4.7 Article

On conserved quantities for the Schwarzschild black hole in teleparallel gravity

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 81, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09505-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Interdisciplinary Scientific and Educational School of Moscow University Fundamental and Applied Space Research
  2. RSF [21-12-00130]
  3. CUniverse research promotion initiative (CUAASC) of the Chulalongkorn University
  4. Russian Science Foundation [21-12-00130] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines various methods of constructing conserved quantities in the Teleparallel Equivalent of General Relativity (TEGR), with a focus on Noether charges in the covariant formulation. The physical implications of choosing the observer's four-velocity or a Killing vector as 4 in different frames, based on the example of the Schwarzschild solution, are discussed. Additionally, an analysis of determining inertial spin connections for different tetrads used in calculations is presented, revealing some ambiguity in the method of switching-off gravity.
We examine various methods of constructing conserved quantities in the Teleparallel Equivalent of General Relativity (TEGR). We demonstrate that in the covariant formulation the preferred method are the Noether charges that are true invariant quantities. The Noether charges depend on the vector field 4 and we consider two different options where 4 is chosen as either a Killing vector or a four-velocity of the observer. We discuss the physical meaning of each choice on the example of the Schwarzschild solution in different frames: static, freely falling Lemaitre frame, and a newly obtained generalised freely falling frame with an arbitrary initial velocity. We also demonstrate how to determine an inertial spin connection for various tetrads used in our calculations, and find a certain ambiguity in the switching-off gravity method where different tetrads can share the same inertial spin connection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据