Killing fields as eigenvectors of Ricci tensor

samedi 31 août 2013

Hi guys! I need help on a problem from one of my GR texts. Suppose that ##\xi^a## is a killing vector field and consider its twist ##\omega_a = \epsilon_{abcd}\xi^b \nabla^c \xi^d##. I must show that ##\omega_a = \nabla_a \omega## for some scalar field ##\omega##, which is equivalent to showing ##(d\omega)_{ab} = \nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0##, if and only if ##\xi^a## is an eigenvector of the Ricci tensor i.e. ##R^{a}{}{}_{b}\xi^b = \lambda \xi^{a}## for some scalar field ##\lambda##.



First note that ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## if and only if ##\nabla_{a}\omega^{abc} = 0## where ##\omega^{abc} = \epsilon^{abcd}\omega_{d}## is the dual of the twist; inserting the expression for ##\omega_a## we find ##\omega^{abc} = -6\xi^{[a}\nabla^{b}\xi^{c]}## (see the formulas for ##\epsilon_{abcd}## in section B.2 of Wald, particularly page 433). This is easy to see as ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0 \Rightarrow \epsilon^{efgh}\epsilon_{abgh}\nabla_{e}\omega_{f} = 0 \Rightarrow \epsilon_{abcd}\nabla_{e}(\xi^{[e}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d]}) = 0 \Rightarrow \nabla_{e}(\xi^{[e}\nabla^{a}\xi^{b]}) = \nabla_{e}\omega^{ebc} = 0##

because ##\nabla^{[a}\xi^{b]} = \nabla^a \xi^b## on account of ##\xi^a## being a killing vector field. For the converse, ##\epsilon^{abcd}\nabla_{c}\omega_{d} = \epsilon^{dcba}\epsilon_{defg}\nabla_{c}(\xi^{e}\nabla^{f}\xi^{g}) = -6\nabla_{c}(\xi^{[c}\nabla^{b}\xi^{a]}) = \nabla_{c}\omega^{cba} = 0## thus ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0##.



Now on to the problem itself, if ##R^{a}{}{}_{b}\xi^b = \lambda \xi^{a}## then

##\nabla_a \omega^{abc} = -6\nabla_{a}(\xi^{[a}\nabla^{b}\xi^{c]} ) = -2(\xi^b \nabla_a \nabla^c \xi^a -\xi^c \nabla_a \nabla^b \xi^a + R^{cb}{}{}_{ad}\xi^{a}\xi^{d})\\ = -2(R^{c}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{b} - R^{b}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{c}) = -2(\lambda\xi^{c}\xi^{b} - \lambda \xi^{b}\xi^{c}) = 0.##



It's the converse I'm stuck on mainly. If ##\nabla_{[a}\omega_{b]} = 0## then, using the above, ##R^{c}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{b} = R^{b}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d}\xi^{c}##. If ##\xi^a## is non-null (##\xi^a \xi_a \neq 0##), then ##R^{c}{}{}_{d}\xi^{d} = \frac{R_{bd}\xi^b\xi^{d}}{\xi^b \xi_b}\xi^{c} = \lambda \xi^c ## as desired. However I don't get what to do when ##\xi^a## is null; I don't see how to show the desired result.






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707996&goto=newpost

How to plot correctly spacetime diagrams

Hello,

after having done a bit of exercices on Taylor & Wheeler ( just for self-study ), I felt

the need to go on a bit differently, i.e. trying to solve qualitative problems instead of

quantitative ones, i.e. using a bit of diagrams ( all in all, as Susskind always suggest

"when you face a SR problem, plot a diagram first ).



That said, I was trying to solve this Trekker oriented problem:



http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...problem07.html



The overall diagram is quite clear to me, since I was able to answer to all

questions "almost" without problems. But then I thought "wait a minute: it's easy looking

at a already well cooked diagram...let's try to do it by myself from scratch, now!!!"



( Incidentally this is needed, for example, if you wanna to solve the T & W 3.7 exercice,

called Space War, which is exactly this problem without Kirk & friends ).



But here start having problem, highligthing probably my real doubts on it.



So I started to draw a simple x/t diagram, i.e. the enterprise frame, adding a

light beam from origin heading to the right ( x > 0 ).



The I plotted the klingon's primed frame, obviously making it a simmetric around

the light beam, with a certain rapidity angle with x/t axes.



