Timeline for On the Geroch's argument
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2013 at 18:08 | vote | accept | Sepideh Bakhoda | ||
| Dec 7, 2013 at 16:51 | comment | added | Otis Chodosh | Sorry I dont understand what you mean. What Geroch has written (and your bold sentence in the comment) is correct. What you wrote in the question in bold is incorrect. See my simple counterexample. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 16:46 | comment | added | Sepideh Bakhoda | I don't copy and paste Geroch's notation in the post. Geroch has written A dot, affixed to a quantity, will denote its rate of change with respect to t (i.e., its Lie derivative by $\phi \xi^a$), while in his work $\xi^a$ is unit normal, not $\phi \xi^a$! | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 16:29 | comment | added | Otis Chodosh | Please read Geroch's paper more carefully, you have made a mistake in transcribing what he writes. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 7:35 | comment | added | Sepideh Bakhoda | Please see Geroch's paper here. I thought what I write in the comment is true, but during the study of this paper I surprised and got confused. Geroch has written what I have bolded. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 7:20 | comment | added | Otis Chodosh | sorry, I got confused with the notation in the answer for the question 1. what you have bolded is false. what you write in the comment is true. I updated my answer. | |
| Dec 7, 2013 at 7:19 | history | edited | Otis Chodosh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 792 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2013 at 7:00 | comment | added | Sepideh Bakhoda | Thanks for the answer. Can you explain me why it isn't true that: the rate of change of any quantity with respect to $τ$ is its Lie derivative by $n^a$? | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 23:28 | history | answered | Otis Chodosh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |