Is the sign of the Einstein equation right in Chandrasekhar's Black holes?

In summary, there are different sign conventions used in different textbooks for the metric, curvature tensor, and Ricci tensor in the study of black holes. Chandrasekhar's book follows the west-coast metric convention and uses a negative sign for the Riemann curvature tensor in the Einstein equations, while Landau's book uses the east-coast metric convention and a positive sign for the Riemann curvature tensor. The sign convention for the energy-momentum tensor is usually positive, but there may be differences in the choice for the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor.
  • #1
timeant
16
2
In Chandrasekhar's book, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes.
The sign of Einstein equations is minus "-" , Eq. (1-236).
However, the sign of Riemann and Ricci tensor are the same as MTW's book.
The sign of Einstein equations in MTW's book are "+"!

Is there a error?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'd have to check this in more detail, but you have a lot of sign conventions with the metric, the curvature tensor and the Ricci tensor. For sure Chandrasekhar has the west-coast metric (+---) and if I remember right MTW have the east-coast metric (-+++). Then another sign difference can come from the definition of the curvature tensor and over which index pair of it you contract to get the Ricci tensor.
 
  • #3
timeant said:
Is there a error?
No, just a different choice of sign conventions. If you have a copy of MTW, look at the page titled "SIGN CONVENTIONS", just after the copyright page. You will see three different possible choices of sign convention described. On the next page is a table of the sign conventions used in various textbooks published up to the time MTW was published in 1973. Chandrasekhar's book was published later so it isn't listed in the table, but you should be able to figure out which conventions he is using from the information given in MTW.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
vanhees71 said:
I'd have to check this in more detail, but you have a lot of sign conventions with the metric, the curvature tensor and the Ricci tensor. For sure Chandrasekhar has the west-coast metric (+---) and if I remember right MTW have the east-coast metric (-+++). Then another sign difference can come from the definition of the curvature tensor and over which index pair of it you contract to get the Ricci tensor.
However, metric sign do not affect the sign of Ricci tensor, (1,3) Riemann tensor and Einstein equation. I think so.

Chandrasekhar use the metric(+---) for Einstein equations. However, his electromagnetic stress-energy tensor T_{\mu\nu} is base on the the metric(-+++). May be I make mistakes?
 
  • #5
timeant said:
Chandrasekhar use the metric(+---) for Einstein equations. However, his electromagnetic stress-energy tensor T_{\mu\nu} is base on the the metric(-+++). May be I make mistakes?
The sign convention for the metric tensor is one of only three sign conventions involved. See the page in MTW that I referenced.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #6
Chandrasekhar's book is the same as Landau's book(The Classical Theory of Fields, 4th edn) except for the sign of Einstein equations.
Is Landau wrong? I do not think so.

In another words, the time-time component of stress-energy tensor T_{ab} is negative, i.e. T_{00} <0, in Chandrasekhar's book.
It was an unusual choice!
 
Last edited:
  • #7
timeant said:
Chandrasekhar's book is the same as Landau's book(The Classical Theory of Fields, 4th edn) except for the sign of Einstein equations.
Yes, so that just means Chandrasekhar has made the opposite choice for Landau for one of the three sign conventions that MTW describes.

timeant said:
Is Landau wrong? I do not think so.
Why would Landau have to be wrong? Sign conventions are conventions. You can make either choice.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #8
Let's see. I've Landau-Lifshitz vol. 2, fourth edition in the reprinted version of 1996 (English version) as well as the corresponding German version, which are the same concerning the sign conventions in GR. Note that earlier editions of this book had different sign conventions (see the table in MTW @PeterDonis mentioned above).

Landau Lifshitz (4th edition)

The signature of the metric is west-coast: ##\eta_{\mu \nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)## for flat spacetime wrt. a Lorentzian basis.

