I Components of *J in Kerr geometry

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the integral of the dual current ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J## over a null hypersurface in Kerr geometry, where ##J_a = -T_{ab} k^b##. Participants express confusion regarding the presence of the energy-momentum tensor ##T_{ab}## in a vacuum spacetime, as it is typically zero in Kerr geometry. The integral's formulation and its relation to the Penrose diagram are explored, suggesting that the problem may involve analyzing a "test field" on a Kerr background, which does not create curvature. Additionally, references to superradiant scattering indicate a potential approximation approach to the matter fields involved. The conversation highlights the complexities of integrating in a vacuum spacetime and the nuances of theoretical physics in this context.
etotheipi
I am in the middle of a problem for the Kerr geometry, I need to do the integral ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J## over a null hypersurface ##\mathcal{N}## which is a subset of ##\mathcal{H}^+##, where ##J_a = -T_{ab} k^b## and the orientation on ##\mathcal{N}## is ##dv \wedge d\theta \wedge d\chi## so that ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J = \int_{\phi{(\mathcal{N})}} dv d\theta d\chi (\star J)_{v\theta \chi}##. It's supposed to be that ##(\star J)_{v\theta \chi} = (r_+^2 + a^2)\sin\theta \xi^a J_a##, but how do you get this? I tried to work backward from this to ##(\star J)_{v\theta \chi} = \dfrac{1}{3!} g^{ba} \epsilon_{v\theta \chi b} J_a## but not successfully. I had thought that maybe from the Rayachudri equation with ##\hat{\sigma} = \hat{\omega} = 0## that \begin{align*}
0 = R_{ab} \xi^a \xi^b \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} = 8\pi T_{ab} \xi^a \xi^b \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} &= 8\pi T_{ab} \xi^a \left(k^b + \dfrac{a}{r_+^2 + a^2} m^b \right) \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} \\

0 &= \left( -8\pi \xi^a J_a + \dfrac{a}{r_+^2 + a^2} 8\pi T_{ab} m^b \right) \vert_{\mathcal{H}+}
\end{align*}so that ##(r_+^2 + a^2) \sin{\theta} \xi^a J_a \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} = a \sin{\theta} T_{ab} m^b \vert_{\mathcal{H}+}##. But now I don't know what to do with ##T_{ab} m^b##? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
I need to do the integral ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J## over a null hypersurface ##\mathcal{N}## which is a subset of ##\mathcal{H}^+##, where ##J_a = -T_{ab} k^b##
Kerr spacetime is a vacuum spacetime, so ##T_{ab} = 0## everywhere. So this doesn't make sense.

Where is this problem coming from?
 
It is question 6: https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/3R3c.pdf. For the first part I already wrote that since Penrose diagram would show two lines representing ##\Sigma## and ##\Sigma'## starting at ##i_0## and meeting ##\mathcal{H}^+## in the 2-spheres ##H## and ##H'##, and because on the diagram the subset of ##\mathcal{H}^+## connecting ##H## and ##H'## represents ##\mathcal{N}##, the hypersurfaces ##\Sigma##, ##\Sigma'## and ##\mathcal{N}## bound a spacetime region ##R##, so\begin{align*}E(\Sigma) - E(\Sigma') + E(\mathcal{N}) = - \int_{\partial R} \star J = - \int_R d \star J = 0 \\\end{align*}and so ##E(\Sigma) - E(\Sigma') = -E(\mathcal{N}) = \int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J##. I'm not completely sure that's right, but it seems reasonable. And for (b) the orientation is fixed by Stokes. But I am totally stuck on (c).
 
etotheipi said:
Hm. The question still doesn't make sense to me, since, as I said, Kerr spacetime is a vacuum spacetime, so ##T_{ab} = 0## everywhere, but the question is talking about "matter fields". Perhaps it is talking about some kind of approximation where the behavior of a matter field is being analyzed on a background Kerr spacetime, where the matter field is considered a "test field" which doesn't produce any spacetime curvature on its own.
 
PeterDonis said:
Perhaps it is talking about some kind of approximation where the behavior of a matter field is being analyzed on a background Kerr spacetime, where the matter field is considered a "test field" which doesn't produce any spacetime curvature on its own.
The reference in part (e) to superradiant scattering seems to bear this out, since other treatments of superradiance, such as the one in MTW, take a similar approach.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K