I Calculate Ricci Scalar & Cosm. Const of AdS-Schwarzschild Metric in d-Dimensions

Click For Summary
To calculate the Ricci scalar and cosmological constant for the AdS-Schwarzschild metric in d-dimensions, one must start with the given metric expression and identify the function f(z). The process involves deriving the Christoffel symbols from the metric components, which are essential for computing the Riemann tensor. The Ricci scalar can then be obtained from the Riemann tensor using the appropriate contractions. The presence of the f(z) factor complicates the calculations compared to the pure AdS case, necessitating careful attention to the metric's structure. This approach aligns with the methods outlined in the referenced article on AdS/CFT duality.
shinobi20
Messages
277
Reaction score
20
TL;DR
How do you calculate the Ricci scalar and cosmological constant of an AdS-Schwarzschild black hole in ##d##-dimensions?
I know some basic GR and encountered the Schwarzschild metric as well as the Riemann tensor. It is known that for maximally symmetric spaces there is a corresponding Riemann tensor and thus Ricci scalar.

Question. How do you calculate the Ricci scalar ##R## and cosmological constant ##\Lambda## of an AdS-Schwarzschild black hole metric in ##d##-dimensions?

##ds^2 = \frac{L^2_{\rm{AdS}}}{z^2} \left( -f(z) dt^2 + \frac{dz^2}{f(z)} + \sum_{i=1}^d dx_i^2 \right)##

where ##L_{\rm{AdS}}## is the AdS radius.

I'm reading the article AdS CFT Duality User Guide by Makoto Natsuume and I'm just wondering how to find those quantities since there is a factor of ##f(z)## already present as opposed to the pure AdS case. The Riemann tensor and Ricci scalar for the maximally symmetric spaces are listed in p.98 of the article.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...