Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Special and General Relativity
Confusion about killing horizon in Carroll
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="hideelo, post: 5447229, member: 438589"] In the opening paragraph of section 6.3 Carroll defines a killing horizon to be a null hypersurface Σ where some killing vector field χ[SUP]μ[/SUP] becomes null. Later (on page 247 if you have the book) when distinguishing between static and stationary space times, he says that in a stationary, but not static spacetime, we still have the killing field K[SUP]μ[/SUP] = (∂[SUB]t[/SUB])[SUP]μ[/SUP] , but it won't become null at the killing horizon. How is that possible? By definition that seems wrong. How do you have a killing horizon if that's not where your killing field becomes null? TIA [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Special and General Relativity
Confusion about killing horizon in Carroll
Back
Top