Timeline for Generalized Hawking Mass
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2018 at 12:57 | answer | added | Xiaoxiang Chai | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 10:39 | comment | added | Michael Pinkard | Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Thanks for the link to the blog post, it's interesting and I'll definitely dig into it further! | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 8:12 | comment | added | Willie Wong | ... that term will probably need either a serious replacement or some physical justification why it is the genus that matters and not anything else. | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 8:12 | comment | added | Willie Wong | For the usual formula, one thing you need to contend with is the $16\pi$ term inside the parentheses: more generally that term is/should be proportional to the Euler characteristic of your two surface $\Sigma$, and arises actually from Gauss-Bonnet and integrating scalar curvature (so the formula you gave is arguably not the correct definition for higher genus surfaces). The higher dimensional Gauss-Bonnet is more complicated, so ... | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 7:31 | comment | added | Willie Wong | One possibility is that you can start with the characterisation of the Hawking mass in spherical symmetry as the "flux relative to the Kodama vector field" and see if it leads you to anything. For the standard 3+1 case you can see the computations on my blog (scroll down a little to the section titled "Kodama vector field"). But whatever it is it should probably agree with the mass of higher dimensional Schwarzschild. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 16:23 | comment | added | Michael Pinkard | Good answer! I did, but she doesn't know, that's why I decided to ask math overflow. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 15:47 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Have you tried asking Carla? (If you are in Tuebingen her office should be somewhere near.) | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 10:11 | history | asked | Michael Pinkard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |