Timeline for Checking inverse metric and Christoffel symbols for the Kerr metric against references
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3 at 16:31 | vote | accept | UnkemptPanda | ||
| Jul 3 at 16:31 | comment | added | UnkemptPanda | duh! I was missing dividing the 2 from the contravariant line form to get the correct result. Now it matches.. I feel dumb now | |
| Jul 3 at 16:30 | comment | added | TimRias | Have you tried substituting the definition of $\Sigma$ to simplify your expression(s) | |
| Jul 3 at 16:27 | comment | added | UnkemptPanda | @TimRias, check eq. 2.14.2 of 2nd reference | |
| Jul 3 at 16:23 | comment | added | UnkemptPanda | you are right @TimRias, in fact the 2nd source is writing it as a line element, so they both agree. However the contravariant metric still seems to disagree.. | |
| Jul 3 at 16:22 | comment | added | TimRias | Keeping that in mind both sources have exactly the same Kerr metric. | |
| Jul 3 at 16:20 | comment | added | UnkemptPanda | @TimRias, agreed, but that is already being accounted for when doing the contraction sums | |
| Jul 3 at 16:19 | answer | added | Yukterez | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 3 at 16:18 | history | edited | UnkemptPanda | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jul 3 at 16:16 | comment | added | TimRias | Are you aware that in line element form you have $ds^2 =\ldots + (g_{t\phi}+g_{\phi t}) dtd\phi + \ldots$ for the off-diagonal terms? | |
| S Jul 3 at 16:08 | history | edited | UnkemptPanda | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
New tags added
|
| S Jul 3 at 16:08 | history | suggested | CompassBearer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
New tags added
|
| Jul 3 at 16:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 3 at 16:08 | |||||
| Jul 3 at 16:01 | history | asked | UnkemptPanda | CC BY-SA 4.0 |