A Papapetrou transformation: Conditions to be satisfied to achieve transformation

julian
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
858
Reaction score
362
TL;DR Summary
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:
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
977
Replies
1
Views
956
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top