I Understanding Admit & Adapt: Timelike Killing Vector Field

  • Thread starter Thread starter GR191511
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
A space-time is stationary if it has a timelike Killing vector field, which indicates a symmetry in time. The term "admit" means that the space-time possesses such a vector field, while "adapted" refers to a coordinate system that aligns with this vector field. It is possible to choose a coordinate system where the Killing vector field takes a specific form, such as ##X^a=\delta^a_0##, but this is not mandatory. Different coordinate systems, like Kruskal-Szekeres, can represent the same physical situation without adhering to this form. Ultimately, the choice of coordinates is flexible and can be tailored to the problem at hand.
GR191511
Messages
76
Reaction score
6
"A space-time is said to be stationary if and only if it admits a timelike Killing vector field"
"...given a a timelike Killing vector field,then there always exists a coordinate system which is adapted to the Killing vector field##X^a##,that is,in which##X^a=\delta^a_0##holds..."
How to understand "admit"and"adapt"?Does it mean that ##X^a=\delta^a_0## may not hold even if there exists a timelike Killing vector field?Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Admits, in this context, is a fancy way of saying "has". Stationary spacetimes are those that have a timelike Killing vector field.

"Adapted to" means "well matched to". You can always pick a coordinate system with a timelike basis parallel to the Killing field. It's often a good idea because then your definition of space can be independent of time, and Schwarzschild coordinates are an example of this. But as always with coordinates you are free to make any choice you like. In Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, for example, the integral curves of the Killing vector field form hyperbolas. You don't even have to have a timelike basis vector if you don't want to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark, vanhees71, Nugatory and 1 other person
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
955
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K