metric g , Z = 0. This condition is equivalent to the pair of conditions Z + Z = 0 Z Z = 0 . (24.8) (24.9)

The rst of these says that Z is a Killing vector eld, and the second that Z is also a gradient vector eld. If Z is nowhere zero, without loss of generality we can assume that Z = v (24.10) for some coordinate v since this simply means that we are using a parameter along the integral curves of Z as our coordinate v. In terms of components this means that Z = v , or Z = gv . (24.11) The fact that Z is null means that Zv = gvv = 0 . (24.12)

The Killing equation now implies that all the components of the metric are v-independent, v g = 0 . The second condition (24.9) is identical to Z Z = 0 Z Z = 0 , which implies that locally we can nd a function u = u(x ) such that Z = gv = u . (24.15) (24.14) (24.13)

There are no further constraints, and thus the general form of a metric admitting a parallel null vector is, changing from the x -coordinates to {u, v, xa }, a = 1, . . . , d, ds2 = g dx dx = 2dudv + guu (u, xc )du2 + 2gau (u, xc )dxa du + gab (u, xc )dxa dxb 2dudv + K(u, xc )du2 + 2Aa (u, xc )dxa du + gab (u, xc )dxa dxb . (24.16) Note that if we had considered a metric with a covariantly constant timelike or spacelike vector, then we would have obtained the above metric with an additional term of the form dv 2 . In that case, the cross-term 2dudv could have been eliminated by shifting v v = v u, and the metric would have factorised into dv 2 plus a v -independent 408

metric. Such a factorisation does in general not occur for a covariantly constant null vector, which makes metrics with such a vector potentially more interesting than their timelike or spacelike counterparts. There are still residual coordinate transformations which leave the above form of the metric invariant. For example, both K and Aa can be eliminated in favour of gab . We will not pursue this here, as we are primarily interested in a special class of metrics which are characterised by the fact that gab = ab , ds2 = 2dudv + K(u, xb )du2 + 2Aa (u, xb )dxa du + dx2 . (24.17)

Such metrics are called plane-fronted waves with parallel rays, or pp-waves for short. plane-fronted refers to the fact that the wave fronts u = const. are planar (at), and parallel rays refers to the existence of a parallel null vector. Once again, there are residual coordinate transformations which leave this form of the metric invariant. Among them are shifts of v, v v + (u, xa ), under which the coecients K and Aa transform as
1 K K + 2 u

Aa Aa + a .

(24.18)

Note in particular the gauge transformation of the (Kaluza-Klein) gauge eld Aa , here associated with the null isometry generated by Z = v . Plane waves are a very special kind of pp-waves. By denition, a plane wave metric is a pp-wave with Aa = 0 and K(u, xa ) quadratic in the xa (zeroth and rst order terms in xa can be eliminated by a coordinate transformation), d2 = 2dudv + Aab (u)xa xb du2 + dx2 . s (24.19)

We will say that this is the metric of a plane wave in Brinkmann coordinates. The relation between the expressions for a plane wave in Brinkmann coordinates and Rosen coordinates will be explained in section 24.5. From now on barred quantities will refer to plane wave metrics. In Brinkmann coordinates a plane wave metric is characterised by a single symmetric matrix-valued function Aab (u). Generically there is very little redundancy in the description of plane waves in Brinkmann coordinates, i.e. there are very few residual coordinate transformations that leave the form of the metric invariant, and the metric is specied almost uniquely by Aab (u). In particular, as we will see below, a plane wave metric is at if and only if Aab (u) = 0 identically. Contrast this with the non-uniqueness of the at metric in Rosen coordinates. This uniqueness of the Brinkmann coordinates is one of the features that makes them convenient to work with in concrete applications.

409

24.3

Geodesics, Light-Cone Gauge and Harmonic Oscillators

We now take a look at geodesics of a plane wave metric in Brinkmann coordinates, d2 = 2dudv + Aab (u)xa xb du2 + dx2 , s i.e. the solutions x ( ) to the geodesic equations x ( ) + (x( ))x ( )x ( ) = 0 , where an overdot denotes a derivative with respect to the ane parameter . Rather than determining the geodesic equations by rst calculating all the non-zero Christoel symbols, we make use of the fact that the geodesic equations can be obtained more eciently, and in a way that allows us to directly make use of the symmetries of the problem, as the Euler-Lagrange equations of the Lagrangian L = = supplemented by the constraint 2L = , where = 0 ( = 1) for massless (massive) particles. Since nothing depends on v, the lightcone momentum pv = L =u v (24.24) (24.23)
1 2 g x x uv + 1 Aab (u)xa xb u2 2

(24.20)

(24.21)

+ 1 x2 , 2

(24.22)

is conserved. For pv = 0 the particle obviously does not feel the curvature and the geodesics are straight lines. When pv = 0, we choose the lightcone gauge u = pv . (24.25)

Then the geodesic equations for the transverse coordinates are the Euler-Lagrange equations xa ( ) = Aab (pv )xb ( )p2 (24.26) v These are the equation of motion of a non-relativistic harmonic oscillator,
2 xa ( ) = ab ( )xb ( )

(24.27)

with (possibly time-dependent) frequency matrix

2 ab ( ) = p2 Aab (pv ) , v

(24.28)

The constraint
1 1 pv v( ) + 2 Aab (pv )xa ( )xb ( )p2 + 2 xa ( )xa ( ) = 0 v

(24.29)

410

for null geodesics (the case = 0 can be dealt with in the same way) implies, and thus provides a rst integral for, the v-equation of motion. Multiplying the oscillator equation by xa and inserting this into the constraint, one nds that this can be further integrated to 1 pv v( ) = 2 xa ( )xa ( ) + pv v0 . (24.30) Note that a particular solution of the null geodesic equation is the purely longitudinal null geodesic x ( ) = (u = pv , v = v0 , xa = 0) . (24.31) Along this null geodesic, all the Christoel symbols of the metric (in Brinkmann coordinates) are zero. Hence Brinkmann coordinates can be regarded as a special case of Fermi coordinates (briey mentioned at the beginning of section 2.9). By denition the lightcone Hamiltonian is Hlc = pu , (24.32)

where pu is the momentum conjugate to u in the gauge u = pv . With the above normalisation of the Lagrangian one has pu = gu x = v + Aab (pv )xa xb pv = p1 Hho ( ) , v where Hho ( ) is the (possibly time-dependent) harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian
1 Hho ( ) = 2 (xa xa p2 Aab (pv )xa xb ) . v

(24.33)

(24.34)

Thus for the lightcone Hamiltonian one has Hlc =

1 pv Hho

(24.35)

In summary, we note that in the lightcone gauge the equation of motion for a relativistic particle becomes that of a non-relativistic harmonic oscillator. This harmonic oscillator equation appears in various dierent contexts when discussing plane waves, and will therefore also reappear several times later on in this section. 24.4 Curvature and Singularities of Plane Waves

It is easy to see that there is essentially only one non-vanishing component of the Riemann curvature tensor of a plane wave metric, namely Ruaub = Aab . (24.36)

