Proving Surface Gravity with Killing's, Hypersurface, Geodesic Equation

In summary, the surface gravity is given by -\frac{1}{2}(\kappa^2)=-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}(\nabla_{\mu}\chi_{\nu})(\nabla^{\mu}\chi^{\nu}))
  • #1
LAHLH
409
1
Could someone point me in the right direction to prove that the surface gravity is given by [tex] \kappa^2=-\frac{1}{2}(\nabla_{\mu}\chi_{\nu})(\nabla^{\mu}\chi^{\nu}) [/tex]

I know it involves Killings equation, the hypersurface othog equation and the geodesic equation somehow but I'm not entirely sure where to go from there as I've tried expanding each of these and not really got anywhere.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
See section 5.2.4 of Eric Poisson's notes,

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/agr.pdf,

which evolved into the excellent book, A Relativist's Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black Hole Mechanics.
 
  • #3
Thanks a lot, just what I was looking for!

While I'm here, I'm also trying to figure out (a few pages later in Carroll ch6 where I was reading about surface gravity), why the four acceleration [tex] a^{\mu}=U^{\mu}\nabla_{\sigma}U^{\mu} [/tex] can be written as [tex] a_{\mu}=\nabla_{\mu}\ln{(V)} [/tex]

Here V is the so called "redshift factor", i.e. if you have a static observer with four velocity proportional to the time translation Killing Vector K then V(x) is the proportionality constant. [tex] V=\sqrt{-K_{\mu}K^{\mu}} [/tex]

He says "as you can easily verify", so I tried to do so and didn't seem to reproduce what he has, I'm not sure if I'm treating the covariant derivative correctly, I'm just assuming the usual chain rules etc apply, because I was pretty sure that I remember they do, but hmm
 
  • #4
Just out of curiosity; what did you get when you calculated it..?
 
  • #5
Btw, I got;

[tex]\frac{1}{V^{2}}g_{\mu \nu} K^{\mu} K^{\nu}_{;\alpha}}[/tex]

which sort of looks right..?
 
  • #6
jarlostensen said:
Btw, I got;

[tex]\frac{1}{V^{2}}g_{\mu \nu} K^{\mu} K^{\nu}_{;\alpha}}[/tex]

which sort of looks right..?

I got exactly this too. Given that [tex] U^{\mu}=K^{\mu}/V(x) [/tex] it looks really close, but I don't know how to massage that into [tex] \frac{K^{\sigma}}{V} \nabla_{\sigma}\frac{K^{\mu}}{V}[/tex]

We have

[tex] \frac{1}{V^2}K^{\rho} \nabla_{\mu}K_{\rho}[/tex]. The K's are currently dotted with each other rather than with the cov deriv, and whilst you can combine the external K and one of the V's to give a U, you can't just take the other V inside the covariant deriv to create another U, so I'm kinda stuck...
 
  • #7
Anyone know how to do this? or know any books with the same equation so I can double check it is actually given by this formula?
 
  • #8
LAHLH said:
Anyone know how to do this?

I think that I have done it.
LAHLH said:
The K's are currently dotted with each other rather than with the cov deriv

Use Killing's equation to change this around. I also used the orthogonality of 4-velocity and 4-acceleration,

[tex]0 = U^\alpha U^\beta \nabla_\beta U_\alpha .[/itex]
 
  • #9
Ok, that gets me to;

[tex]0 = \frac{K^{\alpha} K^{\beta}}{V^4} ( K_{\alpha;\beta} V - K_{\alpha} V_{;\beta})[/tex]

Can we have just one more hint please? :smile:
 
  • #10
jarlostensen said:
Ok, that gets me to;

[tex]0 = \frac{K^{\alpha} K^{\beta}}{V^4} ( K_{\alpha;\beta} V - K_{\alpha} V_{;\beta})[/tex]

Can we have just one more hint please? :smile:

To kill the last term, expand

[tex]0 = U^\alpha U^\beta \nabla_\beta U_\alpha[/itex]

in terms of [itex]K^\mu[/itex] and [itex]V[/itex], explicitly calculate the derivative involved, and use the fact that something symmetric contracted with something antisymmetric gives zero.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
This site has been intermittently down for me the last couple of days and I had actually found a proof coming at this from the [tex] a^{\mu}=U^{\mu}\nabla_{\sigma}U^{\mu} [/tex] direction, but it sounds like exactly the same techniques used here, I'd be happy to write it out if anyone wants to see it explicitly.

Thanks a lot for the replies George, very helpful.
 

Related to Proving Surface Gravity with Killing's, Hypersurface, Geodesic Equation

1. What is Killing's equation and how does it relate to surface gravity?

Killing's equation is a mathematical equation used in differential geometry to study symmetries in a space. It relates to surface gravity in the sense that it can be used to determine whether a surface has a constant gravitational field, which is a key component in proving surface gravity.

2. What is a hypersurface and why is it important in proving surface gravity?

A hypersurface is a subspace in a higher-dimensional space, such as a three-dimensional surface in a four-dimensional space. It is important in proving surface gravity because it allows us to study the behavior of gravitational fields on a surface without considering the entire space, making the problem more manageable.

3. How does the geodesic equation play a role in proving surface gravity?

The geodesic equation is a mathematical equation that describes the paths that objects follow in a curved space, such as a surface with a gravitational field. It is used in proving surface gravity by showing that the curvature of the surface is related to the strength of the gravitational field.

4. Can surface gravity be proven using only mathematical equations?

Yes, surface gravity can be proven using mathematical equations such as Killing's equation, the geodesic equation, and others. These equations are based on mathematical principles and can be used to derive the properties of surface gravity without relying on experimental data.

5. Are there any practical applications for proving surface gravity with Killing's, hypersurface, and geodesic equations?

Yes, there are several practical applications of proving surface gravity using these equations. For example, it can help us understand the behavior of gravitational fields on different surfaces, which has implications in various fields such as astrophysics and aerospace engineering. It can also aid in the design of spacecraft and other technologies that rely on accurate measurements of gravitational fields.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
961
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
879
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
780
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top