Quick question, Komar integral derivation in Wald

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeNewton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Integral
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Komar mass as presented in Robert M. Wald's textbook on General Relativity. Participants explore the mathematical expressions and reasoning behind the equality involving the natural volume element and the normal bi-vector, as well as the implications of these derivations in the context of asymptotically flat static space-times with Killing vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the derivation of the Komar mass and expresses confusion over a specific equality in Wald's work, questioning whether their lengthy calculations are necessary or if there is a simpler justification.
  • Another participant offers a perspective on the choice of orientation for the natural volume element, suggesting that it may depend on the definition of the normal vector and the orientation of the hypersurface.
  • A later reply clarifies that the equality concerning the orientation of the volume element can be derived using properties of the wedge product and the associativity of the operation, leading to a conclusion about the relationship between the volume element and the normal bi-vector.
  • One participant raises a question about the invariance of the Komar mass with respect to the choice of the topological 2-sphere, noting that it is not immediately obvious and suggesting that it may be shown using Stokes' theorem.
  • Another participant confirms that the independence of the Komar mass from the choice of 2-sphere can indeed be demonstrated in the vacuum region of asymptotically flat stationary space-times, referencing the application of Stokes' theorem in their explanation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding specific mathematical steps and the implications of certain definitions. While some participants agree on the use of Stokes' theorem to demonstrate the independence of the Komar mass, others remain uncertain about the necessity and clarity of the derivations presented in Wald's text.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the derivations involve complex mathematical expressions and assumptions about the properties of the space-time and the Killing vectors. The discussion highlights the intricacies involved in the definitions and orientations of various elements in the derivation process.

WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
553
I'm trying to follow Wald's derivation of the Komar mass on page 288. We start with an asymptotically flat static space-time with killing vector ##\xi^{a}##. Let ##\Sigma## be a hypersurface orthogonal to ##\xi^{a}## and let ##S\subseteq \Sigma## be a topological 2-sphere. The quantity ##F = \int _{S}V^{-1}\xi^{a}N^{b}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}dA## can be seen as the total force that must be exerted by an observer at infinity to keep stationary a unit surface mass density distributed over ##S##; here ##N^{a}## is the outward normal to ##S## lying in ##\Sigma## (so that ##N^{a}## is orthogonal to ##\xi^{a}##), ##V## is the redshift factor, and ##dA = \epsilon_{ab}## is the natural volume element on ##S## induced by the space-time metric.

Define the normal bi-vector to ##S## by ##N^{ab} = 2V^{-1}\xi^{[a}N^{b]}## then it is easy to see, by virtue of killing's equation ##\nabla_{a}\xi_{b} = \nabla_{[a}\xi_{b]}##, that ##\int _{S}V^{-1}\xi^{a}N^{b}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}dA = \frac{1}{2}\int _{S}N^{ab}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}dA ##. Wald then chooses the orientation of the natural volume element ##\epsilon_{abcd}## on space-time associated with the space-time metric so that ##\epsilon_{abcd} = -6N_{[ab}\epsilon_{cd]}## and then writes ##\frac{1}{2}\int _{S}N^{ab}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}dA = -\frac{1}{2}\int _{S}\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}##. This final equality is what is confusing me; he doesn't really show why this equality actually holds.

In an effort to show the equality myself, I had to go through some less than elegant calculations. First note that ##-6N_{[ab}\epsilon_{cd}] = \frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{abcd}\epsilon^{ijkl}N_{ij}\epsilon_{kl}## (see the formulas in appendix B of Wald). Then, ##\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = \frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{abcd}\epsilon^{ijkl}N_{ij}\epsilon_{kl}\nabla^{c} \xi^{d}## so multiplying both sides by ##\epsilon^{ab}## we have ##\epsilon_{abcd}\epsilon^{ab}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = \frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{abcd}\epsilon^{ijkl}N_{ij}\epsilon_{kl}\epsilon^{ab}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{abcd}\epsilon^{ijab}N_{ij}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = -2\delta^{[i}_{c}\delta^{j]}_{d}N_{ij}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = -2N^{cd}\nabla_{c}\xi_{d}##. Multiplying both sides by ##\epsilon_{ij}## we find that ##\epsilon_{abcd}\epsilon^{ab}\epsilon_{ij}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = 2\epsilon_{ijcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = -2N^{cd}\nabla_{c}\xi_{d}\epsilon_{ij}\Rightarrow N^{cd}\nabla_{c}\xi_{d}\epsilon_{ab} = -\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}## finally giving us ##F = \frac{1}{2}\int _{S}N^{ab}\nabla_{a}\xi_{b}dA = \frac{1}{2}\int _{S}N^{cd}\nabla_{c}\xi_{d}\epsilon_{ab} = -\frac{1}{2}\int _{S}\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}##.

As you can see, this seems like more calculations than would be needed to show an equality that Wald simply writes down and doesn't explicitly show himself so I'm wondering frantically if I am going the long route in showing it through calculations i.e. is there something that I'm missing completely that makes the aforementioned equality trivial with no need for the calculations I did above; is this why Wald simply writes down the equality and doesn't show it? Does anyone know if there is something that makes the above equality immediate without all this work? Thank you very much in advance.