In particular, therefore, because of the null (or chiral) structure of the metric, there is only one non-trivial component of the Ricci tensor, Ruu = ab Aab Tr A , 411 (24.37)

the Ricci scalar is zero, R=0 , and the only non-zero component of the Einstein tensor (7.58) is Guu = Ruu . (24.39) (24.38)

Thus, as claimed above, the metric is at i Aab = 0. Moreover, we see that in Brinkmann coordinates the vacuum Einstein equations reduce to a simple algebraic condition on Aab (regardless of its u-dependence), namely that it be traceless. A simple example of a vacuum plane wave metric in four dimensions is d2 = 2dudv + (x2 y 2 )du2 + dx2 + dy 2 , s or, more generally, d2 = 2dudv + [A(u)(x2 y 2 ) + 2B(u)xy]du2 + dx2 + dy 2 s (24.41) (24.40)

for arbitrary fuctions A(u) and B(u). This reects the two polarisation states or degrees of freedom of a four-dimensional graviton. Evidently, this generalises to arbitrary dimensions: the number of degrees of freedom of the traceless matrix Aab (u) correspond precisely to those of a transverse traceless symmetric tensor (a.k.a. a graviton). The Weyl tensor is the traceless part of the Riemann tensor, 1 Cuaub = (Aab ab Tr A) . d (24.42)

Thus the Weyl tensor vanishes (and, for d > 1, the plane wave metric is conformally at) i Aab is pure trace, Aab (u) = A(u)ab . (24.43) For d = 1, every plane wave is conformally at, as is most readily seen in Rosen coordinates. When the Ricci tensor is non-zero (Aab has non-vanishing trace), then plane waves solve the Einstein equations with null matter or null uxes, i.e. with an energy-momentum tensor T whose only non-vanishing component is Tuu , T = (u)u u . Examples are e.g. null Maxwell elds A (u) with eld strength Fu = Fu = u A . (24.45) (24.44)

Physical matter (with positive energy density) corresponds to Ruu > 0 or Tr A < 0. It is pretty obvious by inspection that not just the scalar curvature but all the scalar curvature invariants of a plane wave, i.e. scalars built from the curvature tensor and its covariant derivatives, vanish since there is simply no way to soak up the u-indices. 412

Usually, an unambiguous way to ascertain that what appears to be a singularity of a metric is a true curvature singularity rather than just a singularity in the choice of coordinates is to exhibit a curvature invariant that is singular at that point. For example, for the Schwarzschild metric one has the Kretschmann scalar (14.98) K = R R m2 /r 6 , which shows that the singularity at r = 0 is a true singularity. Now for plane waves all curvature invariants are zero. Does this mean that plane waves are non-singular? Or, if not, how does one detect the presence of a curvature singularity? One way to do this is to study the tidal forces acting on extended objects or families of freely falling particles. Indeed, in a certain sense the main eect of curvature (or gravity) is that initially parallel trajectories of freely falling non-interacting particles (dust, pebbles,. . . ) do not remain parallel, i.e. that gravity has the tendency to focus (or defocus) matter. This statement nd its mathematically precise formulation in the geodesic deviation equation (8.28), ( )2 x = R x x x . (24.46)

Here x is the separation vector between nearby geodesics. We can apply this equation to some family of geodesics of plane waves discussed in section 24.3. We will choose x to connect points on nearby geodesics with the same value of = u. Thus u = 0, and the geodesic deviation equation for the transverse separations xa reduces to d2 a x = Ra xb = Aab xb . ubu du2 (24.47)

This is (once again!) the harmonic oscillator equation, and generalises the corresponding equation (23.93) of the linearised theory to the present case. We could have also obtained this directly by varying the harmonic oscillator (geodesic) equation for xa , using u = 0. We see that for negative eigenvalues of Aab (physical matter) this tidal force is attractive, leading to a focussing of the geodesics. For vacuum plane waves, on the other hand, the tidal force is attractive in some directions and repulsive in the other (reecting the quadrupole nature of gravitational waves). What is of interest to us here is the fact that the above equation shows that Aab itself contains direct physical information. In particular, these tidal forces become innite where Aab (u) diverges. This is a true physical eect and hence the plane wave spacetime is genuinely singular at such points. Let us assume that such a singularity occurs at u = u0 . Since u = pv is an ane parameter along the geodesic, this shows that any geodesic starting o at a nite value u1 of u will reach the singularity in the nite time u0 u1 . Thus the space-time is geodesically incomplete and ends at u = u0 . Since, on the other hand, the plane wave metric is clearly smooth for non-singular Aab (u), we can thus summarise this discussion by the statement that a plane wave is singular if and only if Aab (u) is singular somewhere. 413

24.5

From Rosen to Brinkmann coordinates (and back)

I still owe you an explanation of what the heuristic considerations of section 24.1 have to do with the rest of this section. To that end I will now describe the relation between the plane wave metric in Brinkmann coordinates, d2 = 2dudv + Aab (u)xa xb du2 + dx2 , s and in Rosen coordinates, d2 = 2dU dV + gij (U )dy i dy j . s (24.49) (24.48)

It is clear that, in order to transform the non-at transverse metric in Rosen coordinates to the at transverse metric in Brinkmann coordinates, one should change variables as i xa = E a y i , where E a is a vielbein for gij , i.e. it is a matrix which satises i gij = E a E bj ab . i Denoting the inverse vielbein by E ia , one has gij dy i dy j = (dxa E ai E ic xc dU )(dxb E bj E jd xd dU )ab . (24.52) (24.51) (24.50)

This generates the at transverse metric as well as dU 2 -term quadratic in the xa , as desired, but there are also unwanted dU dxa cross-terms. Provided that E satises the symmetry condition Eai E ib = Ebi E ia (24.53) (such an E can always be found and is unique up to U -independent orthogonal transformations), these terms can be cancelled by a shift in V ,
1 V V 2 Eai E ib xa xb .

(24.54)

Apart from eliminating the dU dxa -terms, this shift will also have the eect of generating other dU 2 -terms. Thanks to the symmetry condition, the term quadratic in rst derivatives of E cancels that arising from gij dy i dy j , and only a second-derivative part remains. The upshot of this is that after the change of variables U V yi = u
1 = v + 2 Eai E ib xa xb = E ia xa ,

(24.55)

the metric (24.49) takes the Brinkmann form (24.48), with Aab = Eai E ib . 414 (24.56)

This can also be written as the harmonic oscillator equation Eai = Aab Ebi (24.57)

we had already encountered in the context of the geodesic (and geodesic deviation) equation. Note that from this point of view the Rosen coordinates are labelled by d out of 2d linearly independent solutions of the oscillator equation, and the symmetry condition can now be read as the constraint that the Wronskian among these solutions be zero. Thus, given the metric in Brinkmann coordinates, one can construct the metric in Rosen coordinates by solving the oscillator equation, choosing a maximally commuting set of solutions to construct Eai , and then determining gij algebraically from the Eai . In practice, once one knows that Rosen and Brinkmann coordinates are indeed just two distinct ways of describing the same class of metrics, one does not need to perform explicitly the coordinate transformation mapping one to the other. All one is interested in is the above relation between gij (U ) and Aab (u), which essentially says that Aab is the curvature of gij , Aab = E ia E jb RU iU j . (24.58) The equations simplify somewhat when the metric gij (u) is diagonal, gij (u) = ei (u)2 ij . (24.59)

In that case one can choose E a = ei i . The symmetry condition is automatically a i satised because a diagonal matrix is symmetric, and one nds that Aab is also diagonal, e Aab = (ea /a )ab . (24.60)

Conversely, therefore, given a diagonal plane wave in Brinkmann coordinates, to obtain the metric in Rosen coordinates one needs to solve the harmonic oscillator equations ei (u) = Aii (u)i (u) . e (24.61)

Thus the Rosen metric determined by gij (U ) is at i ei (u) = ai U +bi for some constants ai , bi . In particular, we recover the fact that the metric (24.4), d2 = 2dU dV + U 2 dy 2 s (24.62)

is at. We see that the non-uniqueness of the metric in Rosen coordinates is due to the integration constants arising when trying to integrate a curvature tensor to a corresponding metric. As another example, consider the four-dimensional vacuum plane wave (24.40). Evidently, one way of writing this metric in Rosen coordinates is d2 = 2dU dV + sinh2 U dX 2 + sin2 U dY 2 , s (24.63)

and more generally any plane wave with constant Aab can be chosen to be of this trigonometric form in Rosen coordinates. 415

24.6

More on Rosen Coordinates

Collecting the results of the previous sections, we can now gain a better understanding of the geometric signicance (and shortcomings) of Rosen coordinates for plane waves. First of all we observe that the metric d2 = 2dU dV + gij (U )dy i dy j s (24.64)

denes a preferred family (congruence) of null geodesics, namely the integral curves of the null vector eld U , i.e. the curves (U ( ), V ( ), y k ( )) = (, V, y k ) (24.65)

with ane parameter = U and parametrised by the constant values of the coordinates (V, y k ). In particular, the origin V = y k = 0 of this congruence is the longitudinal null geodesic (24.31) with v0 = 0 in Brinkmann coordinates. In the region of validity of this coordinate system, there is a unique null geodesic of this congruence passing through any point, and one can therefore label (coordinatise) these points by specifying the geodesic (V, y k ) and the ane parameter U along that geodesic, i.e. by Rosen coordinates. We can now also understand the reasons for the failure of Rosen coordinates: they cease to be well-dened (and give rise to spurious coordinate singularities) e.g. when geodesics in the family (congruence) of null geodesics interesect: in that case there is no longer a unique value of the coordinates (U, V, y k ) that one can associate to that intersection point. To illustrate this point, consider simply R2 with its standard metric ds2 = dx2 + dy 2 . An example of a good congruence of geodesics is the straight lines parallel to the x-axis. The corresponding Rosen coordinates (Rosen in quotes because we are not talking about null geodesics) are simply the globally well-dened Cartesian coordinates, x playing the role of the ane parameter U and y that of the transverse coordinates y k labelling the geodesics. An example of a bad family of godesics is the straight lines through the origin. The corresponding Rosen coordinates are essentially just polar coordinates. Away from the origin there is again a unique geodesic passing through any point but, as is well known, this coordinate system breaks down at the origin. With this in mind, we can now reconsider the bad Rosen coordinates d2 = 2dU dV + U 2 dy 2 s (24.66)

for at space. As we have seen above, in Brinkmann coordinates the metric is manifestly at, d2 = 2dudv + dx2 . s (24.67) 416

Using the coordinate transformation (24.55) from Rosen to Brinkmann coordinates, we see that the geodesic lines y k = ck , V = c of the congruence dened by the metric (24.66) correspond to the lines xk = ck u in Brinkmann (Minkowski) coordinates. But these are precisely the straight lines through the origin. This explains the coordinate singularity at U = 0 and further strengthens the analogy with polar coordinates mentioned at the end of section 24.1. More generally, we see from (24.55) that the relation between the Brinkmann coordinates xa and the Rosen coordinates y k , a xa = Ek (U )y k , (24.68)

a and hence the expression for the geodesic lines y k = ck , becomes degenerate when Ek becomes degenerate, i.e. precisely when gij becomes degenerate. Brinkmann coordinates, on the other hand, provide a global coordinate chart for plane wave metrics. The (almost) inevitablity of (coordinate) singularities in Rosen coordinates can be seen from the following argument.60 Namely, it follows from the oscillator equation (24.57) that the determinant a E = det(Ek ) (24.69) satises E/E = Tr A + (Tr M )2 Tr(M 2 ) Tr A = Ruu , (24.70) where use has been made of the expression Ruu = Tr A (24.37) for the Ricci tensor, and where Mab is the symmetric matrix (24.53) Mab = Eai E ib . (24.71)

In particular, therefore, if Ruu > 0, then E(u) is strictly concave downwards but positive at a non-degenerate point, so that necessarily e(u0 ) = 0 for some nite value of u0 , and the Rosen coordinate system breaks down there. By (24.44), Ruu > 0 is equivalent to positivity of the lightcone energy density, a very reasonable requirement on the matter content. 24.7 The Heisenberg Isometry Algebra of a Generic Plane Wave

We now study the isometries of a generic plane wave metric. In Brinkmann coordinates, because of the explicit dependence of the metric on u and the transverse coordinates, only one isometry is manifest, namely that generated by the parallel null vector Z = v . In Rosen coordinates, the metric depends neither on V nor on the transverse coordinates y k , and one sees that in addition to Z = V there are at least d more Killing vectors,
This is adapted from G. Gibbons, Quantized Fields Propagating in Plane-Wave Spacetimes, Commun. Math. Phys. 45 (1975) 191-202.
60

417

namely the yk . Together these form an Abelian translation algebra acting transitively on the null hypersurfaces of constant U . However, this is not the whole story. Indeed, one particularly interesting and peculiar feature of plane wave space-times is the fact that they generically possess a solvable (rather than semi-simple) isometry algebra, namely a Heisenberg algebra, only part of which we have already seen above. All Killing vectors V can be found in a systematic way by solving the Killing equations LV g = V + V = 0 . (24.72)

I will not do this here but simply present the results of this analysis in Brinkmann coordinates. The upshot is that a generic (2 + d)-dimensional plane wave metric has a (2d + 1)-dimensional isometry algebra generated by the Killing vector Z = v and the 2d Killing vectors X(f(K) ) X(K) = f(K)a a f(K)a xa v . (24.73) Here the f(K)a , K = 1, . . . , 2d are the 2d linearly independent solutions of the harmonic oscillator equation (again!) fa (u) = Aab (u)fb (u) . (24.74) These Killing vectors satisfy the algebra [X(J) , X(K) ] = W (f(J) , f(K) )Z [X(J) , Z] = 0 . Here W (f(J) , f(K) ), the Wronskian of the two solutions, is dened by W (f(J) , f(K) ) =
a

(24.75) (24.76)

(f(J)a f(K)a f(K)a f(J)a ) .

