arXiv:2007.04123v2 [gr-qc] 31 Jul 2020 n a eeiiae yacodnt transformation. coordinate a by eliminated be can and mle htteparameters the that implies nw n a he osatprmtr,namely parameters, constant three has mass and total known the with mass, being spherically of and represents static distribution which a symmetric outside coordinates, field gravitational spherical the Schwarzschild in well-known the solution is element line first The isaeeuvln rnt oepeiey ie two given precisely, More met- not. two or whether comes equivalent knowing are of theory difficulty rics the the of price, a choices. feature at arbitrary physical desirable these the this on and However, depend spacetime not the should of how results points choose the to free label totally prop- to are appealing observers quite the the a under since mo- invariant is is erty, This are of it that coordinates. way equations that of a change is the in theory sense written are this the tion of in features covariant, signature. main totally Lorentzian a the of spacetime, of the One of symmetric metric two the rank by represented is field b olw htbt erc ersn h aegravi- same the whenever represent field metrics tational both that follows ∗ and , [email protected] nteter fgnrlrltvt,tegravitational the relativity, general of theory the In d s ˜ 2 M c = eatmnod ´sc,Uiesdd eea ePernambu de Federal F´ısica, Universidade de Departamento lhuhte okcmltl ieet it different, completely look they Although . nistr,tescn ieeeeti not is element line second the turn, its In . ewrs qiaec fsaeie;Cra loih;Co pr algorithm; in Cartan severa spacetimes; algorithm through of the Equivalence of method Keywords: details the and illustrate or fundamentals to whether the s decide is learn the to note can present steps this we of of paper sequence point finite this a In coordinate provides general which spacetimes. most the the of implement Ho equivalence to equivalent. impossible physically are tually transformation coordinate a − nteEuvlneo pctms h atnKrhd Algo Cartan-Karlhede the Spacetimes, of Equivalence the On ti elkonta ngnrlrltvt hoytospacet two theory relativity general in that known well is It ax b 2 2 .INTRODUCTION I. ( ax 2 − ds c ) 2 c e = 2 2 = τ dτ − a  M 2 and + 1 npriua,this particular, In . haoM egl˜oadCro Batista Carlos and Mergulh˜ao M. Thiago − ax 4 b 2 a 2 M r r meaningless are 3 − x 4  c dx dt 2 2 + +  4 a 1 − 2 − a c c 2 , 2 x 2 y M 4 r 2 dy ments: present the in tackled be to the paper. going are These are relevant. that physically problems just being them with be of transformation, few can a coordinate constants a these by of constants. eliminated many integration general, several equation in with However, up Einstein’s end integrating the might they In one while but spacetime. fashion, systems, physical same same coordinate the different represent of due might different, use completely the look to that can solutions people two two so- find equation exact vacuum new Einstein’s of for physical search lutions the same in the instance, represent For they spacetime. if generally check is to it hard systems, very coordinate two in elements line sas ic-a,s httets sinconclusive. is test the (2) that element so line Ricci-flat, the so- also that same out is the turns it not However, can are we lution. they then Ricci-flat that not conclude is immediately (2). element should element line one line second the the Therefore, for If true is solution. same vacuum the tensor, whether a check Ricci is vanishing it a since that has well-known is solution the it on Schwarzschild instance, depend For not do system. that coordinate things path compare clever to more intricate be A would the involved. to gen- equations transfor- due nonlinear in unbearable, coordinate and However, is a procedure metrics. this for both eral look connect to that is mation naive proceed most the to field, way gravitational same the represent  − 2 o ntne osdrtefloigtoln ele- line two following the consider instance, For nodrt hc hte h bv ieelements line above the whether check to order In 1 riaetransformations ordinate + dr 4( ee,gvntoln lmns ti vir- is it elements, line two given wever, o eie enmuo57050 Brazil 50740-560, Pernambuco Recife, co, 2 a y 2 + ipeeape,s httereader the that so examples, simple l actice. rnfraini re ocekthe check to order in transformation 2 c -aldCra-aleealgorithm, Cartan-Karlhede o-called o w erc r qiaet The equivalent. are metrics two not 2 r + mswoemtisaerltdby related are metrics whose imes x 2 4 dθ z y 2 2 2 ) 2 + z ∗ r 2 2 dy sin 2 2 + θdφ y 2 2 dz , 2 − rithm 2 ydydz zy  . (2) (1) 2

Another clever idea is to compare invari- metrics for which all curvature invariants vanish iden- ants, which are scalars constructed exclusively from tically [1, 2]. An example of a VSI spacetime is pro- the Riemann tensor, its derivatives, and the metric. vided by the line element This is interesting because scalars are invariant under dsˆ2 = H(u,x,y)du2 +2dudv + dx2 + dy2 , (3) coordinate transformations. However, since in general the curvature invariants are not constant, they will de- in which H(u,x,y) is an arbitrary function of the co- pend explicitly on the adopted coordinates, which is ordinates x, y, and u. All curvature invariants of the somehow complicated to compare. For example, let us latter metric are zero. For instance, Rˆ = ˆ2 = ˆ3 =0 compare the curvature invariants of the line elements for this metric. Another spacetime withR allR curva- (1) and (2). The Ricci scalar is easy, since both spaces ture invariants vanishing is the Minkowski spacetime, are Ricci-flat they both vanish. The next simple cur- which is flat. However, the line element (3) and the vature invariant is the Kretschamnn scalar, given by Minkowski metric do not represent the same geome- µναβ 2 R Rµναβ , where Rµναβ denotes the compo- try. Indeed, while Minkowski spacetime has vanishing Rnents≡ of the Riemann tensor. For the metrics (1) and curvature, the line element (3) yields a nonzero Rie- (2) we have mann tensor. This example proves that it is possible for two metrics to have all the functional relations be- 2 2 48M 12c tween their curvature invariants coinciding and still 2 = and ˜2 = , R r6 R a6x12 they represent different gravitational fields. In spite respectively. Note that we cannot tell whether they of this dramatic example, in several families of space- are the same, since we do not know the possible rela- times one can distinguish its members by looking at tions between the coordinates r and x as well as the the curvature invariants, examples of which are given relations between the constants M, a, b, and c. in Refs. [3, 4]. In addition, it is interesting that more A way to scape from the awkward position of com- recently it has been proposed that the event horizons paring scalars in different coordinate systems is to try of black holes could be identified by the vanishing of to write curvature invariants in terms of the curvature certain curvature invariants [5]. invariants themselves and then compare the functional Thus, in conclusion, the functional relations be- relations between them. For instance, defining the cu- tween the curvature invariants cannot be used to state bic curvature invariant that two line elements describe the same spacetime ge- ometry but, on the other hand, can be used to rule out µν αβ ρσ the possibility of two metrics representing the same 3 R αβR ρσR µν , R ≡ physical solution. There are several other ways to it follows that for the solutions (1) and (2) it is given prove the inequivalence of two line elements. For in- respectively by stance, if two metrics admit a different number of in- dependent Killing vector fields or if the algebra of the 96M 3 12c3 Killing vector fields is different (thus leading to dif- = and ˜ = . R3 r9 R3 a9x18 ferent isometry groups) they must be different spaces. Likewise, if the two metrics have different algebraic Thus, in both cases we have the same functional rela- types (according to the Petrov classification, for exam- tion between the curvature invariants, namely ple) they must be different. However, if we have two

1 2/3 1 2/3 metrics to compare and we have computed the func- 3 = ( 2) and ˜3 = ( ˜2) . R 2√3 R R 2√3 R tional relations between the curvature, the isometry group and the algebraic types of the curvature tensor, However, this is not enough for asserting that the met- and all of them coincide, even in this case we cannot rics are the same. Indeed, they are generally not the state that they represent the same gravitational field. same, unless we have specifically c = 2M. Neverthe- The question that remains to be answered is: is less, we can move on and compare the functional re- there an algorithmic way to check whether two line σ µναβ lations between other scalars, like R σRµναβ elements written in different coordinate systems are and so on. If at least one of the functional∇ ∇ relations the same? The answer is yes and the procedure for between the curvature invariants does not coincide, comparing the metrics is called Cartan-Karlhede al- then the solutions are not the same, whereas if all gorithm [4, 6–8, 10, 11]. The goal of this paper is the functional relations are the same there is the pos- to show by simple examples how this method is used sibility that the line elements describe the same ge- in practice. In particular, many of the calculations ometry. Notwithstanding, even in the latter case one are done in three-dimensional spacetimes, in order to cannot guarantee that the solutions are the same. An make the exposition more clear. This work does not example of this statement is given by the so-called aim in proving the validity of the method but, rather, VSI spacetimes, standing for vanishing scalar invari- in being explicit on the meaning of the steps of the ants spacetimes, which are defined as the Lorentzian algorithm. 3

The outline of the article is the following. In Sec. II, ηab, namely we explain the steps of the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm µ ν in an abstract way, pointing out some of the subtleties gµν ea eb = ηab . (4) that we should pay attention to while implementing the procedure. Then, in Sec. III, we present several Note that once chosen ηab, the choice of frame is not examples illustrating the main features of the method. unique, rather we have a freedom of applying Lorentz transformations Λ O(n 1, 1). By a Lorentz trans- We restrain ourselves to three-dimensional examples, ∈ − so that the algorithm can be applied much more neatly formation it is meant that the frame is transformed and explicitly. Sec. IV is then a more advanced sec- as tion in which we tackle the four-dimensional problem b e e′ =Λ e , (5) presented in this introduction, namely the compari- a 7→ a a b son of the four-dimensional line elements (1) and (2). Λ In order to do so, we briefly introduce some useful with the matrix obeying tools for applying the algorithm. This section can be η Λ a Λ b = η . skipped by the less experienced reader. Finally, in sec. ab c d cd V presents the discussion of how to circumvent two of This set of matrices form a Lie group of dimension the main difficulties that might appear while applying 1 2 n(n 1), the Lorentz group. Here, the Lorentz trans- the method. formations− can be local, i.e., the matrices Λ can vary from point to point, Λ = Λ(x). II. CARTAN-KARLHEDE ALGORITHM Then, we need to compute the curvature tensor and project its components on the frame. For instance, the component Rabcd means Suppose that we are interested in comparing two metrics g (x) andg ˜ (˜x) of Lorentzian signature liv- µ ν α β µν ab Rabcd Rµναβ e e e e . ing in an open set of an n-dimensional manifold de- ≡ a b c d scribed by the coordinate systems xµ and x˜µ . We { } { } With this at hand, we should take a look at the would like to check whether these two metrics are components Rabcd that are nonconstant and compute equivalent or not, in the sense that there exists a co- the number of functionally independent components, µ µ ordinate transformation x = x (˜x) such that which we will denote by t0. For instance, should the 1 2 3 α β components depend just on x and x , but not on x , ∂x ∂x 4 n g˜µν (˜x)= gαβ(x(˜x)) . x , , x , we would have either t0 = 1 or t0 = 2, ∂x˜µ ∂x˜ν with··· the former case happening whenever all compo- 1 The above equation is a nonlinear set of coupled par- nents of Rabcd depend on the same combination of x and x2. In general, we always have 0 t n. The tial differential equations whose solution by direct in- ≤ 0 ≤ tegration is generally unfeasible. The intent of the next step is to compute the so-called isotropy group, present section is to present an algorithm which after which is comprised by the subset of matrices Λ that a finite number of steps will tell us whether the coor- preserves the form of the components Rabcd, namely dinate transformation xµ x˜µ exists or not. If the → Rabcd = R′ , answer is positive, we say that the metrics gµν andg ˜µν abcd describe the same geometry; while if the answer is neg- ative we say that these metrics are not equivalent. In where Rabcd′ denotes the components of the curvature in the transformed frame e′ . We call this subgroup what follows we will assume Lorentzian signature for { a} definiteness, although the procedure applies for any H0. signature. As the next step, we need to calculate the deriva- In order to implement this formalism, the first thing tive of the Riemann tensor and project in our frame, namely we need to compute R . Then, we de- we need to do is to choose a constant symmetric ma- ∇e abcd fine t1 as the number of nonconstant functionally inde- trix ηab that is non-degenerate and has Lorentzian sig- pendent components of the set Rabcd, eRabcd . For nature as a quadratic form, the labels a and b range { ∇ } 1 from 0 to n 1. For instance, we can choose η to be instance, if t0 = 2 with Rabcd depending just on x − ab and x2, while R depends on x2 and x3, then we the usual Minkowski metric, ∇e abcd should set t1 = 3. After this, we must compute the η = diag( 1, 1, 1, , 1) , subgroup of H0 that preserves eRabcd, we denote ab ∇ − ··· this subgroup by H1. In other words, H1 is the sub- although any constant symmetric matrix with the cor- group of the Lorentz group such that after the frame rect signature will do the job. Then, introduce a frame transformation (5) we have of vector fields e = e µ∂ such that the inner prod- { a a µ} ucts between them yield exactly the constant matrix R = R′ and R = ′ R′ . abcd abcd ∇e abcd ∇e abcd 4

Note that H1 H0. defining the frame ea . Then, compute the compo- After this, we⊂ do the same procedure for the sec- nents of the curvature{ } in this frame, ond derivative of the curvature, e f Rabcd. Namely, ∇ ∇ ˜ ˜ µ ν α β we compute the number of nonconstant function- Rabcd Rµναβ e˜a e˜b e˜c e˜d . ally independent components that exists in the set ≡ ˜ Rabcd, eRabcd, e f Rabcd and call it t2. Then we Then we should check whether Rabcd Rabcd or { ∇ ∇ ∇ } ≁ ˜ ∼ compute the subgroup of H1 that preserves the form Rabcd Rabcd. However, we must be careful with of e f Rabcd when frame transformation (5) is per- the meaning of the previous equations, since Rabcd ∇ ∇ a ˜ formed. This subgroup is denoted by H2. depend on the coordinates x , while Rabcd depend on One important question is when we should stop the x˜a, so that the comparison is tricky. What is meant latter procedure, namely at which order of derivative by the inequality ≁ is that the functional relations are of the curvature tensor. The answer to this ques- different. For instance, suppose that tion is in the isotropy groups Hi and in the param- 1 1 eters ti. Actually, as defined above, it follows that R0101 = x and R0202 =2 x , the numbers t are not invariant features of the met- i ˜ ric, as they depend on the used frame. Indeed, since hence we can write R0101 =2R0202. Thus, if R0101 = ˜ ˜ ≁ 6 we can make arbitrary local Lorentz transformations 2R0202 we can definitely say that Rabcd Rabcd. In on the frame these numbers depend on the particular order for the metrics to be equivalent it must be pos- sible to find a frame e˜a such that R˜abcd Rabcd, choice of frame. For instance, the component R1212 of where the symbol {denotes} that all functional∼ re- the curvature tensor might be constant in one frame ∼ but through a Lorentz transformation Λ(x) its trans- lations agree. If this is not the case for the first adopted frame, we should try to find a Lorentz trans- formed version R′ could depend on all the coor- 1212 formation Λ O(n 1, 1) such that the equivalence dinates. Therefore, a much more meaningful num- ∈ − R R˜′ holds, where R˜′ stands for the com- ber is τi, which is defined as the minimum value of abcd ∼ abcd abcd t . More precisely, once computed the curvature and ponents of R˜µναβ in the frame e˜′ obtained from the i { b} its derivatives we shall look for frames that minimize initial frame e˜b through a suitable Lorentz transfor- { } ti, which is then denoted by τi. Metrics that have mation as follows: different values of τ cannot be equivalent, whereas i b e′ e the same cannot be said about ti. Returning to the ˜a =Λa ˜b . (6) question raised at the beginning of this paragraph, we e must continue the procedure until we reach an order q If we cannot find a frame ˜b′ such that Rabcd ˜ { } ∼ such that τq = τq 1 and Hq = Hq 1. When we reach Rabcd′ , then we conclude that the metrics gµν andg ˜µν this point we have− a full characterization− of the metric are not equivalent. Otherwise, if we manage to find a frame e˜′ such that R R˜′ , we need to gµν (x) and we can move on to compare withg ˜µν (˜x). It { b} abcd ∼ abcd is worth pointing out that the maximum order q is al- compare the first derivative of the curvature tensor. 1 ˜ ˜ ≁ ways finite and cannot exceed n(n+1), as proved by If e′ Rabcd′ eRabcd, we need to try to find 2 ∇ ∇ a frame e˜′′ that is connected to e˜′ through a Cartan [6], although generally q is lower and in some { b } { b} cases we can even anticipate that it must be lower [7]. Lorentz transformation contained in H0 such that ˜ ′′R˜′′ R holds. The requirement that the In Ref. [8] it has been explicitly shown that there ∇e abcd ∼ ∇e abcd are 3-dimensional spacetimes such that the algorithm Lorentz transformation belongs to H0 is to guarantee ˜ ˜ ˜ must go up to the maximum theoretical value for q. that Rabcd′ = Rabcd′′ , so that Rabcd Rabcd′′ whenever ˜ ∼ Likewise, in Ref. [9] it is proved that the theoretical Rabcd Rabcd′ holds. Note that, due to the relation ∼ ˜ ˜ bound on the value of q is sharp for Petrov type N Rabcd Rabcd′ , we have H0 = H0. If we cannot man- four-dimensional spacetimes. age to∼ find such a frame, the metrics are not equiv- One hint of how to check if the minimum value of alent. On the other hand, if we can find this frame ti has been attained is through the use of curvature we must continue and compare the second derivative invariants. For instance, if the Ricci scalar depends of the curvature. If we manage to equate the curva- 1 just on the coordinate x then one can state that t0 ture and its derivatives of both metrics up to order q, is not lower than 1. Hence, if you manage to find a where q is the maximum order that we need to go in 1 frame such that Rabcd depends just on x then you the procedure with gµν , we conclude that gµν andg ˜µν can be sure that τ1 = 1. describe the same geometry. Once finished the above steps with the metric At this point, it is worth stressing that while com- gµν (x), let us deal withg ˜µν (˜x). First, define a frame puting the functional relations one needs to register of vector fields e˜ =e ˜ µ∂˜ such that which components are constant and the values of these { a a µ} µ ν constants. More precisely, if one has R0101 = R0202 g˜µν e˜a e˜b = ηab , and R˜0101 = R˜0202, but R0101 is a constant function where ηab is the same matrix used in Eq. (4) when while R˜0101 is not, it follows that Rabcd ≁ R˜abcd. 5

Analogously, if R0101 = R0202 and R˜0101 = R˜0202 fully characterize the geometry, one must be able to but R0101 = 1 while R˜0101 = 2 then we also have obtain all geometric information from those. For in- Rabcd ≁ R˜abcd. stance, the isometry group could be extracted. In par- The lists τ˜i, H˜i and τi, Hi can be compared ticular, its dimension is given by as a quick check{ of} wether{ is there} a chance of the metrics being equivalent. Note, however, that this DIsometry = (n τq) + dim(Hq) . (7) − comparison is not necessary, since these lists are al- ready determined by functional relations of the cur- Recall that if a metric does not depend on some co- vature components. In other words, if we manage to ordinate z, namely if z is a cyclic coordinate, then find a frame e˜ in which the functional relations the spacetime is invariant under the translation z { a} → of the components R˜abcd and its derivatives coincide z + z0, where z0 is some constant. We then say that with those Rabcd and its derivatives, it follows as a there exists a symmetry on the spacetime, and this consequence that the lists τ˜i, H˜i and τi, Hi also symmetry is generated by the vector field ∂z, which coincide. It seems that this{ fact have,} so{ far, not} been is then called a Killing vector field. The isometry stressed in the literature [7, 12]. group is the set of transformations comprised of all Below we sum up the steps that must be followed symmetries of the spacetime. Technically, the isome- in the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm in order to check try group is a Lie group whose Lie algebra is formed whether the metrics gµν andg ˜µν describe the same by all Killing vector fields. Since τq is the number geometry. of “relevant” coordinates in the geometry, it follows that there are other (n τ ) coordinates that are − q 1. Define a constant metric ηab and find a frame cyclic. Thus, the dimension of the isometry group e a for the metric gµν whose inner products is at least (n τ ). However, this reasoning deals { } − q yield ηab. only with the transitive part of the isometry group. Indeed, the isometry group at a point o of the mani- 2. Compute the curvature components and its fold can always be decomposed as the product of the derivatives in the previous frame. Also, for transitive subgroup, whose flow changes the point o, each order of derivative, compute τ and H the i i and the isotropy subgroup, whose flow does not move number of functionally independent components the point o [13]. This explains why we need to add that appear up to order i and the isotropy group the term dim(H ) in Eq. (7). As an example, consider up to order i. q the isometry group of the flat 2-dimensional Euclidean 3. The maximum derivative order that we need to space, whose line element in cartesian coordinates is th 2 2 2 go is the q order such that τq = τq 1 and Hq = ds = dx + dy . Since x and y are cyclic coordinates, − Hq 1. ∂x and ∂y are obvious Killing vectors. The flow of − these Killing vectors yield a translation in the coor- 4. Use the Lorentz group degrees of freedom to try dinates x and y respectively. So, in particular, their to find a frame e˜ for the metricg ˜ such that { a} µν flows do not leave the origin (x = 0,y = 0) static. the functional relations between the components However, besides these Killing vectors we also have ˜ of the Riemann tensor Rabcd, and its derivatives, x∂ y∂ , which generates rotations around the origin y − x coincide with the analogous ones associated to and, therefore, leave it still. In other words, x∂y y∂x th the metric gµν up to the q derivative order. If generates the isotropy group at the origin. − this is not possible the metrics are not equiva- Up to now, the procedure has been described in a lent, whereas if one manages to find such a frame formal and abstract way. In order to make each of the we conclude that there exists a coordinate trans- steps more clear, in the next section we will present formation connecting gµν andg ˜µν . several simple examples that show explicitly how to In particular, note that, by definition, we must have apply the algorithm. However, before doing so, let us the following relations: point out that, in some cases, instead of starting with a randomly chosen frame e for g , it is better to { a} µν 0 τ τ τ n , start with a specific frame related to some geometrical ≤ 0 ≤ 1 ≤ · · · q ≤ structure of gµν . For instance, suppose that gµν allows Hq Hq 1 H1 H0 O(n 1, 1) , ⊂ − ⊂ · · · ⊂ ⊂ − a time-like Killing vector field K, then we can define where n is the dimension of the spacetime. It is worth the Lorentz frame to be such that et K, this is a ∝ stressing that although the algorithm tells us whether way to partially fix a canonical frame. In this case, if there exists a coordinate transformation connecting g˜µν does not have a time-like Killing vector field the the line elements, it does not provide the actual coor- metrics cannot be equivalent. On the other hand, if ˜ dinate transformation. g˜µν has a time-like Killing vector K, we should choose Note that since the functional relations between the e˜t K˜ . This is a coordinate-independent way of try- curvature components up to order q in the derivative ing∝ to fix a canonical frame. The advantage of doing 6

so is that the isotropy freedom that is generally nec- resented by a symmetric 3 3 matrix. Also, in three essary in order to match the functional relations is dimensions the Lorentz group× is 3-dimensional, while decreased. These canonical frames can also be fixed in four dimensions (n = 4) the Lorentz group has by the so-called principal null directions of the Weyl dimension six, so that things are much easier when tensor, which are associated to the Petrov classifica- n = 3. tion. More on the latter way of proceeding will be First, let us compare the 3-dimensional line element left to Sec. IV. Note, however, that these partially fixed frames might not be the ones that minimize t , ds2 = (1 + α x) dt2 + dx2 + dy2 , (8) i − in which case they would not be suitable frames for with the following line elements: computing τi. ds˜2 = (1 + α x˜) dt˜2 +˜y dx˜2 + dy˜2 , (9) − ds˘2 = e2βx˘ dt˘2 + dx˘2 +˘y2γ dy˘2 , (10) − III. APPLYING THE ALGORITHM IN SOME dsˆ2 = (1 xˆ2) dtˆ2 + dxˆ2 + (1 xˆ2) dyˆ2 , (11) EXAMPLES − − − ds¯2 = 1+ t¯+ ex¯ dt¯2 + βe2¯xdx¯2 (12) − +2βex¯ dt¯ dx¯ +4¯y2 dy¯2 . For the sake of illustrating the use of the algorithm,  in this section we will apply it to several examples. In these expressions α, β, and γ are nonzero constants. However, instead of considering the dimension four, In order to perform the comparison, we will choose which is the most physically relevant, we shall tackle the frame metric to be the 3-dimensional Minkowski three-dimensional examples. This choice is to decrease metric the number of curvature components that could ob- fuscate the essentials of the algorithm. This is advan- ηab = diag( 1, 1, 1) . tageous because in three dimensions (n = 3) the Weyl − tensor is identically zero, so that the degrees of free- The orthogonal group associated to this metric is the dom of the Riemann tensor are totally contained in Lorentz group O(2, 1), generated by the composition the Ricci tensor Rµν . Thus, the curvature can be rep- of the following three types of transformations:

cosh σ1 sinh σ1 0 cosh σ2 0 sinh σ2 10 0 B (σ )= sinh σ1 cosh σ1 0 , B (σ )= 0 1 0 , R(θ)= 0 cos θ sin θ , 1 1   2 2    −  0 01 sinh σ2 0 cosh σ2 0 sin θ cos θ       where σ , σ , and θ are arbitrary real parameters, with θ [0, 2π). B and B are boosts in the space-like 1 2 ∈ 1 2 directions e1 and e2 respectively, while R is a rotation in the plane e1 e2. These transformations generate the part of O(2, 1) that is connected to the identity, namely they can be continuous∧ ly deformed to the identity. In particular, they all have unit determinant. This connected subgroup is denoted by SO(2, 1). Besides, we also have the discrete inversion transformations: 10 0 1 0 0 10 0 − T = 0 10 , P1 = 0 1 0 , P2 = 01 0 .  0 01   0− 0 1   0 0 1  −       The elements of O(2, 1) are given by the composition of these six matrices. More precisely, the most general element of O(2, 1) can be written in one of the following forms:

B1 B2 R , T B1 B2 R , P1 B1 B2 R , P2 B1 B2 R , TP1 B1 B2 R , TP2 B1 B2 R , (13) where the dependence on σ1, σ2, and θ have been omitted. Note that we have not considered terms of the form P1P2, since these are already contained in R(θ) when θ = π. As a side note, notice that although TP1 and TP2 have unit determinant, they are not connected to the identity.

Now, following the procedure described in the pre- in Eq. (8). First, we need to define a Lorentz frame. vious section, let us characterize the metric gµν given 7

An obvious one is given by has the same structure of Rbc, which would lead to the same isotropy group. However, the existence of 1 nonzero components with the index a = 1 implies that e0 = ∂t , e1 = ∂x , e2 = ∂y . √1+ αx a change of sign in e1, namely the parity transforma- tion P and the rotation R(π), will change the compo- The components of the Ricci tensor in this frame are 1 nents aRbc by a sign and, more importantly, B1(σ1) will not∇ preserve the form of R for arbitrary σ , 1 0 0 a bc 1 α2 but rather just for the value σ∇= 0, which is the iden- R = R e µe ν = −0 10 . 1 ab µν a b 2 tity transformation. Summing up, the isotropy group 4(1 + αx)  0 00  up to this order is comprised of the following discrete   Note that these components depend just on the co- set of elements: ordinate x, so that we have t0 = 1. Note also that T P T P 2 I, , 2 , 2 , α R = 2 , so that it is impossible to find a frame 2(1+αx) where I stands for the identity transformation. Thus, such that t0 = 0. Indeed, should we find a frame such H1 = Z2 Z2, with the cyclic groups given by I, T that t0 = 0 the components Rab would be constant so and I, P× . In particular, we have dim(H ){ = 0.} that the Ricci scalar would also be constant, which is { 2} 1 Note that τ1 = τ0, but since H1 = H0, we have to go not the case. Thus, τ0 = 1. In particular, only two to the next order of derivative in6 the curvature. components are nonzero, namely R00 and R11, and Computing the components a bRcd, we can check these obey the following functional relation: that the only nonvanishing components∇ ∇ are: 4 R00 = R11 . (14) α − R = R = ∇0∇0 11 −∇0∇0 00 4(1 + α x)4 Now we should find the Lorentz transformations that 4 preserve the components R , namely the ones such 3α ab 1 1R11 = 1 1R00 = that ∇ ∇ −∇ ∇ 2(1 + α x)4 Again, since all the components of R =Λ c Λ d R . ab a b cd R , R , R depend just on the same { ab ∇a bc ∇a∇b cd} Testing each one of the six branches of Eq. (13), for coordinate x, we have t2 = τ2 = 1. Moreover, arbitrary parameters σ , σ , and θ, we find that these the isotropy group H2 is the set of Lorentz trans- 1 2 formations that preserve R , R , R transformations are given by { ab ∇a bc ∇a∇b cd} or, equivalently, is the subgroup of H1 that pre-

B1(σ1) , B1(σ1)R(π) , TB1(σ1) , serves a bRcd. Since all the transformations of H ∇also∇ preserve R , it follows that P B (σ ) , P B (σ ) , TP B (σ ) , (15) 1 a b cd 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 H = H = Z Z . Once∇ ∇τ = τ and H = H , we TP B TB R 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1(σ1) , 1(σ1) (π) , can terminate the× algorithm at this order. Thus, the line element (8) is fully characterized by the following for an arbitrary parameter σ1. This is a functional relations between the components of one-dimensional subgroup with eight disconnected Rab, aRbc, a bRcd : branches, this is the isotropy group H0. Formally, this { ∇ ∇ ∇ } group can be understood as H = R Z Z Z , R00 = R11 , 0 × 2 × 2 × 2 − where R is the group formed by the real numbers with 3/2 1R00 = 1R11 = 4(R11) , the addition operation, and Z2 is the cyclic group ∇ −∇ R = R = 4(R )2 , (16) of order 2. Denoting the identity transformation by ∇0∇0 11 −∇0∇0 00 11 I, the three components of Z are formed by I, T , 2 2 { } 1 1R11 = 1 1R00 = 24(R11) , I, P1 , and I, P2 , where it is worth recalling that ∇ ∇ −∇ ∇ { } { } with all the components not appearing in the above P1P2 = R(π). Now, let us evaluate the components of the deriva- equation being zero and R11 being non-constant. This tive of the curvature tensor in our frame, more pre- is the canonical form of the curvature that we need to compare with when testing the equivalence of other cisely, aRbc. Computing them, one verifies that the only nonvanishing∇ components are the following two: line elements. As a first result, note that the param- eter α has no geometrical relevance, since it does not α3 appear at all in the above functional relations. Thus, R = R = . ∇1 00 −∇1 11 2(1 + α x)3 line elements of Eq. (8) with different values of α (as- suming α = 0) are all equivalent. Indeed, defining the Moreover, since these components also depend just coordinates6 on the coordinate x, we have t = 1 and τ = 1. Re- 1 1 t x 1 garding the indices bc in the object R , the tensor = √αt and = x 1+ , ∇a bc − α 8

it follows that the line element (8) becomes In particular, the components R˘ab obey the relation (14) just as the components Rab. In spite of this, we ds2 = (1 + x) dt2 + dx2 + dy2 , − can already conclude that gµν andg ˘µν are not equiv- ˘ 2 which is just the metric (8) for α = 1. Thus, we have alent, because whereas R11 = β is constant, so that ˘ proved that all line elements (8) with nonvanishing α t0 =τ ˘0 = 0, we have found that R11 is nonconstant, ˘ ≁ are equivalent to the one with α = 1. so that we should write Rab Rab. Moreover, note Now, let us compare the line element (8) with (9), that the metricsg ˘µν for different values of β describe different geometries, since no Lorentz transformation (10), (11), and (12). We shall start comparing gµν can be used to change the set of components R˘ to a with the metricg ˜µν defined in Eq. (9). First, note ab that form that does not depend on β. For instance, it is im- possible to find a Lorentz transformation e˘a e˘a′ 1 1 such that { }→{ } e˜0 = ∂˜ , e˜1 = ∂x˜ , e˜2 = ∂y˜ √1+ αx˜ t √y˜ 1 0 0 ˘ − is a frame with the desired inner products. Computing Rab′ = 0 10 . the components of the Ricci tensor in this frame we  0 00  find   Moving on to the metricg ˆ , defined in Eq. (11); a ˜ µν R00 0 0 Lorentz frame is provided by ˜ 1/2 Rab = 0 R˜22 R˜00 (R˜00R˜22) ,  ˜ ˜− 1/2 ˜  1 1 0 (R00R22) R22 eˆ0 = ∂tˆ , eˆ1 = ∂xˆ , eˆ2 = ∂yˆ .   √1 xˆ2 √1 xˆ2 where − − Computing the components of the Ricci tensor in such α2 1 a frame, we find: R˜ = − and R˜ = . 00 4˜y(1 + αx˜)2 22 4˜y2 Rˆ22 0 0 ˆ − 2 Thus, we see that R˜ is functionally independent of Rab = 0 2(Rˆ22) 0 , 00   R˜22, so that we have t˜0 = 2. However, the frame 0 0 Rˆ22 invariant number isτ ˜0, which can be different from   ˆ 2 1 t˜0. Computing the Ricci scalar R˜ and the invariant where R22 = (1 x )− . The next step is to try to ab − R˜ R˜ab one can check that use the most general Lorentz transformation in or- der to make Rˆab acquire the functional form of Rab, ab 1 2 R˜ R˜ab = R˜ , namely Rab = diag( R11, R11, 0). In order to do so, 2 we must test each of− the six branches of the Lorentz which indicate that these curvature invariants are group shown in Eq. (13). For instance, focusing in functionally dependent. This could be compatible the first branch we have withτ ˜0 = 1. Nevertheless, one can check that B B R b ˜a ˜b ˜c ˜ eˆa′ = [ 1(σ1) 2(σ2) (θ)]a eˆb , R bR cR a is functionally independent from R, so thatτ ˜0 must be at least 2. Since we managed to find a whereas the transformed components of the Ricci ten- frame such that t˜0 = 2 we conclude thatτ ˜0 = 2.Since sor are τ0 = 1, we can guarantee right off the bat that gµν and ˆ B B R c B B R d ˆ g˜µν describe different geometries. We do not need to Rab′ = [ 1 2 ]a [ 1 2 ]b Rcd . bother about using Lorentz transformations in order ˆ to match the functional relations, since the parameters The expression for Rab′ is quite messy, so that here it is shown just the important ones for the argument. τ˜i are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Thus, we will never be able find a frame in which R˜ R . For instance, ab ∼ ab Then, let us compare g withg ˘ , given in Eq. 2 2 2 µν µν Rˆ′ = Rˆ22 cosh σ2 (cos θ +2Rˆ22 sin θ) . (10). Defining 22 ˆ ˆ βx˘ γ In order to achieve Rab′ Rab, one must impose R22′ = e˘0 = e− ∂˘ , e˘1 = ∂x˘ , e˘2 =y ˘− ∂y˘ , ∼ t 0, since R22 = 0. The only solution for this imposition it follows that e˘ is a Lorentz frame associated to is { a} g˘µν . Computing the components of the Ricci tensor 1 θ = arctan − . (17) in such a frame, we find: ˆ 2R22  10 0 Then, assuming (17) to hold, it follows that 2 − R˘ab = β 0 10 .   2/3 0 00 Rˆ′ = √2( Rˆ ) sinh σ cosh σ . 02 − 22 1 2   9

