Killing vecotrs of Schwarzschild metric

Vrbic
Messages
400
Reaction score
18
Hello,
I have a question, whether is possible to looking for Killing Vectors (KV) in this way (I know about general solution):
From Schwarzschild metric I can see two KV \frac{\partial}{\partial t} and \frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}. Then I see that other trivial KV arent there. Metric in dt and dr is independant on \theta, \phi so I suppose I can "split" metric and looking for KV just in spherical part d\theta^2+\sin^2{\theta}d\phi^2.
Can I suppose transformation this metric to the form: d\alpha^2+d\beta^2 and claim the \frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha}, \frac{\partial}{\partial\beta} are KV?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. You won't be able to find such a transformation.

Those aren't the only trivial Killing fields by the way. The generators of rotations, that is, the basis of ##so(3)##, are also easily seen to be Killing fields of the Schwarzschild metric and they arise from the spherical symmetry.
 
WannabeNewton said:
No. You won't be able to find such a transformation.

Those aren't the only trivial Killing fields by the way. The generators of rotations, that is, the basis of ##so(3)##, are also easily seen to be Killing fields of the Schwarzschild metric and they arise from the spherical symmetry.

Do I need know all transformation? I thought that differencial form of it could be enough. If I suppose \alpha=\alpha(\theta,\phi), \beta=\beta(\theta,\phi), than I can write d\alpha=\alpha_{\theta}+\alpha_{\phi}, d\beta=\beta_{\theta}+\beta_{\phi}, where subscript means differentation. When I put it back to the ds^2=d\alpha^2+d\beta^2 I get 3 eq.:
1=\alpha_{\theta}^2+\beta_{\theta}^2
0=\alpha_{\theta}\alpha_{\phi}+\beta_{\theta}\beta_{\phi}
\sin^2{\theta}=\alpha_{\phi}^2+\beta_{\phi}^2.
From them (if from first guess \alpha_{\theta}=\cos{\phi}, \beta_{\theta}=\sin{\phi}) I get d\alpha=\cos{\phi}d\theta-\sin{\theta}\sin{\phi}d\phi, d\beta=\sin{\theta}d\theta+\sin{\theta}\cos{\phi}d\phi.
Multiplying by g^{\mu\nu} I hope can get \frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha}, \frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}. What is wrong?
 
Vrbic said:
Can I suppose transformation this metric to the form: d\alpha^2+d\beta^2 and claim the \frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha}, \frac{\partial}{\partial\beta} are KV?
If you could put the metric in that form, it would be FLAT. It's not flat, it's a sphere.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Vrbic said:
From them (if from first guess \alpha_{\theta}=\cos{\phi}, \beta_{\theta}=\sin{\phi}) I get d\alpha=\cos{\phi}d\theta-\sin{\theta}\sin{\phi}d\phi, d\beta=\sin{\theta}d\theta+\sin{\theta}\cos{\phi}d\phi.

This clearly doesn't reduce to the metric on the 2-sphere: simple substitution yields ##d\alpha^2 + d\beta^2 = d\theta ^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2 + (\sin \theta \cos\phi - \sin 2\phi )\sin\theta d\theta d\phi##.

You simply won't be able to put the 2-sphere metric in the form ##ds^2 = d\alpha^2 + d\beta^2## and Bill has elucidated above why this is impossible.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top