I'm studying Bondi's work on gravitational radiation. He applied axial symmetry and reflection symmetry to a source of gravity. How is it that axial symmetry does not automatically imply reflection symmetry?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The assumption for axial symmetry is [itex]\phi \rightarrow \phi'= \phi +[/itex] constant

The assumption for reflection symmetry is [itex]\phi \rightarrow \phi'= -\phi[/itex]

The first condition implies the second if the constant is [itex]-2\phi[/itex], so I don't see how the second assumption adds anything new to the source.

Also, I read that the second assumption prohibits the solution from rotating, but I don't see why this distinction needs to be made since it is invariant under any rotation.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Axial symmetry, non-rotating

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads for Axial symmetry rotating |
---|

I Left translate back to I in SO(3) |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**