Static spacetimes can be defined as having no [itex]g_{tx}[/itex] component of the metric.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Alternatively we can say that they are foliated by a bunch of spacelike hypersurfaces to which the Killing vector field [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/itex] is orthogonal.

How are these two statements consistent?

[itex]g_{tx}=0 \Rightarrow g(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \frac{\partial}{\partial x})=0[/itex] but I always thought this meant there was no distance between timelike and spacelike vectors rather than a statement about them being orthogonal?

Can someone please clear this up for me.

Thanks.

**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!

# Static + Hypersurface Orthogonality

Loading...

Similar Threads - Static Hypersurface Orthogonality | Date |
---|---|

I Charged black hole - static electric field lines | Feb 1, 2018 |

I Geodesic deviation in static spacetime | Oct 28, 2017 |

I Static, Isotropic metric | Jun 12, 2017 |

A Foliation of spacetime into spacelike hypersurfaces | May 5, 2017 |

A Non static and isotropic solution for Einstein Field Eq | Dec 13, 2016 |

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