ˆ Since one also needs to impose R02′ = 0, one concludes Assuming this value for σ1 we find that the only non- ¯ ¯ that σ1 = 0. Then, assuming the latter value for σ1, vanishing components of a′ Rbc′ are ˆ ∇ it follows that R00′ = 0, which is incompatible with the desired equivalence Rˆ R . Hence, the first ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ 3/2 ab′ ab 1′ R00′ = 1′ R11′ = = 4(R11′ ) , branch of the Lorentz group∼ shown in Eq. (13) does ∇ −∇ 2β3/2(¯z + β)3 not allow a solution for Rˆ′ R . Likewise, the other ab ∼ ab which is in accordance with the functional relations five branches yield no solution. Thus, we conclude of Eq. (16). So far we have managed to equate the that gµν andg ˆµν describe different geometries. functional relations up to first order derivative of the Finally, let us compare the line elements (8) and Riemann tensor, let us finally check the second order. (12). First, we need to introduce a Lorentz frame for Using the new frame e¯a′ we eventually find that the g¯µν . One option is given by only nonvanishing components{ } are 1 e¯0 = ∂t¯ , 1 2 √z¯ ¯ ′ ¯ ′ R¯′ = ¯ ′ ¯ ′ R¯′ = = 4(R¯′ ) , ∇0∇0 11 −∇0∇0 00 4β2(¯z + β)4 11 x¯ √β e− √z¯ e¯ = ∂¯ + ∂ , 1 2 1 t x¯ ¯ ′ ¯ ′ R¯′ = ¯ ′ ¯ ′ R¯′ = = 24(R¯′ ) , z¯(¯z + β) √β√z¯ + β ∇1∇1 11 −∇1∇1 00 4β2(¯z + β)4 11 1 e¯ = p ∂ , 2 2¯y y¯ which agrees perfectly with the functional relations in Eq. (16). Since for the metric gµν we just need to where, for simplification, we have definedz ¯ t¯+ex¯+1. go up to second order derivative in the curvature, we ≡ Computing the components of the Ricci tensor in this conclude that gµν andg ¯µν represent the same geom- frame, we have that the only nonvanishing compo- etry. Indeed, it can be checked that performing the nents are coordinate transformation t,¯ x,¯ y¯ t,x,y defined { }→{ } 1 by R¯ = R¯ = . 11 00 4β(¯z + β)2 − t¯= a t , x¯ = log (b x at + c) , y¯ = √y , − This functional relation is in perfect accordance with the zero order functional relations in Eq. (16). Thus, where the constants a, b, and c are given by in order to check whether the line elements describe 3/2 the same geometry we need to go to higher order. 1/2 1/4 1/2 1 αβ a = α β , b = β− , c = − 1/2 1 , In particular, since Rab Rab, it follows that the αβ − ¯ ∼ R isotropy group H0 is equal to H0 = Z2 Z2 Z2, i.e. 2 ¯ × × × the line element ds¯ , given in Eq. (12), gets trans- H0 is generated by the transformations (15). Now, let 2 us compute ¯ R¯ . Doing so, we obtain the following formed into the line element ds , given in Eq. (8). a bc Note that in this example it was necessary to per- nonzero components:∇ form a Lorentz transformation in order to compare 1 the components of the curvature and its derivatives. ¯ 0R¯11 = ¯ 0R¯00 = , ∇ −∇ 2β√z¯(¯z + β)3 This fact could be expected from the fact that ∂t is a Killing vector field for the metric g and e points in ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 1 µν 0 1R00 = 1R11 = . the direction of the flow of this symmetry, inasmuch ∇ −∇ 2β3/2√z¯(¯z + β)5/2 as e ∂ . On the other hand, for the metricg ¯ we 0 ∝ t µν These functional relations differ from the ones of have started with a frame such that e¯ ∂¯, but now 0 ∝ t R . In particular, here we have ¯ R¯ and ¯ R¯ t¯ is not a cyclic coordinate, so that ∂¯ is not a Killing ∇a bc ∇0 11 ∇0 00 t both different from zero, whereas for the metric gµν vector. Thus, since symmetries are geometrical con- these components vanish, see Eq. (16). However, re- cepts that are independent of coordinate systems, one call that at order zero we have a nontrivial isotropy could already tell that the frame e¯ was not the { a} group of dimension one. Thus, the frame e¯ is not frame ea written in another coordinate system, so { a} { } yet fixed by the order zero canonical form for Rab. For that a Lorentz transformation should be necessary. instance, we can try to use a Lorentz boost B1 in order As you might have noticed in the previous exam- to try to match ¯ aR¯bc and aRbc. Thus, defining ples, the tricky part of comparing the metrics stems ∇ ∇ from the freedom in the choice of the frame. Should B b e¯a′ = [ 1(σ1)]a e¯b , we have no such freedom, we would just need to check ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ whether the functional relations between the nonva- we find that 0′ R00′ and 0′ R11′ can be made zero, in ∇ ∇ nishing components of the curvature (and its deriva- accordance with (16), as long as we choose σ1 to be tives) for both metrics are the same or not. Therefore, √β it would be very handy if we could eliminate the free- σ1 = arctanh . √z¯ + β dom in the choice of the frame. As exemplified before,   10

one way to do so is to look for Killing vectors of the spacetime of dimension four whose is non- spacetime and use these symmetry directions to form vanishing. Given a four-dimensional spacetime one the frame or part of the frame. However, in general, can compute its Weyl tensor Cµναβ and try to find µ µ a spacetime has no Killing vector, let alone enough the null directions N , with N Nµ = 0, such that the Killing vectors to form a , but we should use cre- following constraint holds ativity to seek for geometrical structures that might ν σ help on the fixation of a canonical frame. In spite N[αCµ]νσ[ρNβ]N N =0 . (18) of the latter assertion, this creativity is not manda- It turns out that solving this constraint amounts to tory. Indeed, in the 80’s and 90’s some computer pro- finding the roots of a fourth order polynomial [17], grams have been created to implement the steps of the so that this algebraic equation admits four solutions, Cartan-Karlhede algorithm using a computing system dubbed the four principal null directions (PNDs). called SHEEP, that was created for symbolic tensor These directions can be degenerate or not. The Petrov calculations. For more details on these programs the classification is then an algebraic classification of the reader is refereed to [14–16]. As far as the authors Weyl tensor based on the degeneracy of these PNDs could search for, there exists no modern freely avail- [17, 18]. If all four PNDs are distinct we say that the able computing package implementing an algorithm Weyl tensor is type I, if two of them coincide and the for comparing metrics. Thus, the field is open to be other two are different we say that it is type II, if explored by the reader. Building such a code would three coincide we have type III, if the four PNDs are be a really valuable contribution for the community of the same we have type N, while if one pair coincides . However, a huge price will be paid, and the other pair also coincides, but the pairs do not in terms of computational time, if the frames are cho- coincide with each other, we say that the Weyl tensor sen randomly by the computer program. Therefore, is type D. Whenever two metrics have different alge- in order to make such a program less time-consuming, braic types according to the Petrov classification they it would be valuable if the user could fix part of the cannot be equivalent, but if their Petrov type is the isotropy freedom by means of geometrical structures. same we can use the PNDs to form a frame composed Hence, it would be important for the program to allow of null vectors. the user to use his creativity in order to make the com- As mentioned before, we can use any type of frame puter task easier. In the next section other important to start the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm. When us- geometrical structures different from Killing vectors ing the PNDs to establish the frame, instead of us- are briefly presented, such as the Petrov classification ing Lorentz frames, whose inner products give the and its associated principal null directions. Minkowski metric, it is useful to adopt a null frame ℓ, n, m, m¯ , in which all vectors are null and the only nonvanishing{ } inner products are IV. A FOUR-DIMENSIONAL EXAMPLE ℓµn = 1 , and mµm¯ =1 . µ − µ In this section we shall consider the more advanced In other words, the metric components on this frame problem of comparing the four-dimensional line ele- are given by ments (1) and (2) presented in the introductory sec- tion. This example requires more advanced tools of 0 1 0 0 − general relativity. Thus, the student of general rel- 1 0 00 g(ea, eb)= − . (19) ativity that is not experienced yet might struggle to  0 001  follow in detail. Therefore, such a student can skip  0 010  this section, since the essentials of the method have   already been presented in the previous sections. In- An important point is that in this type of frame it is ℓ n m deed, the main idea of the present section is to expose assumed that and are both real, while is com- m¯ the reader to the tools and tricks that are useful in the plex with its complex conjugate given by . Since we implementation of the method, so that when a neces- are assuming Lorentzian signature, the use of complex sity of comparing geometries shows up, the reader has vectors is necessary if we insist to work with a frame a guide to follow. In this sense, even the beginner whose inner products are give by (19). Indeed, the student can benefit from acquiring a brief idea about reality conditions of a frame are intimately related to these practical tools. The details can be neglected in the signature of the metric [18, 19]. In Lorentzian sig- a first reading. nature, the reality condition of the null frame is given by In order to compare the line elements (1) and (2) we first need to define a frame. An interesting way ℓ⋆ = ℓ , n⋆ = n , and m⋆ = m¯ , partially fixing a frame is by means of the so-called principal null directions, which are defined for any where the operation ⋆ stands for complex conjugation. 11

Now, the idea is to fix the frame through the use conclude that t0 = τ0 = 1, due to the dependence on of PNDs, by choosing the frame vectors ℓ and n as r in the , and dim(H0) = 2, due PNDs. Regarding the Schwarzschild metric, given in to the freedom in the choice of λ and σ. Apart from Eq. (1), it is well-known that its Petrov type is D, the related components that stem from the identities a with the repeated PNDs being C[abc]d = 0, C bad = 0, and [eCab]cd = 0, the only nonzero components of the derivative∇ of the curvature 1 1 N1 = f − ∂t + f∂r , and N2 = f − ∂t f∂r , are − 2M 3Mf 3Mλf where f = 1 . Taking advantage of these two ℓCℓmnm¯ = , nCℓmnm¯ = . (21) − r ∇ −√2λr4 ∇ √2r4 distinguishedq null directions, let us choose our null frame to be such that ℓ N1 and n N2. More In particular, note that we can use the freedom in the ∝ ∝ precisely, let us adopt the following frame choice of λ in order to set ℓCℓmnm¯ = nCℓmnm¯ , which amounts to choosing∇λ = 1. Thus,−∇ the dimen- λ 1 1 1 sion of the isotropy is lowered at this order, so that ℓ = f − ∂t + f∂r , n = f − ∂t f∂r , √2 λ√2 − dim(H1) = 1, while τ1 = τ0 = 1. With the choice iσ  iσ  λ = 1, we can solve Eq. (20) for r and substitute e ∂φ ¯ e− ∂φ m = ∂θ + i , m = ∂θ i . this expression for r into (21), leading to the follow- r√2 sin θ r√2 − sin θ     ing functional relation: Since we have chosen to set ℓ N1 and n N2 4/3 2/3 1/3 this fixes partially the frame. In∝ other words, we∝ are 3(Cℓmnm¯ ) 1 2M (Cℓmnm¯ ) nCℓmnm¯ = − . 1/3 using a geometrical structure, namely the PNDs, to ∇ p√2M define our frame. However, this choice does not fix uniquely the frame, i.e. there is some isotropy re- At this point, we already see that line elements with maining. Indeed, if we multiply ℓ by a real number different values of M are not equivalent, since the lat- 1 ter functional relation depends on the parameter M λ and multiply n by λ− this will preserve the hy- and this dependence cannot be eliminated by means pothesis ℓ N1 and n N2, and will also pre- serve the inner∝ products of∝ the frame. For instance, ℓ of the isotropy freedom. Moving on to the next order, will remain a null vector field, orthogonal to m and we see that an example of nonvanishing component is µ given by obeying ℓ nµ = 1. Likewise, we can multiply m iσ − ¯ iσ by e while multiplying m by e− without changing 3M(5M 2r) the inner products, preserving the reality condition ℓ nCℓmnm¯ = − ∇ ∇ r6 of the frame and keeping ℓ N1 and n N2 valid. 6 Thus, the real parameters λ and∝ σ in the above∝ expres- 2 5/3 = 15(Cℓmnm¯ ) 2/3 (Cℓmnm¯ ) , sions for the frame represent the remaining isotropy − M group. Thus, using the PNDs to define the frame we just as this component, the other nonzero second or- have reduced the six-dimensional isotropy group asso- der components do not depend on σ, so that H2 = H1. ciated to a general Lorentz frame to a two-dimensional In addition, these components depend just on the co- isotropy group, providing a much easier starting point ordinate r, so that t2 = τ2 = 1. Thus, since τ2 = τ1 to apply the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm. In addition and H2 = H1, we should stop the Cartan-Karlhede to this freedom, we also have the discrete freedoms of characterization at this order. Here we will not list interchanging ℓ by n and m by m¯ . all the nonvanishing second order components, since Since Schwarzschild spacetime has vanishing Ricci there are several of them. tensor, its curvature reduces to the Weyl tensor. In Now, let us analyse the line element (2). First, we turn, the only independent nonvanishing component need to set a null frame ℓ˜, n˜, m˜ , m¯˜ for this line of the Weyl tensor is element. In order to perform{ the comparison} with the Schwarzschild geometry, we should choose the null M vectors ℓ˜ and n˜ as the principal null directions of the Cℓmnm¯ = 3 . (20) r metric (2), since this was our choice in the charac- Although there are other nonvanishing components, terization of (1). Solving Eq. (18) in this geometry, 3 we find the following principal null directions for the like Cℓnℓn = 2M/r , these other components must − Weyl tensor: all be proportional to Cℓmmn¯ due to the Bianchi identity C[abc]d = 0 and to the trace-less condition τ 2 a e− ax c C = 0, so that it is unnecessary to consider them N˜1 bad = 2 ∂τ + 2−3 ∂x , in our analysis. Note that this component does not de- 2b 4ba x 2 τ pend on λ and σ, so that we cannot use the isotropy ax e− b N˜2 = ∂τ ∂x . group to fix a value for C . At this point, we ax2 c − 2ax ℓmmn¯ − 12

It turns out that both PNDs are degenerate, so that second derivative of the Weyl tensor are the same as the line element (2) is of Petrov type D, just as the the analogous ones for the Schwarzschild spacetime Schwarzschild solution, so that there is the possibility with the frame ea . For instance, the component of these two geometries being equivalent. Now, let us ˜ { } ℓ˜ n˜ Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ is nonvanishing and given by define a null frame such that ℓ˜ N˜1, and n˜ N˜2. ∇ ∇ For instance, let us adopt ∝ ∝ 2 ˜ 3c(5c 4ax ) ℓ˜ n˜ Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ = −6 12 . τ 2 ∇ ∇ 4a x e− ax c ℓ˜ = λ˜ ∂ + − ∂ , 2b2 τ 4ba2x3 x Thus, assuming that c =2M, we eventually find that   ax2e τ b n ˜ 1 − 6 ˜ = λ− 2 ∂τ ∂x , ˜ ˜ 2 ˜ 5/3 ax c − 2ax ℓ˜ n˜ Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ = 15(Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ ) (Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ ) ,  −  ∇ ∇ − M 2/3 eiσ˜ 4 c2y2 z 2(y2 + z2) m˜ = − ∂y + i ∂z , which agrees perfectly with the analogous functional √2 acx2 " y − y2 4 c2y2 ! # p − relation that we have established for the Schwarzschild p spacetime. It can be checked that all other second or- der functional relations also agree. Thus, we conclude with m¯˜ being the complex conjugate of m˜ . Note that that the line elements (1) and (2) represent the phys- the remaining isotropy have already been made ex- ical geometry as long as we set c = 2M. Moreover, plicit through the arbitrary real parameters λ˜ andσ ˜ as a spin off, we conclude that, since the functional appearing in the basis. Since this geometry is also relations of the Schwarzschild spacetime depend on Ricci-flat (R˜ab = 0), its curvature reduces to the Weyl the Mass parameter M, different values of M lead to tensor. A nonvanishing component of the Weyl tensor different geometries. This is the reason why M is a is physical parameter. On the other hand, since the pa- rameters a and b that appear in the line element (2) c ˜ do not show up in the functional relations of this line Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ = 3 6 . (22) 2a x element, they have no physical relevance. In other words, the line elements obtained from Eq. (2) by The other nonvanishing components of C˜abcd are all proportional to the latter one due to the Bianchi iden- choosing different values for a and b all represent the tity and the trace-less property of the Weyl tensor. same geometry. Concerning the first derivative of the of the curvature, the only “independent” nonvanishing components are V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ˜ 2 ˜ ˜ 3bc ˜ ˜ 3cλ(c ax ) ˜C˜ ˜ = − , n˜ C˜ ˜ = − . ∇ℓ ℓm˜ n˜m¯ 2a4x8λ˜ ∇ ℓm˜ n˜m¯ 4ba5x10 In this article we have reviewed the Cartan- Karlhede algorithm, which is a procedure that allows Thus, making the choice λ˜ = bx√2a we obtain the one to check whether two line elements represent the √ax2 c − same geometry, in spite of written in different coordi- functional relation ˜ C˜˜ = ˜ ˜C˜˜ , just as in ∇n˜ ℓm˜ n˜m¯˜ −∇ℓ ℓm˜ n˜m¯˜ nate systems, by following a finite sequence of steps. the Schwarzschild spacetime for the frame ea . More ˜ { } The review was performed through the use of sim- precisely, for this choice of λ we obtain ple examples in which the steps of the algorithm have been performed analytically and explicitly. We hope 3c√ax2 c ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ that this provides a useful guide for students and re- n˜ Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ = ℓ˜Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ = − . ∇ −∇ 2√2a9/2x9 searchers to learn the essentials of the method. A source of difficulty in the algorithm that, has ˜ In terms of Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ , the above relation can be written been glossed over in the above examples is that some- as times it can be quite difficult to solve an equality like R1212 = f(x) for the coordinate x in order to find the ˜ 4/3 2 ˜ 1/3 3(Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ ) 1 (2c Cℓ˜m˜ n˜m¯˜ ) functional relations in terms of the curvature com- ˜ C˜˜ = − . ∇n˜ ℓm˜ n˜m¯˜ q(2c2)1/3 ponents themselves, without referring to coordinates, as done in Eq. (16). Moreover, it can happen that This functional relation coincides with the analogous one should not solve the relation for a single coordi- one for the Schwarzschild spacetime as long as we ac- nate but rather for a specific combination of coordi- cept the identification c = 2M. Thus, up to first nates, as happened in the example in which we have order in the derivative, we conclude that the met- dealt with the three-dimensional line elementg ¯µν , in rics can be equivalent, it remains to check the second which a particularly useful coordinate combination order relation. The nonvanishing components of the wasz ¯ 1+ t¯+ ex¯. This part of the algorithm will ≡ 13

