Can Lorentzian Signature Metrics Always Be Continued into Euclidean Signatures?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sheaf
  • Start date Start date
sheaf
Messages
220
Reaction score
7
Back in the 1980s, a lot of work (Hawking et al) was done on deriving semiclassical and quantum gravity results on spacetimes with Euclidean signature. The connection with the Lorentzian signature versions was then made by analytic continuation. Does anyone know - are there any generic conditions which can be stated which ensure that a Lorentzian signature metric can be analytically continued into the complex domain and there posess a Euclidean signature section ? Or alternatively, what are the obstructions to analytic continuation into the Euclidean domain ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sheaf said:
Back in the 1980s, a lot of work (Hawking et al) was done on deriving semiclassical and quantum gravity results on spacetimes with Euclidean signature. The connection with the Lorentzian signature versions was then made by analytic continuation. Does anyone know - are there any generic conditions which can be stated which ensure that a Lorentzian signature metric can be analytically continued into the complex domain and there posess a Euclidean signature section ? Or alternatively, what are the obstructions to analytic continuation into the Euclidean domain ?
There could be many obstructions I guess, such as the lack of an everywhere well defined timelike vectorfied which is generically the case for Morse-like ''Lorentzian'' spacetimes in topology changing configurations (such as the trousers); another obstruction could be the development of poles due to analytic continuation such as happens for the metric

- 1/(a^2 + t^2) dt^2 + dx^2

if you rotate t --> i t , then you get poles at t = +/- a.
 
Thanks. I guess it's a case by case basis. I was trying to get a feel for how typical the results obtained by Hawking and co (e.g. those for the Euclidean Schwarzschild solution) were.
 
sheaf said:
Thanks. I guess it's a case by case basis. I was trying to get a feel for how typical the results obtained by Hawking and co (e.g. those for the Euclidean Schwarzschild solution) were.
Yes, it is a case by case basis. Analytic continuation works rather well for QFT's on a fixed background spacetime and I think (not sure though) Hawking radiation on Schwarzschild has been computed with and without it (I remember the original calculation was Lorentzian). However, in quantum gravity, the technique is disputed; my personal take on it is that it is not correct, but I have no proof of this.

Careful
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...
Many of us have heard of "twistors", arguably Roger Penrose's biggest contribution to theoretical physics. Twistor space is a space which maps nonlocally onto physical space-time; in particular, lightlike structures in space-time, like null lines and light cones, become much more "local" in twistor space. For various reasons, Penrose thought that twistor space was possibly a more fundamental arena for theoretical physics than space-time, and for many years he and a hardy band of mostly...
Back
Top