Killing fields as eigenvectors of Ricci tensor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between Killing vector fields and the Ricci tensor in the context of General Relativity. Participants explore the implications of a Killing vector field being an eigenvector of the Ricci tensor, particularly focusing on the twist of the Killing vector field and its properties. The discussion includes theoretical considerations and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a problem involving a Killing vector field and its twist, asserting that showing the twist is exact is equivalent to the Killing vector being an eigenvector of the Ricci tensor.
  • Another participant suggests that for a null Killing vector field, the relationship between the twist and the Ricci tensor leads to the conclusion that either the twist vanishes or the problem statement needs clarification regarding the nature of the Killing field.
  • A later reply claims that for any null Killing field, the condition of the twist being exact implies the twist must vanish, thus indicating the Killing field is an eigenvector of the Ricci tensor.
  • Some participants discuss alternative approaches to demonstrate the relationship without introducing additional vector fields, exploring the implications of the null condition on the twist and the Killing vector field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the twist being exact for null Killing vector fields. While some assert that this leads to the twist being zero, others question the completeness of the problem statement and suggest the need for further examples or clarification.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the Killing vector fields (null vs. non-null) and the implications of the twist in these cases. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the conditions under which the results hold.

WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
553
Hi guys! I need help on a problem from one of my GR texts. Suppose that ##\xi^a## is a killing vector field and consider its twist ##\omega_a = \epsilon_{abcd}\xi^b \nabla^c \xi^d##. I must show that ##\omega_a = \nabla_a \omega## for some scalar field ##\omega##, which is equivalent to showing ##(d\omega)_{ab} = \nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0##, if and only if ##\xi^a## is an eigenvector of the Ricci tensor i.e. ##R^{a}{}{}_{b}\xi^b = \lambda \xi^{a}## for some scalar field ##\lambda##.

First note that ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## if and only if ##\nabla_{a}\omega^{abc} = 0## where ##\omega^{abc} = \epsilon^{abcd}\omega_{d}## is the dual of the twist; inserting the expression for ##\omega_a## we find ##\omega^{abc} = -6\xi^{[a}\nabla^{b}\xi^{c]}## (see the formulas for ##\epsilon_{abcd}## in section B.2 of Wald, particularly page 433). This is easy to see as ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0 \Rightarrow \epsilon^{efgh}\epsilon_{abgh}\nabla_{e}\omega_{f} = 0 \Rightarrow \epsilon_{abcd}\nabla_{e}(\xi^{[e}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d]}) = 0 \Rightarrow \nabla_{e}(\xi^{[e}\nabla^{a}\xi^{b]}) = \nabla_{e}\omega^{ebc} = 0##
because ##\nabla^{[a}\xi^{b]} = \nabla^a \xi^b## on account of ##\xi^a## being a killing vector field. For the converse, ##\epsilon^{abcd}\nabla_{c}\omega_{d} = \epsilon^{dcba}\epsilon_{defg}\nabla_{c}(\xi^{e}\nabla^{f}\xi^{g}) = -6\nabla_{c}(\xi^{[c}\nabla^{b}\xi^{a]}) = \nabla_{c}\omega^{cba} = 0## thus ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0##.

Now on to the problem itself, if ##R^{a}{}{}_{b}\xi^b = \lambda \xi^{a}## then
##\nabla_a \omega^{abc} = -6\nabla_{a}(\xi^{[a}\nabla^{b}\xi^{c]} ) = -2(\xi^b \nabla_a \nabla^c \xi^a -\xi^c \nabla_a \nabla^b \xi^a + R^{cb}{}{}_{ad}\xi^{a}\xi^{d})\\ = -2(R^{c}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{b} - R^{b}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{c}) = -2(\lambda\xi^{c}\xi^{b} - \lambda \xi^{b}\xi^{c}) = 0.##

It's the converse I'm stuck on mainly. If ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## then, using the above, ##R^{c}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{b} = R^{b}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{c}##. If ##\xi^a## is non-null (##\xi^a \xi_a \neq 0##), then ##R^{c}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d} = \frac{R_{bd}\xi^b\xi^{d}}{\xi^b \xi_b}\xi^{c} = \lambda \xi^c ## as desired. However I don't get what to do when ##\xi^a## is null; I don't see how to show the desired result.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok if ##\xi^a## is a null killing vector field, then ##R_{ab}\xi^a \xi^b = 2\omega^2## where ##\omega^2## is the norm of the twist ##\omega_a##. If ##\xi^a## is an eigenvector of ##R_{ab}## then ##\omega^2 = 0## and since this is the twist, this implies ##\omega_a = 0##.

So for a null killing vector field ##\xi^a##, either (1) ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## implies ##\omega_a = 0##, in which case ##\xi^a = \alpha\nabla^a \beta## hence ##\nabla^{a}\xi^{b} = \nabla^{[a}\xi^{b]} = \nabla^{[a}\alpha \nabla^{b]}\beta## thus ##R^{a}{}{}_b \xi^b = \nabla_b \nabla^a \xi^b = \nabla_b (\nabla^{[a}\alpha \nabla^{b]}\beta) = 0##,
or (2) there exists a space-time with some null killing field ##\xi^a## such that ##\omega_a \neq 0## but ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## for ##\xi^a##, which would mean that the problem statement is incorrect as given and should specify that the killing field is non-null. Does anyone know if (1) is true or have an example of (2)?
 
Last edited:
If anyone is interested, it just so happens that for any null killing field ##\xi^a##, ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## implies ##\omega_a = 0##. As noted in post #2, this then implies that ##\xi^a## is an eigenvector of ##R_{ab}##.

To see this, first note that since ##\xi^a \xi_a = 0## we have ##\xi^a \nabla_b \xi_a = 0 = -\xi^a \nabla_a \xi_b##. Also, from the calculations in post #1 we have that ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0\Rightarrow \xi^b \nabla_a \nabla^c \xi^a = \xi^c \nabla_a \nabla^b \xi^a ## hence ##\xi^b (\xi_c \nabla_a \nabla^c \xi^a) = 0## but ##\xi^a## is an arbitrary null killing field so it must be that ##\xi_c \nabla_a \nabla^c \xi^a = 0## thus ##\nabla_a \xi_b \nabla^a \xi^b = 0##.

Now let ##\nu ^a## be an arbitrary vector field and consider ##(\omega _a \nu ^a)^2\\ = (\epsilon_{abcd}\nu^a \xi^b \nabla^c \xi^d)(\epsilon^{efgh}\nu_e \xi_f \nabla_g \xi_h)\\ = -4!(\nu^a \xi^b \nabla^c \xi^d )(\nu_{[a}\xi_{b}\nabla_{c}\xi_{d]})##
Using ##\xi^a \xi_a = \xi^a \nabla_b \xi_a = \xi^a \nabla_a \xi_b = \nabla_a \xi_b \nabla^a \xi^b = 0##, it is easy to see that ##(\omega _a \nu ^a)^2 = 0## hence ##\omega_a = 0##.
 
Is there a way to do it more directly, without having to introduce an additional arbitrary vector field?
 
Uh well the argument would be extremely similar. First note that ##\omega_a## is null, ##\omega^a \omega_a = \epsilon^{abcd}\epsilon_{aefg}(\xi_b \nabla_c \xi_d )(\xi^e \nabla^f \xi^g)\\ = -6(\xi_b \nabla_c \xi_d )(\xi^{[b} \nabla^c \xi^{d]} )\\ = -2\{(\xi_b \xi^b) \nabla_c \xi_d \nabla^c \xi^d - (\xi_b \nabla^b \xi^d )\xi^c \nabla_c \xi_d + (\xi_b \nabla^b \xi^c )\xi^d \nabla_c \xi_d\} = 0##

Also note that ##\xi^a \omega_a = \epsilon_{[ab]cd}\xi^{(a}\xi^{b)}\nabla^c \xi^d = 0 ##. Hence ##\omega^a = \alpha \xi^a##, where ##\alpha## is a scalar field, because two orthogonal null vector fields must be parallel. Now ##\nabla_b \omega_{c} = \xi_c \nabla_b \alpha + \alpha \nabla_b \xi_c ## therefore ##\xi_{[a}\nabla_b \omega_{c]} = \xi_{[a}\xi_c \nabla_{b]} \alpha + \alpha \xi_{[a}\nabla_b \xi_{c]} ##. But ##\xi_{[a}\xi_{c]} = 0## so we are left with ##\xi_{[a}\nabla_b \omega_{c]} = \alpha \xi_{[a}\nabla_b \xi_{c]} ##.

Thus if ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## then ##\alpha \xi_{[a}\nabla_b \xi_{c]} = 0## which implies ##\alpha = 0##, directly yielding ##\omega^a = 0##, or ##\xi_{[a}\nabla_b \xi_{c]} = 0## implying ##\epsilon_{eabc}\omega^{e} \propto\xi_{[a}\nabla_b \xi_{c]} = 0## hence ##\omega^{d}\propto \epsilon^{dabc}\epsilon_{eabc}\omega^{e} = 0##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
990
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
920
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K