The static Killing vectors in Kruskal coordinates

Altabeh
Messages
657
Reaction score
0
Hello

In the Kruskal extension of the Schwarzschild metric, where the metric is now transformed into the new coordinates (T,X,\theta,\phi), the line element is

ds^2=-\frac{32M^3e^{-r/2m} }{r}(-dT^2+dX^2)+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2(\theta)d\phi^2),

with

\left (r/2m-1 \right ) e^{r/2m}=X^2-T^2 (1)
and t/2m=2\tanh^{-1}(T/X). (2)

From the equation (1) we see that \nabla_{\alpha}r=0 at X=T=0 and this is obvious. Okay, but we know that the static Killing field \xi^{\alpha} becomes collinear with \nabla_{\alpha}r=0 thus requiring \xi^{\alpha} to also vanish there. My question is that how is this possible? Looking at the static Killing vectors of the Schwarzschild metric in a general Cartesian-like coordinate system x^{\mu},
\xi^0=0 and {\xi}^{i}={\epsilon}^{{ik}}{x}^{k}
where
\epsilon^{ik}=-\epsilon^{ki} =\left[ \begin {array}{ccc} 0&amp;a&amp;-b\\ \noalign{\medskip}-a&amp;0&amp;c<br /> \\ \noalign{\medskip}b&amp;-c&amp;0\end {array} \right],

with a,b,c being all arbitrary constants, how come the above requirement (X=T=0) gets all Killing vectors to vanish? My own view on the problem is that we must find the explicit expressions for r and t from (1) and (2), respectively, and then calculate the Killing vectors and put X=T=0. Am I on the right track or what?

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, I haven't tried to read your post in detail.

I would use (1) and (2), and the chain rule for ordinary partial derivatives to calculate the static Killing vector field in Kruskal coordinates.
 
George Jones said:
Sorry, I haven't tried to read your post in detail.

I would use (1) and (2), and the chain rule for ordinary partial derivatives to calculate the static Killing vector field in Kruskal coordinates.

Would you mind going a little bit deep into details of the calculation!?

Thanks
AB
 
In Schwarzschild coordinates, the static Killing vector is \partial/\partial t, and

<br /> \frac{\partial}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial T}{\partial t} \frac{\partial}{\partial T} + \frac{\partial X}{\partial t} \frac{\partial}{\partial X},<br />

so the components of Killing vector \partial/\partial t with respect to the \left\{ T, X, \theta, \phi \right\} coordinates are

<br /> \left\{ \frac{\partial T}{\partial t}, \frac{\partial X}{\partial t}, 0, 0 \right\}.<br />

Differentiating (1) and (2) with respect to t gives two linear equations in the two non-zero components.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top