generally demand from the user creativity and ingenu- started with a partially fixed frame, since we have ity to do smart choices of the components in terms of chosen two frame vectors to point along principal null which the other curvature components will be written. directions. This choice reduced the freedom in the For instance, if τq is the number of functionally inde- frame, remaining just two dimensions of freedom in pendent components of the curvature (and its deriva- the Lorentz group. Thus, one of the main strategies to tives), then one should choose τq components of the apply the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm efficiently is to curvature (and its derivatives) to serve as the “basis” use geometric structures of the metric, namely special in terms of which the other components will be writ- directions defined in a coordinate independent form, ten. Different choices of this “basis” can enormously like symmetry directions and principal null directions, simplify or greatly hamper the establishment of the to fix completely or partially the frame with which we functional relations. In spite of highlight on the use start the procedure. In this case it is said that the cur- of creativity, these steps can be done systematically vature tensor has been put in a canonical form. As an by a computer [14–16], but the computation time can example, suppose that the Ricci tensor has an eigen- become quite big if the computer turn out to choose vector with constant eigenvalue, then we can use this an unsuitable path. distinguished eigenvector as one of the frame vectors. As we have stressed throughout the text, the most One can also use conformal Killing vectors, Killing difficult part of the implementation of the method is and Killing-Yano tensors to define special di- working out the remaining isotropy freedom at each rections or planes along which the frame is aligned. It order of the method. In order to make things easier is worth mentioning that notion of principal null direc- in Sec. IV, in which we have compared the line ele- tions of the Weyl tensor are also defined in dimensions ments (1) and (2), we have started with frames that greater than four [20, 21], so that this concept can be already incorporated the isotropy freedom through the used to put the curvature in a canonical form in higher parameters λ and σ. Then, since the components of dimensions [12]. Keep in mind, however, that in order the curvature did not depend on σ, we concluded that to compute the parameters τi, which are important to this part of the Lorentz group belongs to the isotropy decide when the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm should group of the metric. On the other hand, since one stop, we might have to use a frame different from the of the components depended on λ, we concluded that one fixed by means of the symmetries and geometrical the dimension of the Lorentz group associated to the structures. parameter λ is not part of the isotropy group of the metric. Moreover, in the latter case, we have cho- sen λ in way to establish a convenient functional re- lation. For instance, if it is possible to make some ACKNOWLEDGMENTS curvature component vanish by a suitable choice of a free parameter, we can do so in order to fix the frame. The idea of starting the Cartan-Karlhede pro- C. B. would like to thank Conselho Nacional de cedure algorithm with the Lorentz freedom explicit Desenvolvimento Cient´ıfico e Tecnol´ogico (CNPq) for in the frame is generally handy for establishing the the partial financial support through the research pro- isotropy group at each order. However, in general, al- ductivity fellowship. Likewise, C. B. thanks Universi- lowing the Lorentz group freedom to be explicit from dade Federal de Pernambuco for the funding through the beginning is unfeasible, due to the complicated Qualis A project. We both thank Lode Wylleman and expressions for the frame that stem from the fact that Matthew Aadne for the useful comments on the first a general Lorentz transformation has several param- version of this paper concerning the relevance of the eters. We have been able to adopt this procedure in distinction between ti and τi, which we have tried to the four-dimensional example because we have already make clear in the present version.

[1] V. Pravda, A. Pravdova, A. Coley and R. Milson, [4] L. Wylleman, A. Coley, D. McNutt and M. Aadne, All space-times with vanishing curvature invariants, Observer-based invariants for cosmological models, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002), 6213. Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) no.23, 235018. [2] A. Coley, R. Milson, V. Pravda and A. Pravdova, [5] A. Coley and D. McNutt, Identification of black Vanishing scalar invariant spacetimes in higher di- hole horizons using scalar curvature invariants, Class. mensions, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004), 5519. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018), 025013. [3] D. Brooks, D. D. McNutt, J. P. Simard and N. Mu- [6] E. Cartan, Le¸cons sur la geometrie des espaces de Rie- soke, Scalar polynomial curvature invariants in the mann, Gauthier-Villars Paris (1951), 2nd ed. context of the CartanKarlhede algorithm, Int. J. [7] A. Karlhede, A Review of the Geometrical Equivalence Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 16 (2018) no.02, 1950027. of Metrics in General Relativity, Gen. Rel. Grav 12 14

(1980), 693. in general relativity manual for CLASSI, 4th edi- [8] R. Milson and L. Wylleman, Three-dimensional tion.Report, Stockholm (2002). spacetimes of maximal order, Class. Quant. Grav. 30 [16] M.A.H. MacCallum and J.E.F. Skea, SHEEP: a com- (2013), 095004. puter algebra system for general relativity, in Alge- [9] R. Milson and N. Pelavas, The Type N Karlhede bound braic computing in general relativity. Proceedings of is sharp, Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008), 012001. the rst Brazilian school on computer algebra, vol. 2, [10] C. Brans, Invariant Approach to the Geometry of Oxford University Press (1994), chapter 9. Spaces in General Relativity, J. Math. Phys. 6 (1965), [17] S. Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black 94. holes, Oxford University Press (1992). [11] P. J. Olver, Equivalence, Invariants and Symmetry, [18] C. Batista, Weyl tensor classification in four- Cambridge University Press (1995). dimensional manifolds of all signatures, Gen. Relativ. [12] D. D. McNutt, A. A. Coley and A. Forget, The Car- Gravit. 45 (2013), 785. arXiv:1204.5133 tan algorithm in five dimensions, J. Math. Phys. 58 [19] W. Kopczynski and A. Trautman, Simple spinors and (2017), 032502. real structures, J. Math. Phys. 33 (1992), 550. [13] H. Stephani et. al., Exact solutions of Einstein’s field [20] A. Coley, R. Milson, V. Pravda and A. Pravdov´a, equations, Cambridge University Press (2009). Classification of the Weyl tensor in higher dimen- [14] I. Frick and J.E. Aman,˚ Sheep and classification in sions, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004), L-35. general relativity, In: Caviness B.F. (eds) EUROCAL [21] A. Coley, Classification of the Weyl tensor in higher ’85. EUROCAL (1985). Lecture Notes in Computer dimensions and applications, Class. Quant. Grav. 25 Science, vol 204. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. (2008), 033001. [15] J. E. Aman,˚ Classication programs for geometries