I Components of *J in Kerr geometry

etotheipi
I am in the middle of a problem for the Kerr geometry, I need to do the integral ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J## over a null hypersurface ##\mathcal{N}## which is a subset of ##\mathcal{H}^+##, where ##J_a = -T_{ab} k^b## and the orientation on ##\mathcal{N}## is ##dv \wedge d\theta \wedge d\chi## so that ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J = \int_{\phi{(\mathcal{N})}} dv d\theta d\chi (\star J)_{v\theta \chi}##. It's supposed to be that ##(\star J)_{v\theta \chi} = (r_+^2 + a^2)\sin\theta \xi^a J_a##, but how do you get this? I tried to work backward from this to ##(\star J)_{v\theta \chi} = \dfrac{1}{3!} g^{ba} \epsilon_{v\theta \chi b} J_a## but not successfully. I had thought that maybe from the Rayachudri equation with ##\hat{\sigma} = \hat{\omega} = 0## that \begin{align*}
0 = R_{ab} \xi^a \xi^b \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} = 8\pi T_{ab} \xi^a \xi^b \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} &= 8\pi T_{ab} \xi^a \left(k^b + \dfrac{a}{r_+^2 + a^2} m^b \right) \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} \\

0 &= \left( -8\pi \xi^a J_a + \dfrac{a}{r_+^2 + a^2} 8\pi T_{ab} m^b \right) \vert_{\mathcal{H}+}
\end{align*}so that ##(r_+^2 + a^2) \sin{\theta} \xi^a J_a \vert_{\mathcal{H}+} = a \sin{\theta} T_{ab} m^b \vert_{\mathcal{H}+}##. But now I don't know what to do with ##T_{ab} m^b##? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
I need to do the integral ##\int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J## over a null hypersurface ##\mathcal{N}## which is a subset of ##\mathcal{H}^+##, where ##J_a = -T_{ab} k^b##
Kerr spacetime is a vacuum spacetime, so ##T_{ab} = 0## everywhere. So this doesn't make sense.

Where is this problem coming from?
 
It is question 6: https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/examples/3R3c.pdf. For the first part I already wrote that since Penrose diagram would show two lines representing ##\Sigma## and ##\Sigma'## starting at ##i_0## and meeting ##\mathcal{H}^+## in the 2-spheres ##H## and ##H'##, and because on the diagram the subset of ##\mathcal{H}^+## connecting ##H## and ##H'## represents ##\mathcal{N}##, the hypersurfaces ##\Sigma##, ##\Sigma'## and ##\mathcal{N}## bound a spacetime region ##R##, so\begin{align*}E(\Sigma) - E(\Sigma') + E(\mathcal{N}) = - \int_{\partial R} \star J = - \int_R d \star J = 0 \\\end{align*}and so ##E(\Sigma) - E(\Sigma') = -E(\mathcal{N}) = \int_{\mathcal{N}} \star J##. I'm not completely sure that's right, but it seems reasonable. And for (b) the orientation is fixed by Stokes. But I am totally stuck on (c).
 
etotheipi said:
Hm. The question still doesn't make sense to me, since, as I said, Kerr spacetime is a vacuum spacetime, so ##T_{ab} = 0## everywhere, but the question is talking about "matter fields". Perhaps it is talking about some kind of approximation where the behavior of a matter field is being analyzed on a background Kerr spacetime, where the matter field is considered a "test field" which doesn't produce any spacetime curvature on its own.
 
PeterDonis said:
Perhaps it is talking about some kind of approximation where the behavior of a matter field is being analyzed on a background Kerr spacetime, where the matter field is considered a "test field" which doesn't produce any spacetime curvature on its own.
The reference in part (e) to superradiant scattering seems to bear this out, since other treatments of superradiance, such as the one in MTW, take a similar approach.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Back
Top