(24.77)

It is constant (independent of u) as a consequence of the harmonic oscillator equation. Thus W (f(J) , f(K) ) is a constant, non-degenerate, even-dimensional antisymmetric matrix (non-degeneracy is implied by the linear independence of the solutions f(J) .) Hence it can be put into standard (Darboux) form. Explicitly, a convenient choice of basis for the solutions f(J) is obtained by splitting the f(J) into two sets of solutions {f(J) } {p(a) , q(a) } characterised by the initial conditions p(a)b (u0 ) = ab p(a)b (u0 ) = 0 q(a)b (u0 ) = 0 q(a)b (u0 ) = ab . (24.79) (24.78)

Since the Wronskian of these functions is independent of u, it can be determined by evaluating it at u = u0 . Then one can immediately read o that W (q(a) , q(b) ) = W (p(a) , p(b) ) = 0 W (q(a) , p(b) ) = ab . 418 (24.80)

Therefore the corresponding Killing vectors Q(a) = X(q(a) ) , P(a) = X(p(a) ) (24.81)

and Z satisfy the canonically normalised Heisenberg algebra [Q(a) , Z] = [P(a) , Z] = 0 [Q(a) , Q(b) ] = [P(a) , P(b) ] = 0 [Q(a) , P(b) ] = ab Z . 24.8 Plane Waves with more Isometries (24.82)

Generically, a plane wave metric has just this Heisenberg algebra of isometries. It acts transitively on the null hyperplanes u = const., with a simply transitive Abelian subalgebra. However, for special choices of Aab (u), there may of course be more Killing vectors. These could arise from internal symmetries of Aab , giving more Killing vectors in the transverse directions. For example, the conformally at plane waves (24.43) have an additional SO(d) symmetry (and conversely SO(d)-invariance implies conformal atness). Of more interest to us is the fact that for particular Aab (u) there may be Killing vectors with a u -component. The existence of such a Killing vector renders the plane wave homogeneous (away form the xed points of this extra Killing vector). The obvious examples are plane waves with a u-independent prole Aab , ds2 = 2dudv + Aab xa xb du2 + dx2 , (24.83)

which have the extra Killing vector X = u . Since Aab is u-independent, it can be diagonalised by a u-independent orthogonal transformation acting on the xa . Moreover, the overall scale of Aab can be changed, Aab 2 Aab , by the coordinate transformation (boost) (u, v, xa ) (u, 1 v, xa ) . (24.84) Thus these metrics are classied by the eigenvalues of Aab up to an overall scale and permutations of the eigenvalues. Since Aab is constant, the Riemann curvature tensor is covariantly constant, R = 0 u Aab = 0 . (24.85)

Thus a plane wave with constant wave prole Aab is what is known as a locally symmetric space. The existence of the additional Killing vector X = u extends the Heisenberg algebra to the harmonic oscillator algebra, with X playing the role of the number operator or 419

harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian. Indeed, X and Z = v obviously commute, and the commutator of X with one of the Killing vectors X(f ) is [X, X(f )] = X(f) . (24.86)

Note that this is consistent, i.e. the right-hand side is again a Killing vector, because when Aab is constant and f satises the harmonic oscillator equation then so does its u-derivative f. In terms of the basis (24.81), we have [X, Q(a) ] = P(a) [X, P(a) ] = Aab Q(b) , which is the harmonic oscillator algebra. Another way of understanding the relation between X = u and the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian is to look at the conserved charge associated with X for particles moving along geodesics. As we have seen in section 6.6, given any Killing vector X, the quantity QX = X x is constant along the trajectory of the geodesic x ( ). For X = u one nds QX = pu = gu x (24.89) (24.88) (24.87)

which we had already identied (up to a constant for non-null geodesics) as minus the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian in section 24.3. This is indeed a conserved charge i the Hamiltonian is time-independent i.e. i Aab is constant. We thus see that the dynamics of particles in a symmetric plane wave background is intimately related to the geometry of the background itself. Another class of examples of plane waves with an interesting additional Killing vector are plane waves with the non-trivial prole Aab (u) = u2 Bab (24.90)

for some constant matrix Bab = Aab (1). Without loss of generality one can then assume 2 that Bab and Aab are diagonal, with eigenvalues the oscillator frequency squares a ,
2 Aab = a ab u2 .

(24.91)

The corrrresponding plane wave metric d2 = 2dudv + Bab xa xb s du2 + dx2 u2 (24.92)

is invariant under the boost/scaling (24.84), corresponding to the extra Killing vector X = uu vv . 420 (24.93)

Note that in this case the Killing vector Z = v is no longer a central element of the isometry algebra, since it has a non-trivial commutator with X, [X, Z] = Z . (24.94)

Moreover, one nds that the commutator of X with a Heisenberg algebra Killing vector X(f ), fa a solution to the harmonic oscillator equation, is the Heisenberg algebra Killing vector [X, X(f )] = X(uf) , (24.95) corresponding to the solution ufa = uu fa of the harmonic oscillator equation. This concludes our brief discussion of plane wave metrics even though much more can and perhaps should be said about plane wave and pp-wave metrics, in particular in the context of the so-called Penrose Limit construction. For more on this see my lecture notes61 (from which I also took the material in this chapter).

M. Blau, Lecture Notes on Plane Waves http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/Lecturenotes.html

61

and

Penrose

Limits,

available

from

421

25
25.1

Kaluza-Klein Theory
Motivation: Gravity and Gauge Theory

Looking at the Einstein equations and the variational principle, we see that gravity is nicely geometrised while the matter part has to be added by hand and is completely non-geometric. This may be perfectly acceptable for phenomenological Lagrangians (like that for a perfect uid in Cosmology), but it would clearly be desirable to have a unied description of all the fundamental forces of nature. Today, the fundamental forces of nature are described by two very dierent concepts. On the one hand, we have - as we have seen - gravity, in which forces are replaced by geometry, and on the other hand there are the gauge theories of the electroweak and strong interactions (the standard model) or their (grand unied, . . . ) generalisations. Thus, if one wants to unify these forces with gravity, there are two possibilities: 1. One can try to realise gravity as a gauge theory (and thus geometry as a consequence of the gauge principle). 2. Or one can try to realise gauge theories as gravity (and hence make them purely geometric). The rst is certainly an attractive idea and has attracted a lot of attention. It is also quite natural since, in a broad sense, gravity is already a gauge theory in the sense that it has a local invariance (under general coordinate transformations or, actively, dieomorphisms). Also, the behaviour of Christoel symbols under general coordinate transformations is analogous to the transformation behaviour of non-Abelian gauge elds under gauge transformations, and the whole formalism of covariant derivatives and curvatures is reminiscent of that of non-Abelian gauge theories. At rst sight, equating the Christoel symbols with gauge elds (potentials) may appear to be a bit puzzling because we originally introduced the metric as the potential of the gravitational eld and the Christoel symbol as the corresponding eld strength (representing the gravitational force). However, as we know, the concept of force is itself a gauge (coordinate) dependent concept in General Relativity, and therefore these eld strengths behave more like gauge potentials themselves, with their curvature, the Riemann curvature tensor, encoding the gauge covariant information about the gravitational eld. This fact, which reects deep properties of gravity not shared by other forces, is just one of many which suggest that an honest gauge theory interpretation of gravity may be hard to come by. But let us proceed in this direction for a little while anyway.

