Satisfies Killing equation, but not a Killing field?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bcrowell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of vector fields on a cone, particularly in relation to the Killing equation and the concept of Killing fields. Participants explore the implications of the cone's geometry on the behavior of vector fields, questioning whether a vector field can satisfy the Killing equation without being a Killing vector field, especially at the tip of the cone.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that while the cone has local geometrical properties similar to a plane, it has intrinsic properties that differ, such as vector rotation during parallel transport around the tip, raising questions about the validity of the Killing equation at that point.
  • Another participant suggests that due to topological reasons, the vector field \partial_x cannot be considered a global Killing field because it does not connect smoothly at the cone's tip.
  • A further comment emphasizes that the mapping between the plane and the cone fails to be a diffeomorphism at the tip, indicating that the tip must be excluded for the cone to be a differentiable manifold.
  • One participant reiterates that \partial_x is not a smooth global vector field due to topological reasons, reinforcing the previous points about the cone's geometry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether a vector field can satisfy the Killing equation without being a Killing vector field, particularly at the tip of the cone. There is no consensus on the implications of the cone's geometry for the properties of the vector fields discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the smoothness of the mapping between the plane and the cone, as well as the topological considerations that affect the classification of vector fields on the cone.

bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
6,723
Reaction score
431
A cone has all the same local geometrical properties as a plane, so if you take a piece of graph paper and form it into a cone, [itex]\partial_x[/itex] and [itex]\partial_y[/itex] still satisfy the Killing equation. On the other hand, the cone has intrinsic geometrical properties that are different from those of the plane, e.g., parallel transport around a loop enclosing the tip will cause a vector to rotate. This singles out the tip and gives it a special geometrical role, which is clearly not consistent with translational symmetry. Does this mean that we can have a field that satisfies the Killing equation without being a Killing vector, or is the Killing equation violated at the tip of the cone? Does it matter if you extend the cone to make a double cone, so that orbits of a Killing vector can pass smoothly through the tip?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think due to topological reasons, [tex]\partial_x[/tex] is no longer a global Killing field, i.e. it doesn't join up at the cut of the cone.

The mapping between the plane and the cone fails to be a diffeomorphism at the tip because it's not smooth. The tip must be excluded from the cone for the cone to form a differentiable manifold.

Feel free to correct me as I'm not entirely familiar with these issues.
 
Thanks, petergreat, that's very helpful!
 
petergreat said:
I think due to topological reasons, [tex]\partial_x[/tex] is no longer a global Killing field, i.e. it doesn't join up at the cut of the cone.

Due to topological reasons, not only is [tex]\partial_x[/tex] not a global Killing field, [tex]\partial_x[/tex] is not a smooth global vector field.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K