I Integration trouble (integral over a 2-sphere)

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
etotheipi
There's an integral over a 2-sphere ##S## with unit normal ##N^a## within a hypersurface orthogonal to a Killing field ##\xi^a##$$F = \int_S N^b (\xi^a / V) \nabla_a \xi_b dA = \frac{1}{2} \int_S N^{ab} \nabla_a \xi_b dA, \quad N^{ab} := 2V^{-1} \xi^{[a} N^{b]}$$which follows because the Killing equation is ##\nabla_{a} \xi_b = \nabla_{[a} \xi_{b]}## and we can also write ##\xi^a N^b \nabla_{[a} \xi_{b]} = \xi^a N^b \delta^{[c}_{a} \delta^{d]}_b \nabla_c \xi_d = \xi^{[c} N^{d]} \nabla_c \xi_d##. The original integral is supposed to transform into$$F = \frac{-1}{2} \int_S \epsilon_{abcd} \nabla^c \xi^d$$but I don't see how yet. Can anyone provide a hint? Thanks. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes JD_PM, Twigg and Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
Did part of the last equation get lost to a typo? The final result is rank 2 (a and b are free) but the original integral is a scalar. Am I missing something?
 
As far as I can tell they're the same as in the book; the indices in this case are abstract, so I reckon the second should be understood as the integral of a 2-form over the submanifold.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After some helpful discussions with @Twigg, here's a possible idea: first we will use that ##\nabla_a \xi_b = \nabla_{[a} \xi_{b]}##, and also use that the volume form ##\epsilon_{ab}## on the 2-sphere is totally antisymmetric, i.e. ##\epsilon_{ab} = \epsilon_{[ab]}##,\begin{align*}F = \frac{1}{2} \int_S N^{ab} \nabla_a \xi_b \mathrm{d}A &= \frac{1}{2} N^{ab} \nabla_{[a} \xi_{b]} \epsilon_{cd} \\

&= \frac{1}{2} \int_S N_{[ab]} \nabla^a \xi^b \epsilon_{[cd]} \\

&= \frac{1}{2} \int_S \nabla^a \xi^b \delta^{[e}_a \delta^{f]}_b \delta^{[g}_c \delta^{h]}_d N_{ef} \epsilon_{gh}

\end{align*}However, since ##\delta^{[e}_a \delta^{f]}_b \delta^{[g}_c \delta^{h]}_d = \frac{1}{4} \delta^{e}_a \delta^{f}_b \delta^{g}_c \delta^{h}_d = 6 \delta^{[e}_a \delta^{f}_b \delta^{g}_c \delta^{h]}_d##, this is simply\begin{align*}

F &= \frac{1}{2} \int_S \nabla^a \xi^b \cdot 6 N_{[ab} \epsilon_{cd]} \\

&= \frac{-1}{2} \int_S \nabla^a \xi^b \epsilon_{abcd} \\

\end{align*}where the last line follows because ##\epsilon_{abcd} = -6N_{[ab} \epsilon_{cd]}##
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top