422

Clearly, the gauge group should now not be some internal symmetry group like U (1) or SU (3), but rather a space-time symmetry group itself. Among the gauge groups that have been suggested in this context, one nds 1. the translation group (this is natural because, as we have seen, the generators of coordinate transformations are innitesimal translations) 2. the Lorentz group (this is natural if one wants to view the Christoel symbols as the analogues of the gauge elds of gravity) 3. and the Poincar group (a combination of the two). e However, what - by and large - these investigations have shown is that the more one tries to make a gauge theory look like Einstein gravity the less it looks like a standard gauge theory and vice versa. The main source of dierence between gauge theory and gravity is the fact that in the case of Yang-Mills theory the internal indices bear no relation to the space-time indices a whereas in gravity these are the same - contrast F with (F ) = R . In particular, in gravity one can contract the internal with the space-time indices to obtain a scalar Lagrangian, R, linear in the curvature tensor. This is fortunate because, from the point of view of the metric, this is already a two-derivative object. For Yang-Mills theory, on the other hand, this is not possible, and in order to construct a Lagrangian which is a singlet under the gauge group one needs to contract the spacetime and internal indices separately, i.e. one has a Lagrangian quadratic in the eld stregths. This gives the usual two-derivative action for the gauge potentials. In spite of these and other dierences and diculties, this approach has not been completely abandoned and the gauge theory point of view is still very fruitful and useful provided that one appreciates the crucial features that set gravity apart from standard gauge theories. The second possibility alluded to above, to realise gauge theories as gravity, is much more radical. But how on earth is one supposed to achieve this? The crucial idea has been known since 1919/20 (T. Kaluza), with important contributions by O. Klein (1926). So what is this idea? 25.2 The Kaluza-Klein Miracle: History and Overview

In the early parts of the last century, the only other fundamental force that was known, in addition to gravity, was electro-magnetism, In 1919, Kaluza submitted a paper (to Einstein) in which he made a number of remarkable observations.

423

First of all, he stressed the similarity between Christoel symbols and the Maxwell eld strength tensor, =
1 2 ( g

g + g ) (25.1)

F = A A .

He then noted that F looks like a truncated Christoel symbol and proposed, in order to make this more manifest, to introduce a fth dimension with a metric such that 5 F . This is inded possible. If one makes the identication A = g5 , (25.2)

and the assumption that g5 is independent of the fth coordinate x5 , then one nds, using the standard formula for the Christoel symbols, now extended to ve dimensions, that 5 = =
1 2 (5 g + g5 g5 ) 1 1 2 ( A A ) = 2 F

(25.3)

But much more than this is true. Kaluza went on to show that when one postulates a ve-dimensional metric of the form (hatted quantities will from now on refer to ve dimensional quantities) ds2 = g dx dx + (dx5 + A dx )2 , (25.4)

and calculates the ve-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian R, one nds precisely the four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian
1 R = R 4 F F .

(25.5)

This fact is aectionately known as the Kaluza-Klein Miracle! Moreover, the vedimensional geodesic equation turns into the four-dimensional Lorentz force equation for a charged particle, and in this sense gravity and Maxwell theory have really been unied in ve-dimensional gravity. However, although this is very nice, rather amazing in fact, and is clearly trying to tell us something deep, there are numerous problems with this and it is not really clear what has been achieved: 1. Should the fth direction be treated as real or as a mere mathematical device? 2. If it is to be treated as real, why should one make the assumption that the elds are independent of x5 ? But if one does not make this assumption, one will not get Einstein-Maxwell theory. 3. Moreover, if the fth dimension is to be taken seriously, why are we justied in setting g55 = 1? If we do not do this, we will not get Einstein-Maxwell theory. 424

4. If the fth dimension is real, why have we not discovered it yet? In spite of all this and other questions, related to non-Abelian gauge symmetries or the quantum behaviour of these theories, Kaluzas idea has remained popular ever since or, rather, has periodically created psychological epidemics of frantic activity, interrupted by dormant phases. Today, Kaluzas idea, with its many reincarnations and variations, is an indispensable and fundamental ingredient in the modern theories of theoretical high energy physics (supergravity and string theories) and many of the questions/problems mentioned above have been addressed, understood and overcome. Let us now look at this more precisely. We consider a ve-dimensional space-time with coordinates xM = (x , x5 ) and a metric of the form (25.4). For later convenience, we will introduce a parameter into the metric (even though we will set = 1 for the time being) and write it as ds2 = g dx dx + (dx5 + A dx )2 . More explictly, we therefore have g = g + A A (25.7) (25.6)

g5 = A g55 = 1 . The determinant of the metric is g = g, and the inverse metric has components g = g (25.8)

g5 = A

g55 = 1 + A A .

We will (for now) assume that nothing depends on x5 (in the old Kaluza-Klein literature this assumption is known as the cylindricity condition). Introducing the notation F B = A A = A + A , (25.9)

the Christoel symbols are readily found to be

1 = 2 (F A + F A ) 1 1 2 B 2 A (F A 1F 2 1 2 F A

5 = 5 = 55 =

+ F A ) A

= 555 = 0 . 55

(25.10) 425

This does not look particularly encouraging, in particular because of the presence of the B term, but Kaluza was not discouraged and proceeded to calculate the Riemann tensor. I will spare you all the components of the Riemann tensor, but the Ricci tensor we need: R = R + 1 F F + 1 F F A A + 1 (A F + A F ) 2 4 2
1 4 F F

1 R5 = + 1 F + 4 A F F 2

R55 =

(25.11)

This looks a bit more attractive and covariant but still not very promising. [However, if you work in an orthonormal basis, if you know what that means, the result looks much nicer. In such a basis only the rst two terms in R and the rst term in R5 are present and R55 is unchanged, so that all the non-covariant looking terms disappear.] Now the miracle happens. Calculating the curvature scalar, all the annoying terms drop out and one nds 1 R = R 4 F F , (25.12) i.e. the Lagrangian of Einstein-Maxwell theory. For = 1, the second term would have been multiplied by 2 . We now consider the ve-dimensional pure gravity EinsteinHilbert action 1 S= gd5 x R . (25.13) 8 G In order for the integral over x5 to converge we assume that the x5 -direction is a circle with radius L and we obtain 2L 4 1 (25.14) gd x (R 4 2 F F ) . S= 8 G Therefore, if we make the identications GN = G/2L (25.15)

2 = 8GN , we obtain S=

1 4 1 4 gd x R gd x F F , (25.16) 8GN 4 i.e. precisely the four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian! This amazing fact, that coupled gravity gauge theory systems can arise from higher-dimensional pure gravity, is certainly trying to tell us something. 25.3 The Origin of Gauge Invariance

