Kerr solution as complex transformation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the Kerr metric using complex transformations as presented in Ray D'Inverno's book on general relativity. The derivation begins with the Schwarzschild metric in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and employs a null basis to express the metric tensor. The transformation involves complex variables defined as v' and r', which incorporate the parameter 'a' related to angular momentum, ultimately leading to the formulation of the Kerr metric. Chris Hillman describes this derivation as "rather mysterious," indicating its complexity and the need for deeper understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity concepts, specifically the Schwarzschild metric.
  • Familiarity with Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates.
  • Knowledge of complex variables and transformations in mathematical physics.
  • Proficiency in tensor calculus and metric tensor manipulation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Schwarzschild metric in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates.
  • Learn about complex transformations in the context of general relativity.
  • Explore the implications of the Kerr metric on black hole physics.
  • Review tensor calculus techniques for manipulating metric tensors.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on general relativity, black hole physics, and advanced mathematical methods in physics.

dpidt
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I've been reading Ray D'Inverno's book about general relativity, and when he derives the Kerr metric he uses a trick with a complex transformation. I can follow the derivation, but I have no clue why it works. Anyone care to explain?



The derivation is:

They start with schwarzchild in Eddington-finklestein coordinates and use a null basis:

[tex]g^{a b} = l^a n^b + n^a l^b - m^a \overline{m}^b - \overline{m}^a m^b[/tex]

where

[tex]l^a = \delta^a_1[/tex]
[tex]n^a = -\delta^a_0 - \frac 1 2 [1-m(r^{-1}+\overline{r}^{-1})]\delta^a_1[/tex]
[tex]m^a = \frac 1 {\sqrt{2} \overline{r}} (\delta^a_2 + \frac i {sin\theta} \delta^a_3)[/tex]
[tex]\delta^a_0 = \partial_v[/tex]
[tex]\delta^a_1 = \partial_r[/tex]
[tex]\delta^a_2 = \partial_{theta}[/tex]
[tex]\delta^a_3 = \partial_{phi}[/tex]

Then they transform
[tex]v' = v + i a cos\theta[/tex]
[tex]r' = r + i a cos\theta[/tex]

and end up with:

[tex]l^a = \delta^a_1[/tex]
[tex]n^a = -\delta^a_0 - \frac 1 2 (1 - \frac {2 m r'} {r'^2 + a^2 cos^2 \theta})\delta^a_1[/tex]
[tex]m^a = \frac 1 {\sqrt{2} (r'+i a cos \theta)} (-i a sin \theta (\delta^a_0 + \delta^a_1) + \delta^a_2 + \frac i {sin\theta} \delta^a_3)[/tex]

Then they use

[tex]g^{a b} = l^a n^b + n^a l^b - m^a \overline{m}^b - \overline{m}^a m^b[/tex]

to get the Kerr metric.
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K