So far, so good. Now I decided to add the Enterprise at rest in its frame ( the unprimed ).

This actually leads to 2 vertical lines ( parallel to t time axis ). This also result in deciding

where to put the event of klingon front reaching the enterprise rear.



Looking at the original plot, the author decided to put it onto the light beam line, i.e.

C point. It's not really clear from this diagram, but if you look at its book ( I own it ), you

can see the enterprise rear wordline intersects the lightbeam EXACTLY in C point.



So my point is: is this a licky strike, or a specific design? Why choosing the C event

to be light-like?



From C, you can draw a line parallel to t', which intersect the enterprise x axis in point

V ( let's imagine to call the intersection of x axis on the right of the O origin respectively

V, W and Z ).



So the distance OV is actually the contracted distance of the klingon ship as the enterprise sees it ( this is because the V point is got as intersection between the front klingon wordline with the

enterprise x axis ).



So, the way contraction is actually a f() in which you choose the C point.



This puzzles me a bit: imagine to keep the enterprise with the same lenght at rest, i.e. WZ length

as constant. Now we decide to move the W point shifting on its right. This shifts the Z point as well, leading to a new C point with the beam : this result in a klingon ship contracted a bit wider than before.



So the point is: how the contraction, which a f() of just the relative beta ( v/c ), may vary

changing the point in which we choose to draw the enterprise ship? ( i.e. V point )



2) I cannot figure how to relate the VW distance with the OV one. From the picture it seems

exactly the same distance. I mean, I'm able to derive the contracted X from the uncontracted

one ( at t=0, for instance ), but I'd like to desume it from the plot, not with formulas...



This is also because let's imagine to keep the W point as costant, i.e. getting a given OV contracted klingon ship. where is the constrain for the W point, i.e. for the enterprise front point?

I'm asking this, because if we'll be able to move this W on its left without constrains, i.e. to change the enterprise size, we could lead to a situation in which the enterprise front it's on the left of firing E points, leading to a hit, instead of a miss.



This doesn't make sense, of course. So my reasonign is wrong in somewhere.

Let me know where you find my error, please, eventually.



Regards



Ricky






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707995&goto=newpost

Does the order of algebraic steps (not operations) matter?

I know that the example I use has been done online many times, but my question isn't about how to get the answer, that is obvious, my question goes a little deeper.



For example when deriving the equation for an ellipse we have the constraint that the ellipse equation describe the set of (x,y) such that the sum of the distances from (x,y) to the foci [(-c,0), (c,0)] is constant, lets say 2a for convenience.



After setting up the equality that c^2+b^2=a^2 (Where b is the y value when (x,y) is in between the foci) we quickly establish the following equation which is used in various derivations online:



sqrt((x+c)^2+y^2)+sqrt((x-c)^2+y^2)=2a



If we square both sides first and then isolate and simplify we arrive at an impasse:



2x^2+2y^2+2c^2+2*sqrt(c^4-2c^2(x^2-y^2)+(x^2-y^2)^2)=4a^2



But if we isolate one of the radicals first and then square we can simplify down to an expression



cx-a^2=a*sqrt((x-c)^2+y^2)



And then if we square both sides again and simplify we can get an expression that allows us to use the c^2+b^2=a^2 relation and obtain the formula.



I'm confused as to why one sequence of steps (squaring, isolating, simplifying,...) does not allow you to find the solution whereas another set of steps (isolating, squaring, simplifying, squaring,...) does allow you to find the solution. It seems to me that since any of the expressions along the way to finding the solution are transformable into each other by simple techniques (adding 0, multiplying by 1, isolating, squaring, etc.) that any path should allow us to arrive at the solution. Now maybe my algebra is rusty and maybe you're supposed to always isolate first, but I'm not sure. Can someone help explain this to me?






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707994&goto=newpost

Studying maths in a noisy environment

I'm currently about to be a university student, and I live at home. I have a 9 year old sister, as well as 1 other sibling and my mother who live with me. Unfortunately for me, I live in a very kid-friendly area, meaning my 9 year old sister has quite a few friends who come over often, and they often make quite a bit of noise. I always tell them to be quiet, but I feel bad for doing so, and hey, sometimes they don't listen.



I'm wondering how can I deal with this noisy environment? I've bought a big headphone set and tried listening to music, but I found classical music to be too distracting, and I wasn't able to think on the harder problems. Music with lyrics I found to be too distracting also. I then tried to listen to white noise only, and this worked for around 2 hours and then I started to get a headache.



