Full-text resources of PSJD and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results

Results found: 5

Number of results on page
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  general relativity
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Open Physics
|
2011
|
vol. 9
|
issue 3
576-615
EN
A conventional wisdom often perpetuated in the literature states that: (i) a 3 + 1 decomposition of spacetime into space and time is synonymous with the canonical treatment and this decomposition is essential for any Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity (GR); (ii) the canonical treatment unavoidably breaks the symmetry between space and time in GR and the resulting algebra of constraints is not the algebra of four-dimensional diffeomorphism; (iii) according to some authors this algebra allows one to derive only spatial diffeomorphism or, according to others, a specific field-dependent and non-covariant four-dimensional diffeomorphism; (iv) the analyses of Dirac [21] and of ADM [22] of the canonical structure of GR are equivalent. We provide some general reasons why these statements should be questioned. Points (i–iii) have been shown to be incorrect in [45] and now we thoroughly re-examine all steps of the Dirac Hamiltonian formulation of GR. By direct calculation we show that Dirac’s references to space-like surfaces are inessential and that such surfaces do not enter his calculations. In addition, we show that his assumption g 0k = 0, used to simplify his calculation of different contributions to the secondary constraints, is unwarranted; yet, remarkably his total Hamiltonian is equivalent to the one computed without the assumption g 0k = 0. The secondary constraints resulting from the conservation of the primary constraints of Dirac are in fact different from the original constraints that Dirac called secondary (also known as the “Hamiltonian” and “diffeomorphism” constraints). The Dirac constraints are instead particular combinations of the constraints which follow directly from the primary constraints. Taking this difference into account we found, using two standard methods, that the generator of the gauge transformation gives diffeomorphism invariance in four-dimensional space-time; and this shows that points (i–iii) above cannot be attributed to the Dirac Hamiltonian formulation of GR. We also demonstrate that ADM and Dirac formulations are related by a transformation of phase-space variables from the metric g μν to lapse and shift functions and the three-metric g km, which is not canonical. This proves that point (iv) is incorrect. Points (i–iii) are mere consequences of using a non-canonical change of variables and are not an intrinsic property of either the Hamilton-Dirac approach to constrained systems or Einstein’s theory itself.
2
Content available remote

Light refraction in the Swiss-cheese model

100%
Open Physics
|
2012
|
vol. 10
|
issue 4
821-835
EN
We investigate light propagation in the Swiss-cheese model. On both sides of Swiss-cheese sphere surfaces, observers resting in the flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) space and the Schwarzschild space respectively, see the same light ray enclosing different angles with the normal. We examine light refraction at each crossing of the boundary surfaces, showing that the angle of refraction is larger than the angle of incidence for both directions of the light.
3
Content available remote

Sources of inertia in an expanding universe

88%
Open Physics
|
2015
|
vol. 13
|
issue 1
EN
In a cosmological perspective, gravitational induction is explored as a source to mechanical inertia in line with Mach’s principle. Within the standard model of cosmos, considering the expansion of the universe and the necessity of retarded interactions, it is found that the assumed dynamics may account for a significant part of an object’s inertia.
EN
In an extreme mass-ratio binary black hole system, a non-equatorial orbit will list (i.e. increase its angle of inclination, i) as it evolves in Kerr spacetime. The abutment, a set of evolving, near-polar, retrograde orbits, for which the instantaneous Carter constant (Q) is at its maximum value (Q X) for given values of latus rectum (l̃) and eccentricity (e), has been introduced as a laboratory in which the consistency of dQ/dt with corresponding evolution equations for d l̃/dt and de/dt might be tested independently of a specific radiation back-reaction model. To demonstrate the use of the abutment as such a laboratory, a derivation of dQ/dt, based only on published formulae for d l̃/dt and de/dt, was performed for elliptical orbits on the abutment. The resulting expression for dQ/dt matched the published result to the second order in e. We believe the abutment is a potentially useful tool for improving the accuracy of evolution equations to higher orders of e and l̃−.
5
Content available remote

Einstein equation at singularities

88%
Open Physics
|
2014
|
vol. 12
|
issue 2
123-131
EN
Einstein’s equation is rewritten in an equivalent form, which remains valid at the singularities in some major cases. These cases include the Schwarzschild singularity, the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker Big Bang singularity, isotropic singularities, and a class of warped product singularities. This equation is constructed in terms of the Ricci part of the Riemann curvature (as the Kulkarni-Nomizu product between Einstein’s equation and the metric tensor).
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.