Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,961 questions , 1,408 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Deriving Birkhoff's Theorem

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
67 views

I am trying to derive Birkhoff's theorem in GR as an exercise: a spherically symmetric gravitational field is static in the vacuum area. I managed to prove that $g_{00}$ is independent of t in the vacuum, and that $g_{00}*g_{11}=f(t)$. But the next question is: Show that you can get back to a Schwarzschild metric by a certain mathematical operation. I am thinking at a coordinate change (or variable change on $r$) to absorb the $t$ dependence of $g_{11}$, but I can't see the right one. Does someone has a tip to share?

Also one further question is to explain if an imploding (spherically) star radiates gravitationally, based on a quantum mechanical argument. I would say that under the isotropy hypothesis we have $[H,J]=0$, so the total angular of the star is conserved, or if gravitons would be emitted, they would carry angular momentum from their spin 2 and violate this conservation, so my answer would be no. Is this wrong?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
asked Mar 1, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by toot (445 points) [ no revision ]
retagged May 1, 2014
You can't get rid of the t dependence in g_{11} by a coordinate transformation--- you need to show that g_{11} is constant. The reason is that a t-dependent r rescaling introduces an off-diagonal t-r term.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
You should ask your second question as a separate question.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Willie Wong

2 Answers

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Here we will only consider the first half of the question(v2). The Birkhoff's Theorem is e.g. proven (at a physics level of rigor) in Ref. 1 and Ref. 2. Imagine that we have managed to argue that the metric is of the form of eq. (5.38) in Ref. 1 or eq. (7.13) in Ref. 2:

$$ds^2~=~-e^{2\alpha(r,t)}dt^2 + e^{2\beta(r,t)}dr^2 +r^2 d\Omega^2. \qquad\qquad(A) $$

It is a straightforward exercise to calculate the corresponding Ricci tensor $R_{\mu\nu}$, see eq. (5.41) in Ref. 1 or eq. (7.16) in Ref. 2. The notation is here $x^0\equiv t$, $x^1\equiv r$, $x^2\equiv\theta$, and $x^3\equiv\phi$. Assuming a vanishing cosmological constant $\Lambda=0$, the Einstein's equations in vacuum read

$$R_{\mu\nu}~=~0~. $$

The argument is now as follows.

  1. From $R_{tr}=0$ follows that $\beta$ is independent of $t$.

  2. From $e^{2(\beta-\alpha)} R_{tt}+R_{rr}=0$ follows that $\partial_r(\alpha+\beta)=0$. In other words, the function $f(t):=\alpha+\beta $ is independent of $r$.

  3. Define a new coordinate variable $T:=\int^t dt'~e^{f(t')}$. Then the metric $(A)$ becomes $$ds^2~=~-e^{-2\beta}dT^2 + e^{2\beta}dr^2 +r^2 d\Omega^2.\qquad\qquad(B)$$

  4. Rename the new coordinate variable $T\to t$. Then eq. $(B)$ corresponds to setting $\alpha=-\beta$ in eq. $(A)$.

  5. From $R_{\theta\theta}=0$ follows that $$1=e^{-2\beta}(1-2r\partial_r\beta)\equiv\partial_r(re^{-2\beta}),$$ so that $re^{-2\beta}=r-R$ for some real integration constant $R$. In other words, we have derived the Schwarzschild solution, $$e^{2\alpha}~=~e^{-2\beta}~=~1-\frac{R}{r}.$$

Finally, if we switch back to the original $t$ coordinate variable, the metric $(A)$ becomes

$$ds^2~=~-\left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right)e^{2f(t)}dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 +r^2 d\Omega^2.\qquad\qquad(C)$$

It is interesting that the metric $(C)$ is the most general metric of the form $(A)$ that satisfies Einstein's vacuum equations with $\Lambda=0$. The only freedom is the function $f=f(t)$, which reflects the freedom to reparametrize the $t$ coordinate variable.

References:

  1. Sean Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity, 2003.

  2. Sean Carroll, Lecture Notes on General Relativity, Chapter 7. The pdf file is available here.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
answered Mar 19, 2012 by Qmechanic (2,840 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Are you doing this rigorously by using an ansatz for your metric and plugging it into the usual Einstein field equations in vacuum or something "more topological"?

If former, in the most common ansatz,

$ds^2 = e^{f(t,r)} dt^2 - e^{g(t,r)} dr^2 - r^2 d\Omega^2 $

you get your metric independence of time t with the

{01}th Ricci tensor component, which sets a time derivative of one of your metric components to 0. Algebraic combinations of the other Ricci tensor componentes give you the relationships between metric component functions $f$ and $g$, somewhere along the way you should get something like $\frac{d}{dt}[f(t,r)-g(t,r)] = 0$. That gives you your time independance of $g_{11}$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Thomas M.
answered Mar 19, 2012 by Thomas M. (10 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...