- #1
latentcorpse
- 1,444
- 0
On page 36 of these notes:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9707/9707012v1.pdf
we are given a proof of the claim at the bottom of p35.
However, this proof doesn't actually seem to do anything! All he does in the proof is shows what the acceleration is - he doesn't make any connection with orbits at [itex]x=a^{-1}[/itex]. Am I missing something here?
And then in the example at the bottom of p36 for RIndler spacetime, i can see how we get 2.125 but then suddenly this just becomes 1/x in 2.126. Why is that? Is he just saying here that using the proposition on the last page that [itex]|a|[/itex] must be equal to [itex]\frac{1}{x}[/itex]. I'm just confused by the way he's written it - it looks like he got it to 1/x by some sort of substitution or something?Also, in the statement of the proposition on p35, why does x=1/a correspond to an orbit of k?
Then, what has he done in (2.128)?
And again, the last bit of this subsection confuses me - he says that such an observer (i.e. one with const x) is one with const a (since x=1/a in Rindler). I don't get the bit about why they aren't special because the normalisation was arbitrary though?
How does that definition in the box under 2.130 come about?
Cheers
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9707/9707012v1.pdf
we are given a proof of the claim at the bottom of p35.
However, this proof doesn't actually seem to do anything! All he does in the proof is shows what the acceleration is - he doesn't make any connection with orbits at [itex]x=a^{-1}[/itex]. Am I missing something here?
And then in the example at the bottom of p36 for RIndler spacetime, i can see how we get 2.125 but then suddenly this just becomes 1/x in 2.126. Why is that? Is he just saying here that using the proposition on the last page that [itex]|a|[/itex] must be equal to [itex]\frac{1}{x}[/itex]. I'm just confused by the way he's written it - it looks like he got it to 1/x by some sort of substitution or something?Also, in the statement of the proposition on p35, why does x=1/a correspond to an orbit of k?
Then, what has he done in (2.128)?
And again, the last bit of this subsection confuses me - he says that such an observer (i.e. one with const x) is one with const a (since x=1/a in Rindler). I don't get the bit about why they aren't special because the normalisation was arbitrary though?
How does that definition in the box under 2.130 come about?
Cheers
Last edited: