I Kerr Black Hole: Superradiance Flux - Show Negative when 0<ω<mΩH

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter ergospherical
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating that the time-averaged flux across the horizon of a Kerr black hole is negative within the range of 0 to mΩ_H. Participants analyze the equation relating the flux tensor to the Killing vectors, specifically using the properties of the tensor T and the definitions of the vectors ξ and χ. The conversation highlights the challenge in interpreting the hint provided for relating F_{ab} ξ^b to F_{ab} χ^b. There is a shared sense of confusion regarding the mathematical steps required to prove the assertion. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexities of superradiance phenomena in the context of black hole physics.
ergospherical
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
1,387
b) Show that the time averaged flux of ##J^a = -{T^a}_b \xi^b## across the horizon of a Kerr black hole is negative when ##0 \leq \omega \leq m\Omega_H ##. Given that ##dF = 0## i.e. ##\nabla_{[a} F_{bc]} = 0##,\begin{align*}
-2\nabla_{[a} (F_{b]c} w^c) &= F_{ac} \nabla_b w^c + F_{cb} \nabla_a w^c - w^c (\nabla_b F_{ca} + \nabla_a F_{bc}) \\
&= F_{ac} \nabla_b w^c + F_{cb} \nabla_a w^c + w^c \nabla_c F_{ab} \\
&= L_w F_{ab}
\end{align*}It is hinted to use this equation to relate ##F_{ab} \xi^b## to ##F_{ab} \chi^b##, but how? The tensor ##T## is ##T_{ab} = \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi - \dfrac{1}{2} g_{ab} (\nabla_c \phi \nabla^c \phi + m^2 \phi^2)## so the time-averaged flux is ##\langle J_{a} (-\chi^a) \rangle = \langle (\chi^a \nabla_a \phi)(\xi^b \nabla_b \phi) \rangle##

edit: ##\xi = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial t}## and ##\chi = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial \phi}##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Haha, well I'm glad I'm not the only one who found the hint to be cryptic. 😂
Can you see how to do it? I might try again tomorrow but I've spent slightly too long fiddling around, lol.
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
13K