The Riemann curvature tensor is defined by
$$\nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu} A^{\rho}-\nabla_{\nu} \nabla_{\mu} A^{\rho}=A^{\sigma} {R^{\rho}}_{\sigma \mu \nu}$$
and the Ricci tensor by
$$R_{\mu \nu} = g^{\rho \sigma} R_{\rho \mu \sigma \nu}.$$
The Einstein field equations read
$$R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu}=\frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}.$$

Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes (1983)

The signature of the metric is west-coast: ##\eta_{\mu \nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)## for flat spacetime wrt. a Lorentzian basis.

The Riemann curvature tensor is defined by
$$\nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu} A^{\rho}-\nabla_{\nu} \nabla_{\mu} A^{\rho}=-A^{\sigma} {R^{\rho}}_{\sigma \mu \nu}$$
and the Ricci tensor by
$$R_{\mu \nu} = g^{\rho \sigma} R_{\rho \mu \sigma \nu}.$$
The Einstein field equations read
$$R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu}=-\frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}.$$
So the difference in sign is due to the definition of the Riemann curvature tensor (note that the Riemann tensor is antisymmtric wrt. to the 1st and 2nd as well the 3rd and 4th index), and the EFEs are the same in both books.

I'd be very surprised, if there were different sign conventions for the energy-momentum tensor of matter and radiation, because usually one defines energy densities as positive, ##T^{00}>0##.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #9
vanhees71 said:
Let's see. I've Landau-Lifshitz vol. 2, fourth edition in the reprinted version of 1996 (English version) as well as the corresponding German version, which are the same concerning the sign conventions in GR. Note that earlier editions of this book had different sign conventions (see the table in MTW @PeterDonis mentioned above).

Landau Lifshitz (4th edition)

The signature of the metric is west-coast: ##\eta_{\mu \nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)## for flat spacetime wrt. a Lorentzian basis.

The Riemann curvature tensor is defined by
$$\nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu} A^{\rho}-\nabla_{\nu} \nabla_{\mu} A^{\rho}=A^{\sigma} {R^{\rho}}_{\sigma \mu \nu}$$
and the Ricci tensor by
$$R_{\mu \nu} = g^{\rho \sigma} R_{\rho \mu \sigma \nu}.$$
The Einstein field equations read
$$R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu}=\frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}.$$

Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes (1983)

The signature of the metric is west-coast: ##\eta_{\mu \nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)## for flat spacetime wrt. a Lorentzian basis.

The Riemann curvature tensor is defined by
$$\nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu} A^{\rho}-\nabla_{\nu} \nabla_{\mu} A^{\rho}=-A^{\sigma} {R^{\rho}}_{\sigma \mu \nu}$$
and the Ricci tensor by
$$R_{\mu \nu} = g^{\rho \sigma} R_{\rho \mu \sigma \nu}.$$
The Einstein field equations read
$$R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu}=-\frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}.$$
So the difference in sign is due to the definition of the Riemann curvature tensor (note that the Riemann tensor is antisymmtric wrt. to the 1st and 2nd as well the 3rd and 4th index), and the EFEs are the same in both books.

I'd be very surprised, if there were different sign conventions for the energy-momentum tensor of matter and radiation, because usually one defines energy densities as positive, ##T^{00}>0##.
I do not find the above definitions in two books.

I will give the component equations.
Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes (1983)
The Riemann curvature tensor is defined by Eq 1-154
$$R^j_{\cdot lnm}= \Gamma^j_{lm,n}- \Gamma^j_{ln,m}+ \Gamma^j_{pn}\Gamma^p_{lm}-\Gamma^j_{pm}\Gamma^p_{ln}$$
The Ricci curvature tensor is defined by Eq 1-172
$$R_{lm}=R^n_{\cdot lnm}= \Gamma^n_{lm,n}- \Gamma^n_{ln,m}+ \Gamma^n_{pn}\Gamma^p_{lm}-\Gamma^n_{pm}\Gamma^p_{ln}$$

Landau Lifshitz (4th edition)
The Riemann curvature tensor is defined by Eq 91.4
$$R^i_{\cdot klm}= \Gamma^i_{km,l}- \Gamma^i_{kl,m}+ \Gamma^i_{pl}\Gamma^p_{km}-\Gamma^i_{pm}\Gamma^p_{kl}$$
The Ricci curvature tensor is defined by Eq 92.7
$$R_{km}=R^l_{\cdot klm}= \Gamma^l_{km,l}- \Gamma^l_{kl,m}+ \Gamma^l_{pl}\Gamma^p_{km}-\Gamma^l_{pm}\Gamma^p_{kl}$$

Are they different?
I think they are the same. right?
 