Does anyone have any suggestions on what type of music to listen to, or how to deal with this? I hate studying at a library, I only study there when I have free periods at university, other than that, I'd rather stay at home.



Thank you






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707993&goto=newpost

normal lines

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data



how to derive this equation:



https://plus.google.com/photos/11699...CMzL97KBjuXIDg



for the perpendicular displacement ....



2. Relevant equations







3. The attempt at a solution






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707992&goto=newpost

How to choose a dc generator?

hello,

I need a dc generator which would generate 19v and 1.5A current(roughly i want it to generate 30watts of power) at 1000rpm. I require it for a college project. the size of the generator should be small so that i can handle it easily.






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707991&goto=newpost

Radio treatment of water

I hesitate to post this as it sure sounds like woo but it comes from an Irish University Prof. and appears to be endorsed by the Royal botanic gardens at Kew!



Does anyone know of a peer reviewed paper?



http://www.independent.ie/business/i...-29525621.html



Selected quotes:




Quote:








Wave goodbye to global warming, GM and pesticides. Radio wave-treated water could change agriculture as we know it.



The technology – radio wave energised water – massively increases the output of vegetables and fruits by up to 30 per cent.



Developed by Professor Austin Darragh and Dr JJ Leahy of Limerick University's Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science.



Vi-Aqua – meaning 'life water' – converts 24 volts of electricity into a radio signal, which charges up the water via an antennae...



Extensively tested in Warrenstown Agricultural College...



During recent successful tomato crop field trials in Italy, three of the country's largest Agricultural Co-op's were so impressed with the results that they have now decided to recommend the technology to the country's farming community.









via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707990&goto=newpost

Algebra: How does [-x^2 -4x+4-1] become [(x^2+4x-4)-1]

If I want to complete the square with



[itex](-x^{2}-4x+3)[/itex] I would write



[itex](-x^{2}-4x+(...) +3 - (...)) = (-x^{2}-4x+4+3-4) = (-x^{2}-4x+4-1) = (x^{2}+4x-4) - 1[/itex]





Why does adding the parentheses to separate the -1 change all the signs. I understand it has something to do with factoring out a negative, but how exactly?



I thought adding parentheses to a series of additions and/or subtractions is simply an associative property. Signs don't need to change in associate property, so why would they change when adding parentheses to separate the -1 when completing the square for an integration problem in calculus?






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707985&goto=newpost

Improving the image of meteor

I'm using a small b/w digital video camera and frame grabber to catch images of meteors in maybe a 15x15 degree area. Typically noise is introduced into the frames. It is desirable to determine if the image contains a meteor, and clean up the noise in the frames. What methodology is available to do this? The camera has no way to use dark subtracts, stacking or related image processing methods. There is no way to, say, control the shutter other than to get 30 frames per second.






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707984&goto=newpost

Light speed

Lets say we run(forever) with 200km/h and our friend with 10km/h.

Time will run slower for me or will run faster for my friend???






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707983&goto=newpost

Poynting Vector Direction Confusion

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data



I am trying to understand why, in an example in Griffiths E&M (3rd ed, 8.1) says that the Poynting vector of a current carrying wire that is being heated via resistance (Joule heating), has a Poynting vector pointing radially inward. The E field is parallel to the wire, B field is circumferential with the right hand rule.





2. Relevant equations







3. The attempt at a solution

I believe that the Poynting vector points in the direction of energy flow, and in the direction of the EM wave. But if the wire is radiating heat due to Joule heating, I just don't get why the Poynting vector is radially in, and not radially out. This should be so simple...






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707982&goto=newpost

Topics in mathematics

For a mathematical methods course, the end of year assignment is to study and present a topic in mathematics of my choice. I'd like to pick something directly related to electrodynamics that will prove to be useful later. However, I have very little idea of what is used in electrodynamics! Does anyone have a suggestion?



This is a sophomore/junior level course. My mathematics background so far is Calc 1,2, multivariable, vector, and diff. eqs.



Thank you very much for your time!






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707981&goto=newpost

High temp mini tube heater

Hi Everyone, Hope this is the right section of the forum.



I need some help to design a small tube heater for a specific application. I have attached a crude picture to show what i need. The flame needs to travel through a 3/4 inch pipe about 7 feet to heat the water. The problem is that i dont want to use any power so i cant use a blower or fan. I hope to use the venturi effect or some other way to get the flame to suck in enough air to burn hot and reliably with no power. Not sure how im going to ignite it yet but that should be the easy part.



