A Papapetrou transformation: Conditions to be satisfied to achieve transformation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the conditions necessary for the Papapetrou transformation as outlined in Chandrasekhar's "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes." It examines the requirements for a coordinate transformation to maintain a diagonal metric with equal coefficients. The original poster compares their derived conditions for the transformation with those presented by Chandrasekhar, questioning the necessity and sufficiency of their own conditions. They note that both sets of conditions can be satisfied by the same choices for the functions involved. The conversation highlights the complexity of the transformation and the nuances in Chandrasekhar's approach.
julian
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
860
Reaction score
365
TL;DR
The Papapetrou transformation. Conditions to be satisfied to achieve requirements of transformation. My conditions don't match Chandrasekhar's conditions.
I'm looking at the Papapetrou transformation in Ch. 6, ##\S 52## of Chandrasekhar's book. He cf's Ch. 2, ##\S##11.I understand Ch. 2, ##\S##11. There he considers a coordinate transformation,

\begin{align*}
{x'}^1 = \phi (x^1,x^2) \qquad \text{and} \qquad {x'}^2 = \psi (x^1,x^2)
\end{align*}

which will reduce the contravariant form of the line element

\begin{align*}
ds^2 = g^{11} (dx_1)^2 + 2 g^{12} dx_1 dx_2 + g^{22} (dx_2)^2
\end{align*}

to diagonal form with equal coefficients for ##(dx_1)^2## and ##(dx_2)^2##. For a transformation to achieve this it is necessary and sufficient that

\begin{align*}
g^{'12} = g^{11} \phi_{,1} \psi_{,1} + 2 g^{12} (\phi_{,1} \psi_{,2} + \phi_{,2} \psi_{,1}) + g^{22} \phi_{,2} \psi_{,2} = 0
\end{align*}

\begin{align*}
g^{'11} - g^{'22} = g^{11} ({\phi_{,1}}^2 - {\psi_{,1}}^2) + 2 g^{12} (\phi_{,1} \phi_{,2} - \psi_{,1} \psi_{,2}) + g^{22} ({\phi_{,2}}^2 - {\psi_{,2}}^2) = 0
\end{align*}

I get all of this.In Ch. 6, ##\S##52, (b) The Papapetrou transformation, he is wanting to perform a coordinate transformation

\begin{align*}
(x^2,x^3) \rightarrow (\rho , z)
\end{align*}

such that

\begin{align*}
e^{2 \mu} [(dx_2)^2 + (dx_3)^2] \rightarrow f (\rho , z) [(d \rho)^2 + (dz)^2]
\end{align*}Regarding the possibility of making such a coordinate transformation, he cf's Ch. 2 ##\S##11. So I was thinking I should write

\begin{align*}
{x'}^2 = \rho (x^2,x^3) \qquad \text{and} \qquad {x'}^3 = z (x^2,x^3)
\end{align*}

where ##\rho## and ##z## are to be chosen so that the metric remains in diagonal form and with equal coefficients for ##(d \rho)^2## and ##(dz)^2##. For a transformation to achieve this it is necessary and sufficient that

\begin{align*}
g^{'23} = g^{22} \rho_{,2} z_{,2} + 2 g^{23} (\rho_{,2} z_{,3} + \rho_{,3} z_{,2}) + g^{33} \rho_{,3} z_{,3} = 0
\end{align*}

\begin{align*}
g^{'22} - g^{'33} = g^{22} ({\rho_{,2}}^2 - {z_{,2}}^2) + 2 g^{23} (\rho_{,2} \rho_{,3} - z_{,2} z_{,3}) + g^{33} ({\rho_{,3}}^2 - {z_{,3}}^2) = 0
\end{align*}

As ##g^{23} = 0## and ##g^{22} = g^{33}##, the first condition requires
\begin{align*}
\rho_{,2} z_{,2} + \rho_{,3} z_{,3} = 0
\end{align*}

As ##g^{23} = 0## and ##g^{22} = g^{33}##, the second condition requires

\begin{align*}
{\rho_{,2}}^2 - {z_{,2}}^2 = - {\rho_{,3}}^2 + {z_{,3}}^2
\end{align*}However, Chandrasekhar gets these conditions instead:

\begin{align*}
{\rho_{,2}}^2 + {z_{,2}}^2 & = {\rho_{,3}}^2 + {z_{,3}}^2
\nonumber \\
\rho_{,2} \rho_{,3} + z_{,2} z_{,3} & = 0
\end{align*}

How does Chandrasekhar arrive at these conditions?Are my conditions not necessary and sufficient conditions for the transformation to achieve the requirements I stated? Does Chandrasekhar have other requirements in mind? Chandrasekhar notes that his conditions are satisfied by ##\rho_{,2} = +z_{,3}## and ##\rho_{,3} = - z_{,2}##. I notice that my conditions are satisfied by these choices as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
julian said:
[...] Chandrasekhar's book. [...]
Which book? He's written quite a few.

Edit: Oh, I guess you mean "The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes" (1983).
Geez, I hate Chandrasekhar's conventions for chapter/section numbering.... (sigh)

Alas, I don't have time to give a detailed answer right now. I'll try later this week if no one else jumps in first. :oldfrown:
 
Last edited:
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K