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?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Satisfies Killing equation, but not a Killing field?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Satisfies Killing equation | Date |
---|---|

I Interesting Derivation of Maxwell's Equations | Mar 11, 2018 |

A Why is Killing vector field normal to Killing horizon? | Jan 26, 2018 |

General Relativity- geodesics, killing vector, Conserved quantity Schwarzschild metric | Jun 25, 2017 |

I Killing Vectors in 2D | Feb 22, 2017 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**