- #1
PhyPsy
- 39
- 0
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?
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.
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.