What is a principal null direction

  • Thread starter Thread starter purakanui
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Direction
purakanui
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I am starting my honours project on colliding plane gravitational waves and I am learning about the Petrov-Penrose classification of the Weyl tensor. I can't find any good explanation on what a principal null direction is.

Thanks

Chris
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A principal null vector is an eigenvector of the Riemann tensor. Consider first the Maxwell tensor Fμν. A principal null vector of the Maxwell tensor is a null vector kν such that kαFαν ∝ kν. An equivalent way of writing this is kαFα[νkσ] = 0. Similarly a principal null vector of the Riemann tensor is a null vector such that

kαkRν]αβ[σkτ]kβ = 0
 
Thanks for that!
 
I am actually having a little trouble with the anti-symmetric part of your answer. I understand that T_{[ab]} = \frac{1}{2}(T_{ab}-T_{ba}). But how do you expand when the square brackets go over more than one tensor? I.e. in K^aF_{a[v}K_{\sigma]} = 0?
Thanks again
 
purakanui said:
I am actually having a little trouble with the anti-symmetric part of your answer. I understand that T_{[ab]} = \frac{1}{2}(T_{ab}-T_{ba}). But how do you expand when the square brackets go over more than one tensor? I.e. in K^aF_{a[v}K_{\sigma]} = 0?
Thanks again

K^aF_{a[v}K_{\sigma]} = \frac{1}{2} \left( K^aF_{a v}K_\sigma - K^aF_{a \sigma}K_v \right)
 
Cool, thought that would be the case.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top