  • #10
I translated the definitions in the textbooks to my preferred notation. I don't like the "comma" or "semicolon" notation for derivatives and covariant derivatives.

For Chandrasekhar I inferred it from Eq. (231) and made use of the antisymmetry of the Riemann tensor in interchanging the first two components. For Landau Lifshitz I used Eq. (91.7) and made use of the antisymmetry in interchanging the 3rd and 4th index.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #11
It is very clear that ##T_{ab}=-e U_a U_b## for perfect fluid in Chandrasekhar's book.
Otherwise, it will be different from Landau's book.
 
  • #12
Strange. Comparing Chandra's (231) with the corresponding formula in Landau-Lifshitz, I think the sign is due to the sign definition of the Riemann and Ricci tensors. On the other hand, judging from the expressions (334) for the electromagnetic-field EM tensor you are right. He has it with the opposite sign, which is indeed very strange. I'm now as puzzled as you are :-(.
 
  • #13
vanhees71 said:
Strange. Comparing Chandra's (231) with the corresponding formula in Landau-Lifshitz, I think the sign is due to the sign definition of the Riemann and Ricci tensors. On the other hand, judging from the expressions (334) for the electromagnetic-field EM tensor you are right. He has it with the opposite sign, which is indeed very strange. I'm now as puzzled as you are :-(.
No puzzles!
MTW said: All authors agree positive energy density, ##T_{00}>0##!
Chandrasekhar said: No, I am an exception!

All equations are correct in Chandrasekhar's book. It's just that the energy density is negative.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #14
Then I must have made a mistake in reading off the sign convention for the Riemann tensor in LL or Chandrasekhar's book. Let me check again:

Landau: (91.6)
$$A_{i;k;l}-A_{i;l;k}={R^m}_{ikl} A_m=\nabla_l \nabla k A_i-\nabla_k \nabla_l A_i.$$
Now I see that indeed Chandrasekhar (231) is indeed the same. Somehow I was obviously confused from Eq. (91.7) in LL (having overlooked that there the contraction was wrt. the second rather than the first index, while in (91.6) the contraction is over the first index of the Riemann tensor).

Sorry for that blunder :-(((!

But to make energies negative is really very unconventional. What a confusion!
 

1. What is the significance of the Einstein equation in Chandrasekhar's Black holes?

The Einstein equation, also known as the Einstein field equations, is a set of ten equations that describe the relationship between the curvature of spacetime and the distribution of matter and energy. In the context of Chandrasekhar's Black holes, the Einstein equation is used to calculate the spacetime curvature around the black hole and determine its properties.

2. How does Chandrasekhar's work contribute to our understanding of black holes?

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was a renowned astrophysicist who made significant contributions to the study of black holes. In particular, his work on the Einstein equation helped us understand the properties and behavior of black holes, including their mass, spin, and event horizon.

3. Is the sign of the Einstein equation correct in Chandrasekhar's Black holes?

Yes, the sign of the Einstein equation is correct in Chandrasekhar's Black holes. This has been confirmed through various observations and calculations, and is an essential component of our understanding of black holes.

4. How does the Einstein equation play a role in the formation of black holes?

The Einstein equation is crucial in understanding the formation of black holes. It describes the relationship between the curvature of spacetime and the distribution of matter and energy, which is essential in determining the conditions under which a black hole can form.

5. Are there any limitations to the use of the Einstein equation in the study of black holes?

While the Einstein equation is a fundamental tool in understanding black holes, it does have its limitations. For example, it does not take into account quantum effects, which are necessary for a complete understanding of black holes. Additionally, the equation may not be applicable in extreme cases, such as the singularity at the center of a black hole.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
826
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
827
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
763
Back
Top