In physics, at least, miracles require a rational explanation. So let us try to understand on a priori grounds why the Kaluza-Klein miracle occurs. For this, let us recall Kaluzas ansatz for the line element (25.4), ds2 = g (x )dx dx + (dx5 + A (x )dx )2 . KK 426 (25.17)

and contrast this with the most general form of the line element in ve dimensions, namely ds2 = gM N (xL )dxM dxN = g (x , x5 )dx dx + 2g5 (x , x5 )dx dx5 + g55 (x , x5 )(dx5 )2 . (25.18) Clearly, the form of the general ve-dimensional line element (25.18) is invariant under arbitrary ve-dimensional general coordinate transformations xM M (xN ). This is not true, however, for the Kaluza-Klein ansatz (25.17), as a general x5 -dependent coordinate transformation would destroy the x5 -independence of g = g and g5 = A and would also not leave g55 = 1 invariant. The form of the Kaluza-Klein line element is, however, invariant under the following two classes of coordinate transformations: 1. There are four-dimensional coordinate transformations x5 x5

x (x )

(25.19)

Under these transformations, as we know, g transforms in such a way that g dx dx is invariant, A = g5 transforms as a four-dimensional covector, thus A dx is invariant, and the whole metric is invariant. 2. There is also another remnant of ve-dimensional general covariance, namely x5 5 (x , x5 ) = x5 + f (x ) (25.20)

x (x ) = x .

Under this transformation, g and g55 are invariant, but A = g5 changes as

A = g5 =

xM xN gM N 5

xM g5 x f = g5 g55 x = A f .

(25.21)

In other words, the Kaluza-Klein line element is invariant under the shift x5 x5 + f (x ) accompanied by A A f (and this can of course also be read o directly from the metric). But this is precisely a gauge transformation of the vector potential A and we see that in the present context gauge transformations arise as remnants of ve-dimensional general covariance! 427

But now it is clear that we are guaranteed to get Einstein-Maxwell theory in four dimensions: First of all, upon integration over x5 , the shift in x5 is irrelevant and starting with the ve-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action we are bound to end up with an action in four dimensions, depending on g and A , which is (a) generally covariant (in the four-dimensional sense), (b) second order in derivatives, and (c) invariant under gauge transformations of A . But then the only possibility is the Einstein-Maxwell action. A fruitful way of looking at the origin of this gauge invariance is as a consequence of the fact that constant shifts in x5 are isometries of the metric, i.e. that /x5 is a Killing vector of the metric (25.17). Then the isometry group of the internal circle in the x5 -direction, namely SO(2), becomes the gauge group U (1) = SO(2) of the four-dimensional theory. From this point of view, the gauge transformation of the vector potential arises from the Lie derivative of g5 along the vector eld f (x )5 : Y = f (x )5 Y = 0 Y5 =f Y = A f Y5 = f . (LY g)5 = = = = Y5 + 5 Y Y5 2 Y M 5M f (25.23) (25.22)

f + F Y + F A Y5

A = f .

This point of view becomes particularly useful when one wants to obtain non-Abelian gauge symmetries in this way (via a Kaluza-Klein reduction): One starts with a higherdimensional internal space with isometry group G and makes an analogous ansatz for the metric. Then among the remnants of the higher-dimensional general coordinate transformations there are, in particular, x -dependent isometries of the internal metric. These act like non-Abelian gauge transformations on the o-block-diagonal componenents of the metric and, upon integration over the internal space, one is guaranteed to get, perhaps among other things, the four-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert and Yang-Mills actions. 25.4 Geodesics

There is something else that works very beautifully in this context, namely the description of the motion of charged particles in four dimensions moving under the combined 428

inuence of a gravitational and an electro-magnetic eld. As we will see, also these two eects are uned from a ve-dimensional Kaluza-Klein point of view. Let us consider the ve-dimensional geodesic equation xM + M L xN xL = 0 . N (25.24)

Either because the metric (and hence the Lagrangian) does not depend on x5 , or because we know that V = 5 is a Killing vector of the metric, we know that we have a conserved quantity L VM xM = x5 + A x , (25.25) x5 along the geodesic world lines. We will see in a moment what this quantity corresponds to. The remaining x -component of the geodesic equation is x + L xN xL = x + x x N + 2 x x5 + 2 x5 x5 5 55 = x + x x F x (A x + x5 ) . Therefore this component of the geodesic equation is equivalent to x + x x = (A x + x5 )F x . (25.27) = x + x x F A x x F x x5 (25.26)

This is precisely the Lorentz law if one identies the constant of motion with the ratio of the charge and the mass of the particle, x5 + A x = e . m (25.28)

Hence electro-magnetic and gravitational forces are indeed unied. The fact that charged particles take a dierent trajectory from neutral ones is not a violation of the equivalence principle but only reects the fact that they started out with a dierent velocity in the x5 -direction! 25.5 First Problems: The Equations of Motion

The equations of motion of the four-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert-Maxwell action will of course give us the coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations R 1 g R = 8GN T 2 F = 0 . (25.29) But now let us take a look at the equations of motion following from the ve-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action. These are, as we are looking at the vacuum equations, just the Ricci-atness equations RM N = 0. But looking back at (25.11) we see that these are 429

clearly not equivalent to the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In particular, R55 = 0 imposes the constraint R55 = 0 F F = 0 , (25.30) and only then do the remaining equations R = 0, R5 = 0 become equivalent to the Einstein-Maxwell equations (25.29). What happened? Well, for one, taking variations and making a particular ansatz for the eld congurations in the variational principle are two operations that in general do not commute. In particular, the Kaluza-Klein ansatz is special because it imposes the condition g55 = 1. Thus in four dimensions there is no equation of motion corresponding to g55 whereas R55 = 0, the additional constraint, is just that, the equation arising from varying g55 . Thus Einstein-Maxwell theory is not a consistent truncation of vedimensional General Relativity. But now we really have to ask ourselves what we have actually achieved. We would like to claim that the ve-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action unies the four-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert and Maxwell actions, but on the other hand we want to reject the ve-dimensional Einstein equations? But then we are not ascribing any dynamics to the fth dimension and are treating the Kaluza-Klein miracle as a mere kinematical, or mathematical, or bookkeeping device for the four-dimensional elds. This is clearly rather articial and unsatisfactory. There are some other unsatisfactory features as well in the theory we have developed so far. For instance we demanded that there be no dependence on x5 , which again makes the ve-dimensional point of view look rather articial. If one wants to take the fth dimension seriously, one has to allow for an x5 -dependence of all the elds (and then explain later, perhaps, why we have not yet discovered the fth dimension in every-day or high energy experiments). 25.6 Masses and Charges from Scalar Fields in Five Dimenions

With these issues in mind, we will now revisit the Kaluza-Klein ansatz, regarding the fth dimension as real and exploring the consequences of this. Instead of considering directly the eect of a full (i.e. not restricted by any special ansatz for the metric) vedimensional metric on four-dimensional physics, we will start with the simpler case of a free massless scalar eld in ve dimensions. Let us assume that we have a ve-dimensional space-time of the form M5 = M4 S 1 where we will at rst assume that M4 is Minkowski space and the metric is simply ds2 = dt2 + dx2 + (dx5 )2 , (25.31)

with x5 a coordinate on a circle with radius L. Now consider a massless scalar eld

430

on M5 , satisfying the ve-dimensional massless Klein-Gordon equation 2(x , x5 ) = M N M N (x , x5 ) = 0 . (25.32)

As x5 is periodic with period 2L, we can make a Fourier expansion of to make the x5 -dependence more explicit, (x , x5 ) =
n 5 n (x )e inx /L .

