Solve GHY Boundary Term Problem for Calculations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Gibbons-Hawking-York (GHY) boundary term necessary for accurate calculations in General Relativity (GR). The user encountered discrepancies between their results and those in a referenced paper, specifically regarding the trace of the extrinsic curvature and the application of Stokes' theorem. Key calculations involved the extrinsic curvature formula, the inverse metric, and the integration of the GHY term into the Einstein-Hilbert action. Ultimately, the user identified an error in their calculations related to the metric terms, leading to correct results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term in General Relativity
  • Familiarity with Stokes' theorem in the context of differential geometry
  • Knowledge of extrinsic curvature and its calculation
  • Proficiency in using Mathematica for symbolic calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and implications of the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term in GR
  • Learn about the application of Stokes' theorem in higher-dimensional integrals
  • Explore the calculation of extrinsic curvature in various geometrical contexts
  • Investigate advanced features of Mathematica for tensor calculus and differential geometry
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and students in theoretical physics, particularly those specializing in General Relativity, differential geometry, and mathematical physics. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of boundary terms in gravitational theories.

Zitter
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody ! In one of my papers I need to add Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term in order to calculate everything properly. I found a paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269316306530 ) in which authors included this term into the action. My problem is: I tried to calculate this term as a practice work, but I didn't obtain the same result as authors of paper. There is no point in posting my result, because my formula is much bigger than compact form from paper. I checked my hand-made calculations in Mathematica and they are the same, so probably there is a problem at the beginning of my thinking. Could somebody tell where is the error ?

1) Firstly, I calculated the trace of extrinsic curvature ##K=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu} (\sqrt{-g} n^{\mu})##, where ##n_{\mu}## is the unit vector normal to the boundary. The hyper-surface boundary is given by ##r=R_0##, where ##R_0## is constant. I obtained ##n_t=0,\ n_r=\sqrt{\frac{B}{A}},\ n_{\varphi}=0## and ##n^t=0,\ n^r=\sqrt{\frac{A}{B}},n^{\varphi}=0 ##.

2) In order to add GHY term into Einstein-Hilbert action I used Stokes theorem to change "surface" integral into "volume" integral. One can rewrite ##K## as ## \bar{K}^{\mu}n_{\mu}##, where ##\bar{K}^{\mu}## is vector ##(\bar{K}^t,\bar{K}^r,\bar{K}^{\varphi})=(0,\sqrt{\frac{A}{B}}K,0)##. By using Stokes theorem expression ##d^2x \sqrt{-h} K## is replaced by ##d^3x \sqrt{-g} \bar{K}^{\mu}_{;\mu}##, where ##\bar{K}^{\mu}_{;\mu}## is divergence of ##\bar{K}^{\mu}## vector.

3) Now, inside action integral we have ##\sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa}(R-2\Lambda)+\frac{1}{\kappa}\bar{K}^{\mu}_{;\mu}\right) ## plus ##\sigma##-model part.

Is this reasoning correct ? Thank you in advance for any help. Few months ago I changed my field of study from QM to GR and I have gaps in knowledge, which of course I try to reduce as hard as possible.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Zitter said:
1) Firstly, I calculated the trace of extrinsic curvature ##K=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu} (\sqrt{-g} n^{\mu})##, where ##n_{\mu}## is the unit vector normal to the boundary. The hyper-surface boundary is given by ##r=R_0##, where ##R_0## is constant. I obtained ##n_t=0,\ n_r=\sqrt{\frac{B}{A}},\ n_{\varphi}=0## and ##n^t=0,\ n^r=\sqrt{\frac{A}{B}},n^{\varphi}=0 ##.

Are you want to check extrinsic curvature of the formula (4) in the paper of Harms and Stern? Dis you calculate the inverse metric ##g^{\mu\nu}##? can you post it?
 
Yes. I want to calculate ##K## by using ansatz on metric given by formula (4) in the paper. The inverse metric I calculated is
$$\begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{1}{A+3r^2\Omega^2 }& 0 & \frac{2\Omega}{A+3r^2 \Omega^2} \\
0 & \frac{A}{B} & 0 \\
\frac{2 \Omega}{A+3r^2 \Omega^2} & 0 & \frac{A-r^2\Omega^2}{r^2A+3r^4 \Omega^2}
\end{pmatrix}$$
 
Zitter said:
Yes. I want to calculate ##K## by using ansatz on metric given by formula (4) in the paper. The inverse metric I calculated is
$$\begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{1}{A+3r^2\Omega^2 }& 0 & \frac{2\Omega}{A+3r^2 \Omega^2} \\
0 & \frac{A}{B} & 0 \\
\frac{2 \Omega}{A+3r^2 \Omega^2} & 0 & \frac{A-r^2\Omega^2}{r^2A+3r^4 \Omega^2}
\end{pmatrix}$$
The metic ##g_{\mu\nu}## can be written as
$$
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-A+r^2\Omega^2 & 0 &0\\
0&\frac{B}{A} & r^2\Omega\\
0&r^2\Omega&r^2
\end{array} \right]
$$
Am I right?
 
The ##r^2\Omega## term should be in positions (1,3) and (3,1), but thanks to you I found error in my calculations. I forgot that it should be ##r^2\Omega## and not ##2r^2\Omega## :D. Now everything is ok and calculations are correct .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
965
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
742
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
520
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K