Any ideas on how to get this flame to burn in a closed space with no fan??

Thanks in advance for your help




Attached Images





File Type: jpg hot pipe.jpg (31.2 KB)








via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707980&goto=newpost

I think this problem is correct: acceleration upward at a frat house

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data



A student throws a set of keys vertically upward to his fraternity brother, who is in a window a distance h above. The brother's outstretched hands catches the keys on their way up at a time t later. (a) With what initial velocity were the keys thrown? (b) What was the velocity of the keys just before they were caught?



A student throws a set of keys vertically upward to his fraternity brother, who is in a window a distance h above. The brother's outstretched hands catches the keys on their way up at a time t later. (a) With what initial velocity were the keys thrown? (b) What was the velocity of the keys just before they were caught? (Answer should be in terms of h, t, and g.)





2. Relevant equations



[itex]\Delta[/itex]x = v0t + (1/2)at2

v2 = v02 + 2a[itex]\Delta[/itex]x



3. The attempt at a solution



Question 1: when did the act of throwing begin? When the keys were released from the hand, or during the wind up of the arm/hand, before releasing the keys? The physics tutor in the math lab told me the initial velocity was 0. But that is not true if at the moment of release the keys were already at a higher velocity.



Question 2: What does "[a]nswer should be in terms of h, t, and g" mean? Do they want actual number using h, t, and g, or is this a numberless problem?



a) [itex]\Delta[/itex]x = vot + (1/2)at2



v0 = (1/t)([itex]\Delta[/itex]x - (1/2)at2)



v0 = (1/t)(h - (1/2)gt2)



v0 = (h/t) - ((gt)/2)





b) v2 = v02 + 2a[itex]\Delta[/itex]x



v2 = ((h/t) - (gt)/2)2 + 2gh



v = ((h/t) - (gt)/2) + 2gh



Thanks for any help!)






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707979&goto=newpost

Gibbs Free energy change

In reaction there is a Gibbs Free energy change. I'm still not sure what this means as in my secondary school years we just learned of one component of it which is the enthalpy change. That was simple as it just showed how much heat was released or absorbed. But with Gibbs Free energy, i don't really know what's going on.



My teacher said that it represents the free energy to do non expansion work. But in a reaction we would definitely get the ΔH from it and no more or less than that. So how can energy be "taken away" for the TΔS component? So I don't quite understand the sentence that it is the free energy to do non expansion work actually.



We are still in a basic chem course so we do not know or understand any mathematical derivatives so I'm hoping to get a answer in a more physical sense. Thanks in advance for the help.






via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707978&goto=newpost

Spaceship ejecting mass at right angles

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

A spaceship of mass ##m_0## moves in the absence of external forces with a constant velocity ##v_0##. To change the motion direction, a jet engine is switched on. It starts ejecting a gas jet with velocity u which is constant relative to the spaceship and directed at right angles to the spaceship motion The engine is shut down when the mass of the spaceship decreases to ##m##. Through what angle ##\alpha## did the motion direction of the spaceship deviate due to the jet engine operation?





2. Relevant equations







3. The attempt at a solution

Since there are no external forces, the momentum is conserved. Let the initial direction of motion be the x-axis. At time t, assume that spaceship rotates by an angle ##\theta## and its mass is m(t). The momentum in x direction is ##m(t)v_0\cos(\theta)##. When it ejects mass of dm at t+dt, let it rotate by angle ##d\theta##. The momentum in x-direction at t+dt is ##(m(t)-dm)v_0\cos(\theta+d\theta)+dm(u\sin\theta+v_0\cos\theta)##. Equating them and using ##\cos(\theta+d\theta)=\cos\theta-\sin\theta d\theta## gives

$$dm u=m(t)v_0d\theta$$

Solving the D.E (limits for ##\theta##: 0 to ##\alpha## and for m: ##m_0## to ##m##),

$$\alpha=(v_0/u)\ln(m/m_0)$$

But this is wrong. The given answer is ##\alpha=(v_0/u)\ln(m_0/m)##. I believe there is a sign error but I am not able to spot it. I am not sure if I approached the problem correctly.



Any help is appreciated. Thanks!




Attached Images





File Type: png 1.181.png (9.1 KB)








via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=707977&goto=newpost