(25.33)

Plugging this expansion into the ve-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation, we nd that this turns into an innite number of decoupled equations, one for each Fourier mode of n of , namely (2 m2 )n = 0 . (25.34) n Here 2 of course now refers to the four-dimensional dAlembertian, and the mass term m2 = n
2 arises from the x5 -derivative 5 in 2.

n2 L2

(25.35)

Thus we see that, from a four-dimensional perspective, a massless scalar eld in ve dimensions give rise to one massless scalar eld in four dimensions (the harmonic or constant mode on the internal space) and an innite number of massive elds. The masses of these elds, known as the Kaluza-Klein modes, have the behaviour mn n/L. In general, this behaviour, an innite tower of massive elds with mass 1/ length scale is characteristic of massive elds arising from dimensional reduction from some higher dimensional space. Next, instead of looking at a scalar eld on Minkowski space times a circle with the product metric, let us consider the Kaluza-Klein metric, ds2 = dt2 + dx2 + (dx5 + A dx )2 , and the corresponding Klein-Gordon equation 2(x , x5 ) = gM N M N (x , x5 ) = 0 . (25.37) (25.36)

Rather than spelling this out in terms of Christoel symbols, it is more convenient to use (4.40) and recall that g = g = 1 to write this as 2 = M (gM N N ) = g + 5 g5 + g5 5 + 5 g55 5 = + 5 (A ) + (A 5 ) + (1 + 2 A A )5 5 = ( A 5 )( A 5 ) + (5 )2 . (25.38)

431

Acting with this operator on the Fourier decomposition of , we evidently again get an innite number of decoupled equations, one for each Fourier mode n of , namely ( i n n A )( i A ) m2 n = 0 . n L L (25.39)

This shows that the non-constant (n = 0) modes are not only massive but also charged under the gauge eld A . Comparing the operator i n A L (25.40)

with the standard form of the minimal coupling, i eA , (25.41)

we learn that the electric charge en of the nth mode is given by en = n . L (25.42)

In particular, these charges are all integer multiples of a basic charge, en = ne, with 8GN = . (25.43) e= L L Thus we get a formula for L, the radius of the fth dimension, L2 = 8GN e2
2

8GN e2 /

(25.44)

Restoring the velocity of light in this formula, and identifying the present U (1) gauge symmetry with the standard gauge symmetry, we recognise here the ne structure constant = e2 /4 c 1/137 , (25.45) and the Planck length P = Thus L2 = GN c3 1033 cm . (25.46)

22 P 2742 . (25.47) P This is very small indeed, and it is therefore no surprise that this fth dimension, if it is the origin of the U (1) gauge invariance of the world we live in, has not yet been seen.

Another way of saying this is that the fact that L is so tiny implies that the masses mn are huge, not far from the Planck mass mP = c 105 g 1019 GeV . GN (25.48)

432

These would never have been spotted in present-day accelerators. Thus the massive modes are completely irrelevant for low-energy physics, the non-constant modes can be dropped, and this provides a justication for neglecting the x5 -dependence. However, this also means that the charged particles we know (electrons, protons, . . . ) cannot possibly be identied with these Kaluza-Klein modes. The way modern Kaluza-Klein theories address this problem is by identifying the light charged particles we observe with the massless Kaluza-Klein modes. One then requires the standard spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism to equip them with the small masses required by observation. This still leaves the question of how these particles should pick up a charge (as the zero modes are not only massless but also not charged). This is solved by going to higher dimensions, with non-Abelian gauge groups, for which massless particles are no longer necessarily singlets of the gauge group (they could e.g. live in the adjoint). 25.7 Kinematics of Dimensional Reduction

We have seen above that a massless scalar eld in ve dimensions gives rise to a massless scalar eld plus an innite tower of massive scalar elds in four dimensions. What happens for other elds (after all, we are ultimately interested in what happens to the ve-dimensional metric)? Consider, for example, a ve-dimensional vector potential (covector eld) BM (xN ). From a four-dimensional vantage point this looks like a four-dimensional vector eld B (x , x5 ) and a scalar (x , x5 ) = B5 (x , x5 ). Fourier expanding, one will then obtain in four dimensions: 1. one massless Abelian gauge eld B (x ) 2. an innite tower of massive charged vector elds 3. one massless scalar eld (x ) = B5 (x ) 4. an innite tower of massive charged scalar elds Retaining, for the same reasons as before, only the massless, i.e. x5 -independent, modes we therefore obtain a theory involving one scalar eld and one Abelian vector eld from pure Maxwell theory in ve dimensions. The Lagrangian for these elds would be (dropping all x5 -derivatives) FM N F M N = F F + 2F5 F 5 (25.49)

F F + 2( )( ) .

This procedure of obtaining Lagrangians in lower dimensions from Lagrangians in higher dimensions by simply dropping the dependence on the internal coordinates is known as 433

dimensional reduction or Kaluza-Klein reduction. But the terminology is not uniform here - sometimes the latter term is used to indicate the reduction including all the massive modes. Also, in general massless is not the same as x5 -independent, and then Kaluza-Klein reduction may refer to keeping the massless modes rather than the x5 -independent modes one retains in dimensional reduction. Likewise, we can now consider what happens to the ve-dimensional metric gM N (xL ). From a four-dimensional perspective, this splits into three dierent kinds of elds, namely a symmetric tensor g , a covector A = g5 and a scalar = g55 . As before, these will each give rise to a massless eld in four dimensions (which we interpret as the metric, a vector potential and a scalar eld) as well as an innite number of massive elds. We see that, in addition to the massless elds we considered before, in the old KaluzaKlein ansatz, we obtain one more massless eld, namely the scalar eld . Thus, even if we may be justied in dropping all the massive modes, we should keep this massless eld in the ansatz for the metric and the action. With this in mind we now return to the Kaluza-Klein ansatz. 25.8 The Kaluza-Klein Ansatz Revisited

Let us once again consider pure gravity in ve dimensions, i.e. the Einstein-Hilbert action 1 gd5 x R . (25.50) S= 8 G Let us now parametrise the full ve-dimensional metric as ds2 = 1/3 [g dx dx + (dx5 + A dx )2 ] , (25.51)

where all the elds depend on all the coordinates x , x5 . Any ve-dimensional metric can be written in this way and we can simply think of this as a change of variables gM N (g , A , ) . In matrix form, this metric reads (gM N ) = 1/3 g + 2 A A A A (25.53) (25.52)

For a variety of reasons, this particular parametrisation is useful. In particular, it reduces to the Kaluza-Klein ansatz when = 1 and all the elds are independent of x5 and the s in the o-diagonal component ensure that the determinant of the metric is independent of the A .

