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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LAHLH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Surface
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the expression for surface gravity in the context of general relativity, specifically using Killing's equations, the hypersurface orthogonality condition, and the geodesic equation. Participants are exploring the mathematical derivations and relationships between these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on proving that surface gravity is given by \(\kappa^2=-\frac{1}{2}(\nabla_{\mu}\chi_{\nu})(\nabla^{\mu}\chi^{\nu})\), indicating uncertainty about how to proceed with the relevant equations.
  • Another participant references Eric Poisson's notes as a potential resource for understanding the topic better.
  • A participant expresses interest in understanding why the four-acceleration can be expressed in terms of the redshift factor, indicating confusion about the application of covariant derivatives.
  • Several participants share their calculations related to the four-acceleration, noting similarities in their results but expressing uncertainty about how to manipulate the equations further.
  • One participant suggests using Killing's equation and the orthogonality of four-velocity and four-acceleration to progress in the derivation.
  • Another participant provides a hint on how to expand the relevant equations to facilitate the proof, emphasizing the importance of symmetry and antisymmetry in the calculations.
  • A participant mentions having found a proof from a different direction but is willing to share it if others are interested.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the derivation of the equations or the interpretation of the results, with multiple competing approaches and ongoing uncertainty about specific mathematical steps.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of covariant derivatives and the manipulation of equations involving Killing vectors and redshift factors, indicating that assumptions about these mathematical tools may not be fully resolved.

LAHLH
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
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
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.
 
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
 
Just out of curiosity; what did you get when you calculated it..?
 
Btw, I got;

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

which sort of looks right..?
 
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...
 
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?
 
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][/tex]
 
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]<br /> <br /> 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.[/tex]
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
962
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K