Schwarzchild metric spherically symmetric space or s-t?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Schwarzschild metric and whether its spherical symmetry pertains to space, spacetime, or both. Participants explore the implications of symmetry in the context of general relativity, particularly focusing on the dimensional aspects of symmetry and the role of Killing vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the Schwarzschild metric is spherically symmetric only with respect to space, citing the use of space-like Killing vectors that describe 2-spheres in 3-dimensional space.
  • Others argue that there is no meaningful notion of spherical symmetry in spacetime, as timelike and spacelike separations are fundamentally different.
  • A participant mentions that spherical symmetry cannot be defined in terms of 3-spheres in four-dimensional spacetime, as there is no concept of four-dimensional rotation akin to spatial rotations.
  • Questions arise regarding the dimensionality of symmetry, with some participants seeking clarification on why the symmetry is considered spatial rather than involving a combination of spatial and temporal dimensions.
  • There is a discussion about the existence of maximally symmetric spacetimes, with references to flat and de Sitter spacetimes, and how these relate to the concept of symmetry in time versus space.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of understanding specific terminology related to symmetry and Killing vector fields to grasp the nuances of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild metric pertains solely to space or if it can be considered in a broader context involving spacetime. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining symmetry in higher dimensions and the limitations of applying spatial concepts to temporal dimensions. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the nature of symmetry and the definitions of relevant terms.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
This is probably a stupid question, but, is the Schwarzschild metric spherically symmetric just with respect to space or space-time?

Looking at the derivation, my thoughts are that it is just wrt space because the derivation is use of 3 space-like Killing vectors , these describe 2-spheres, and ##S^{2}## spheres foliate ##ℝ^{3}##...

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Timelike and spacelike separation are always different, and lightlike motion is different from a "diagonal line" in space. I don't see how anything could have a spherical symmetry in spacetime. The Schwarzschild metric is just symmetric in space.
 
Yes, it's just spatial. There is no useful notion of spherical symmetry in the sense of 3-spheres, because there is no useful notion of four-dimensional rotation. The closest thing we have to a rotation mixing space and time is actually a boost, and boosts are not the same as rotations.
 
Thanks. And why the 3 spatial dimensions, why not 2 spatial and 1 time?
 
binbagsss said:
Thanks. And why the 3 spatial dimensions, why not 2 spatial and 1 time?

Could you clarify what the question is?
 
bcrowell said:
Could you clarify what the question is?
Sorry, so we have a notion of 2-spheres that foliate 3-d space, but not 3-spheres that foliate 4-d space; why is the spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild metric spatial , not, say 2 space dimentions and 1 time dimension?
 
The time dimension is different from the spatial dimensions.
Did you ever see anything symmetric in time?
 
mfb said:
The time dimension is different from the spatial dimensions.
Did you ever see anything symmetric in time?
Sorry I don't understand the question, Aren't flat space-time and de-sitter space-time maximally symmetric?
 
binbagsss said:
we have a notion of 2-spheres that foliate 3-d space, but not 3-spheres that foliate 4-d space

Sure we do; there are 4-d spacetimes (such as closed FRW spacetime) that are foliated by spacelike 3-spheres.
binbagsss said:
why is the spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild metric spatial , not, say 2 space dimentions and 1 time dimension?

Because "spherical symmetry" means "there is a set of Killing vector fields closed under commutation and with closed integral curves". A spacetime that was "spherically symmetric in time" would have to have a set of such Killing vector fields with one of them being timelike. I'm not aware of any such spacetime, but even if there is one, it certainly is not Schwarzschild spacetime; Schwarzschild spacetime does have a timelike Killing vector field (at least, it does outside the horizon), but that Killing vector field does not have closed integral curves and its commutator with the spherical symmetry Killing vector fields (which are spacelike) is zero.

binbagsss said:
Aren't flat space-time and de-sitter space-time maximally symmetric?

"Maximally symmetric" does not mean "all the dimensions are the same". It means that those spacetimes have the maximum possible number of Killing vector fields (in 4-d spacetime, that number is 10). It does not mean that all of those Killing vector fields are the same as the ones that define spherical symmetry.

If you'll notice, I've thrown a bunch of jargon at you; that was deliberate. If you don't understand the terms I used above, I strongly suggest looking them up and taking the time to understand them. They are critical to a proper understanding of what "symmetry" in general and "spherical symmetry" in particular mean, and I think that understanding will help to answer your questions.
 
  • #10
binbagsss said:
Sorry I don't understand the question, Aren't flat space-time and de-sitter space-time maximally symmetric?
Okay, to be more precise: Did you ever see anything symmetric, but not constant in time?
Or even worse, something that is symmetric in a time/space plane. How would such a concept even look like? Motion through time is always different from motion through space, so you always have a way to break the symmetry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K