A Derivation of Equation 26 in Bardeen's Four Laws of Black Hole Thermodynamics

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter thatboi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Paper
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of equation 26 in Bardeen's paper on black hole thermodynamics, highlighting confusion regarding the application of the Lie derivative. The participant expresses difficulty in understanding how two terms vanish in the second equality, particularly due to the involvement of the differential of n instead of l. There is also mention of a potential typo in the Lie derivative comment, suggesting a correction to the expression provided. This indicates a need for clarity in the mathematical formulation presented in the paper. Overall, the conversation centers on the complexities of the derivation process and the accuracy of the equations involved.
thatboi
Messages
130
Reaction score
20
Hi all,
I am currently reading Bardeen's Paper on The Four Laws of Black Hole Thermodynamics: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/...ws-of-black-hole-mechanics/cmp/1103858973.pdf
and am struggling with the derivation of equation 26. Specifically, I do not see how he uses the Lie derivative statement just above the equation to make the 2 terms disappears in the second equality because one of the terms involves the differential of n as opposed to l.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hm, that's indeed quite a headache. The little comment about the Lie derivative looks like it contains a typo (!), ought to be ##(L_{l} \delta l)^a = l^b \nabla_b (\delta l)^a - (\delta l)^b \nabla_b l^a = 0##, no?
 
  • Like
Likes robphy and vanhees71
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...