Gravitation and general relativity at King’s College London

Robinson, David

doi:10.1140/epjh/e2019-100020-1

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 316 publications

(237 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of the Bondi mass loss formula [1,2] in the context of early research on gravitational waves has recently been stressed (see e.g. [3][4][5]). Since the (retarded) time translation generator is but one of the generators of the BMS group [6], a natural problem is to generalize this formula for all generators (see e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

BMS current algebra in the context of the Newman–Penrose formalism

Barnich

Mao

Ruzziconi

2020

Class. Quantum Grav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starting from an action principle adapted to the Newman-Penrose formalism, we provide a self-contained derivation of BMS current algebra, which includes the generalization of the Bondi mass loss formula to all BMS generators. In the spirit of the Newman-Penrose approach, infinitesimal diffeomorphisms are expressed in terms of four scalars rather than a vector field. In this framework, the on-shell closed co-dimension two forms of the linearized theory associated with Killing vectors of the background are constructed from a standard algorithm. The explicit expression for the breaking that occurs when using residual gauge transformations instead of exact Killing vectors is worked out and related to the presymplectic flux.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

BMS current algebra in the context of the Newman–Penrose formalism

Barnich

Mao

Ruzziconi

2020

Class. Quantum Grav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both were relativists associated with Penrose via King's College London, where Penrose was a postdoc from 1961-1963 (he wrote his 1965 paper during late 1964 at Birkbeck College). [166] by David Robinson is a relativist's memoir that also contains interesting information about Penrose. 38 It is hard to overlook the analogy with Poincaré's famous recollection of his crucial flash of insight into the theory of Fuchsian functions, referring to an event in 1880: 'At that moment I left Caen where I then lived, to take part in a geologic expedition organized by the École des Mines.…”

Section: Singularities and Singularity Theorems Before 1965mentioning

confidence: 99%

Penrose’s 1965 singularity theorem: from geodesic incompleteness to cosmic censorship

Landsman

2022

Gen Relativ Gravit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supplementing earlier literature by e.g. Tipler et al. (1980), Israel (1987), Thorne (1994), Earman (1999), Senovilla and Garfinkle (2015), Curiel (2019) and Landsman (2021), I provide a historical and conceptual analysis of Penrose’s path-breaking 1965 singularity (or incompleteness) theorem. The emphasis is on the nature and historical origin of the assumptions and definitions used in—or otherwise relevant to—the theorem, as well as on the discrepancy between the (astro)physical goals of the theorem and its actual content: even if its assumptions are met, the theorem fails to prove the existence or formation of black holes. Penrose himself was well aware of this gap, which he subsequently tried to overcome with his visionary and influential cosmic censorship conjectures. Roughly speaking, to infer from (null) geodesic incompleteness that there is a “black” object one needs weak cosmic censorship, whereas in addition a “hole” exists (as opposed to a boundary of an extendible space-time causing the incompleteness of geodesics) if strong cosmic censorship holds.

show abstract

“…3, courtesy of Steve Christensen. See [13] for a history. But the visitor who had the greatest impact on Chris and me was Stanley Deser (the one smoking the cigar): non-local conformal anomalies [14], solitons of chiral theories in three space dimensions [15], sine-Gordon/Thirring equivalence in curved spacetime [16].…”

Section: Chris Ishammentioning

confidence: 99%