Can the BTZ Black Hole Solutions Be Valid with Different Cosmological Constants?

erasrot
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody. I am well aware that there is only one black hole in 2+1, i.e., the BTZ one. I also know that for vanishing and positive cosmological constants we get solutions with a conical singularity. My question is more about the interpretation of these last results. Assume that in the BTZ solution you just change the value of the cosmological constant from negative to zero or positive. Is that valid? How are the geodesics to be interpreted in these spacetimes? Is just like in any geodesically incomplete background?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
erasrot said:
Assume that in the BTZ solution you just change the value of the cosmological constant from negative to zero or positive. Is that valid? How are the geodesics to be interpreted in these spacetimes? Is just like in any geodesically incomplete background?

It wouldn't be a solution to the vacuum field equations. The geodesics would have the same interpretation as in the BTZ solution, because the metric would be the same.
 
Thanks for your answer. Do you mean that they are not vaccuum solutions because, to be a solution, the conical singularity at r=0 has to be treated as a point particle?
 
erasrot said:
Assume that in the BTZ solution you just change the value of the cosmological constant from negative to zero or positive. Is that valid? How are the geodesics to be interpreted in these spacetimes? Is just like in any geodesically incomplete background?

You can change it, but only one of the cosmological values most accurately predict the shape of out universe. If you read up on the Flatness Problem, you will find it. I believe it is +1. My memory could be failing me here, while since I read it.
 
erasrot said:
Thanks for your answer. Do you mean that they are not vaccuum solutions because, to be a solution, the conical singularity at r=0 has to be treated as a point particle?

No. I mean that they aren't vacuum solutions because they wouldn't satisfy the Einstein field equations with T=0 and the value of \Lambda that actually applied to them.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top