434

The only thing that may require some explanation is the strange overall power of . To see why this is a good choice, assume that the overall power is a for some a. Then for g one nds g = 5a/2 1/2 g = (5a+1)/2 g . (25.54) On the other hand, for the Ricci tensor one has, schematically, R = R + . . . , and therefore R = g R + . . . = a g R + . . . = a R + . . . . Hence the ve-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action reduces to g R (5a+1)/2 a gR + . . . = (3a+1)/2 gR + . . . . (25.56) (25.55)

(25.57)

Thus, if one wants the ve-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action to reduce to the standard four-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action (plus other things), without any non-minimal coupling of the scalar eld to the metric, one needs to choose a = 1/3 which is the choice made in (25.51,25.53). Making a Fourier-mode expansion of all the elds, plugging this into the Einstein-Hilbert action 1 gd5 x R , (25.58) 8 G integrating over x5 and retaining only the constant modes g(0) , A(0) and (0) , one obtains the action 1 1 1 R(g(0) ) (0) F(0) F(0) 2 g(0) (0) (0) . (0) 8GN 4 48GN (25.59) Here we have once again made the identications (25.15). This action may not look as nice as before, but it is what it is. It is at least generally covariant and gauge invariant, as expected. We also see very clearly that it is inconsistenst with the equations of motion for (0) , 3 (25.60) 2 log (0) = 8GN (0) F(0) F(0) , 4 to set (0) = 1 as this would imply F(0) F(0) = 0, in agreement with our earlier observations regarding R55 = 0. S= gd4 x However, the conguration g(0) = , A(0) = 0, (0) = 1 is a solution to the equations of motion and denes the vacuum or ground state of the theory. From this point of 435

view the zero mode metric, (25.53) with the elds replaced by their zero modes, i.e. the Kaluza-Klein ansatz with the inclusion of , has the following interpretation: as usual in quantum theory, once one has chosen a vacuum, one can consider uctuations around that vacuum. The elds g(0) , A(0) , (0) are then the massless uctuations around the vacuum and are the elds of the low-energy action. The full classical or quantum theory will also contain all the massive and charged Kaluza-Klein modes. 25.9 Non-Abelian Generalisation and Outlook

Even though in certain respects the Abelian theory we have discussed above is atypical, it is rather straightforward to generalise the previous considerations from Maxwell theory to Yang-Mills theory for an arbitrary non-Abelian gauge group. Of course, to achieve that, one needs to consider higher-dimensional internal spaces, i.e. gravity in 4 + d dimensions, with a space-time of the form M4 Md . The crucial observation is that gauge symmetries in four dimensions arise from isometries (Killing vectors) of the metric on Md . Let the coordinates on Md be xa , denote by gab the metric on Md , and let Kia , i = 1, . . . , n denote the n linearly independent Killing vectors of the metric gab . These generate the Lie algebra of the isometry group G via the Lie bracket
a b k a [Ki , Kj ]a Kib b Kj Kj b Kia = fij Kk .

(25.61)

Md could for example be the group manifold of the Lie group G itself, or a homogeneous space G/H for some subgroup H G. Now consider the following Kaluza-Klein ansatz for the metric,
b ds2 = g dx dx + gab (dxa + Kia Ai dx )(dxb + Kj Aj dx ) .

(25.62)

Note the appearance of elds with the correct index structure to act as non-Abelian gauge elds for the gauge group G, namely the Ai . Again these should be thought of as uctuations of the metric around its ground state, M4 Md with its product metric (g , gab ). Now consider an innitesimal coordinate transformation generated by the vector eld V a (x , xb ) = f i (x )Kia (xb ) , i.e. xa = f i (x )Kia (xb ) . This leaves the form of the metric invariant, and ga = LV ga (25.65) (25.64) (25.63)

436

can be seen to imply

i Ai = D f i f i fjk Aj f k ,

(25.66)

i.e. precisely an innitesimal non-Abelian gauge transformation. The easiest way to see this is to use the form of the Lie derivative not in its covariant form, LV ga = Va + a V (which requires knowledge of the Christoel symbols) but in the form LV ga = V c c ga + V c gca + a V c gc . (25.68) (25.67)

Inserting the denitions of ga and V a , using the fact that the Kia are Killing vectors of the metric gab and the relation (25.61), one nds LV ga = gab Kib D f i , and hence (25.66). One is then assured to nd a Yang-Mills like term
i b LY M F F j Kia Kj gab

(25.69)

(25.70)

in the reduction of the Lagrangian from 4 + d to 4 dimensions. The problem with this scenario (already prior to worrying about the inclusion of scalar elds, of which there will be plenty in this case, one for each component of gab ) is that the four-dimensional space-time cannot be chosen to be at. Rather, it must have a huge cosmological constant. This arises because the dimensional reduction of the (4 + d)-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian R will also include a contribution from the scalar curvature Rd of the metric on Md . For a compact internal space with non-Abelian isometries this scalar curvature is non-zero and will therefore lead to an eective cosmological constant in the four-dimensional action. This cosmological constant could be cancelled by hand by introducing an appropriate cosmological constant of the opposite sign into the (d + 4)-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action, but this looks rather contrived and articial. Nevertheless, this and other problems have not stopped people from looking for realistic Kaluza-Klein theories giving rise to the standard model gauge group in four dimension. Of course, in order to get the standard model action or something resembling it, fermions need to be added to the (d + 4)-dimensional action. An interesting observation in this regard is that the lowest possible dimension for a homogenous space with isometry group G = SU (3) SU (2) U (1) is seven, so that the dimension of space-time is eleven. This arises because the maximal compact subgroup H of G, giving rise to the smallest dimensional homogeneous space G/H of G, is SU (2) U (1) U (1). As the dimension of G is 8 + 3 + 1 = 12 and that of H is 3 + 1 + 1 = 5, the 437

dimension of G/H is 12 5 = 7. This is intriguing because eleven is also the highest dimension in which supergravity exists (in higher dimensions, supersymmetry would require the existence of spin > 2 particles). That, plus the hope that supergravity would have a better quantum behaviour than ordinary gravity, led to an enourmous amount of activity on Kaluza-Klein supergravity in the early 80s. Unfortunately, it turned out that not only was supergravity sick at the quantum level as well but also that it is impossible to get a chiral fermion spectrum in four dimensions from pure gravity plus spinors in (4+d) dimensions. One way around the latter problem is to include explicit Yang-Mills elds already in (d + 4)-dimensions, but that appeared to defy the purpose of the whole Kaluza-Klein idea. Today, the picture has changed and supergravity is regarded as a low-energy approximation to string theory which is believed to give a consistent description of quantum gravity. These string theories typically live in ten dimensions, and thus one needs to compactify the theory on a small internal six-dimensional space, much as in the Kaluza-Klein idea. Even though non-Abelian gauge elds now typically do not arise from Kaluza-Klein reduction but rather from explicit gauge elds in ten dimensions (or objects called D-branes), in all other respects Kaluzas old idea is alive, doing very well, and an indispensable part of the toolkit of modern theoretical high energy physics.

THE END

438