EDIT: Also, does anyone know why given the natural volume element ##\epsilon_{abcd}## associated with the space-time metric, we can always choose its orientation so that ##\epsilon_{abcd} = -6N_{[ab}\epsilon_{cd]}## i.e. where does this equality even come from? Wald claims we can do this (as stated above) but I can't immediately see why.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Wannabe:

Obviously I can't help you with your problem (though I wish I could), but who is Wald?
 
VeryConfusedP said:
...but who is Wald?
Hi VC! Wald is the author of a graduate textbook in General Relativity titled "General Relativity" - Robert M. Wald
 
WannabeNewton said:
EDIT: Also, does anyone know why given the natural volume element ##\epsilon_{abcd}## associated with the space-time metric, we can always choose its orientation so that ##\epsilon_{abcd} = -6N_{[ab}\epsilon_{cd]}## i.e. where does this equality even come from? Wald claims we can do this (as stated above) but I can't immediately see why.

I don't think I know as much as you do about this, but I'll offer my thoughts in the hopes that it helps.

It seems to me that the freedom to make this choice is in the definition of N^a. N^a seems to be an orientation of the surface, so I would guess Wald is just following a procedure to make an orientation of the whole manifold out of an orientation for a hypersurface within the manifold. This doesn't seem always possible to me, for example a moebius strip isn't orientable. But intuitively, I would guess you can choose orientable 1d strips of the moebius strip, which might be a counter example to whether or not you can always make such a choice.

There might be some conditions on the manifold from casual structure that make such a choice possible.
 
Hi Dim, thanks for responding. Thankfully, I figured out what he was saying. Note that the unit normal to ##\Sigma## is given by ##n^{a} = V^{-1}\xi^{a}## and so, based on expression B.2.24 in Wald (page 434), we have that ##\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{abcd} = V^{-1}\xi_{[a}\epsilon_{bcd]}## where ##\epsilon_{bcd}## is the induced volume element on ##\Sigma##. Applying the result again we have that ##\epsilon_{abcd} = 12V^{-1}\xi_{[a} N_{[b} \epsilon_{cd]]}##. The wedge product is associative so ##\xi\wedge (N\wedge \epsilon_{\Sigma}) = (\xi\wedge N)\wedge \epsilon_{\Sigma}## thus we have that ##\xi_{[a} N_{[b} \epsilon_{cd]]} = \frac{1}{2}N_{[ab}\epsilon_{cd]}## giving us ##\epsilon_{abcd} = 6N_{[ab}\epsilon_{cd]}##. From here, I guess since the natural volume element ##\epsilon_{abcd}## is only unique up to a sign (i.e. up to orientation), he just flips the orientation of ##\epsilon_{abcd}## to get ##\epsilon_{abcd} = -6N_{[ab}\epsilon_{cd]}##.
 
Last edited:
Is ##M = -\frac{1}{8\pi}\int _{S}\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}## an invariant of the space-time in the sense that it is independent of the choice of ##S##? It is not obvious to me why this is the case, if it is so. More generally, does any global characterization of any kind of mass of a stationary space-time necessarily have to be independent of the integration region?
 
It is certainly not obvious from inspection that the Komar mass is independent of the choice of topological 2-sphere in the vacuum region of the asymptotically flat stationary space-time but it can be shown using Stokes' theorem (note the emphasis on the fact that the independence of the choice of topological 2-sphere is only true in general in the vacuum region).

To see this, first note the following: \epsilon^{abef}\nabla_{e}\{\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}\} = \nabla_{e}\{\epsilon^{abef}\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}\} = -4\nabla_{e}\{\delta^{[e}_{c}\delta^{f]}_{d}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}\} = -4\nabla_{e}\nabla^{e}\xi^{f} = 4R^{f}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d} = 0 where I have used the fact that ##\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} = \nabla^{[c}\xi^{d]} ## and that ##R_{ab} = 0## in vacuum space-time (this is from Einstein's equations). Hence \epsilon_{ijkf}\epsilon^{abef}\nabla_{e}\{\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c} \xi^{d} \} = 0 = -6\delta^{[a}_{i}\delta^{b}_{j}\delta^{e]}_{k}\nabla_{e}\{\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}\} = -6\nabla_{[k}\{\epsilon_{ij]cd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}\} so we have that ##\nabla_{[e}\{\epsilon_{ab]cd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}\} = 0## identically in the vacuum region of the asymptotically flat stationary space-time.

Now applying Stokes' theorem in the vacuum region to a 3 dimensional volume ##\Sigma## bounded by two topological 2-spheres ##S## and ##S'## we see that \int _{\Sigma}\nabla_{[e}\{\epsilon_{ab]cd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}\} = 0 = \int _{S'}\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} - \int _{S}\epsilon_{abcd}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} i.e. the Komar mass is independent of the choice of topological 2-sphere.

As far as your last question goes, no that is not a necessary requirement. The Bondi mass for example will depend on the integration region (it will codify the energy flux due to outgoing gravitational radiation so it will change if we take time translations of the integration region).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K