Components of *J in Kerr geometry

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integral of the dual of the current density ##J## in the context of Kerr geometry, specifically over a null hypersurface ##\mathcal{N}## that is part of the future event horizon ##\mathcal{H}^+##. Participants explore the implications of the energy-momentum tensor ##T_{ab}## and its relation to the integral, while addressing the nature of Kerr spacetime as a vacuum solution.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the integral ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J## and attempts to derive the expression for ##(\star J)_{v\theta \chi}##, referencing the Rayachudri equation and making connections to the energy-momentum tensor.
  • Another participant points out that Kerr spacetime is a vacuum solution where ##T_{ab} = 0##, questioning the validity of the problem as stated.
  • A participant provides a link to a specific problem from a document, attempting to clarify the context of the question and its implications regarding energy conservation in the region bounded by hypersurfaces.
  • Further discussion suggests that the problem may involve a test field approximation in Kerr spacetime, where matter fields are analyzed without contributing to spacetime curvature.
  • References to superradiant scattering are made, indicating that other treatments may support the idea of analyzing matter fields as test fields in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of the problem, particularly concerning the presence of matter fields in a vacuum spacetime. There is no consensus on how to proceed with the integral or the implications of the energy-momentum tensor in this scenario.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential limitations of the problem, including the assumption that matter fields can be treated as test fields in a vacuum spacetime, and the implications of this assumption on the integral and the energy-momentum tensor.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
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
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K