Form of radial velocity along null geodesic under the Kerr metric

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bertin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kerr metric
Bertin
Messages
12
Reaction score
6
Homework Statement
Given the affine parameter [itex]\lambda[/itex] of a null geodesic on the equator ([itex]\theta = \pi/2[/itex]), prove that that the [itex]r[/itex] coordinate satisfies the following equation:
$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda}\right)^2 = \frac{\Sigma^2}{\rho^4}(E - L W_-(r))(E - L W_+(r))$$
for some [itex]W(r)[/itex] that might depend on [itex]E,L[/itex] and [itex]r[/itex], and for [itex]E, L[/itex] constants of motion.
Relevant Equations
The Kerr metric, in the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and on the equator, reads
$$ds^2 = -(1 - \frac{R}{r})dt^2 - \frac{R}{r}a (dtd\phi + d\phi dt) + \frac{r^2}{r^2 + a^2 - R r} dr^2 + \frac{\Sigma^2}{r^2} d\phi^2$$
for [itex]\Sigma^2 = r^4 + a^2 r^2 + R r a[/itex].
By the symmetries of the metric, k = \partial_t and l = \partial_\phi are Killing vectors. Since they are Killing vectors, they satisfy k_\mu \dot{x}^\mu = E and l_\mu \dot{x}^\mu = L, for the same constants appearing in the expression we must prove, and where the dot means the derivative w.r.t. to the affine parameter. Hence it follows that
$$E = -(1 - \frac{R}{r})\dot{t} - \frac{R}{r}a\dot{\phi}$$
$$L = -\frac{R}{r}a\dot{t} + \frac{\Sigma^2}{r^2}\dot{\phi}$$.
Moreover, since x(\lambda) is a null geodesic, we have that \dot{x}_\mu\dot{x}^\mu = 0, whence
$$ 0 = \frac{r^2}{r^2 + a^2 - R r}\dot{r}^2 - (1 - \frac{R}{r})\dot{t}^2 - 2\frac{R}{r}a\dot{t}\dot{\phi} + \frac{\Sigma^2}{r^2}\dot{\phi}^2$$

We can then solve the equations of E and L for \dot{t} and \dot{\phi} to later replace those values inside last equation. Nevertheless, this leads to a very messy expression for \dot{r}^2 that does not look that the one we must prove, first and foremost because the resulting expression doesn't seem to include any \frac{\Sigma^2}{r^4}E^2 (unless both Mathematica and I are missing a possible simplification, which could be the case), so I probably have done some mistake (not calculatory, though, because my results agree with Mathematica) or I am missing something.

I would appreciate if someone could show me how do we derive above expression. Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top