Talk:Ozsváth–Schücking metric

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Spelling: Metic or Metric?

I would assume that the title needs to change into "Ozváth-Schüecking metric"? However, the text also contains the word "metic". Anyone? JocK (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and another contributor has pointed out that we should have "Schücking". I don't know how to correct these spelling mistakes because a number of other articles have links to this one. Willow1729 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The redirect from the mis-spelled page "Ozváth-Schüecking metic" to here will leave all links intact. Cheers -- JocK (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozsváth not Ozváth

The name of the primary author is "Ozsváth" with an "s", as the article in question and even the citation in this Wikipedia article indicates. The article needs to be renamed. Since the present article title is linked in a few places, perhaps someone could search for those and correct them as well. JKeck (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. JKeck (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd that metric come from?

Where did the metric in this article come from?

ds^{2}=-2[(x^{2}-y^{2})\cos(2t)-2xy\sin(2t)]dt^{2}+dx^{2}+dy^{2}-2dtdz.

Whereas the metric in the 1962 Ozsváth–Schücking paper reads

ds^{2}=(dx^{1})^{2}-4x^{4}dx^{1}dx^{3}+2dx^{2}dx^{3}+2(x^{4})^{2}(dx^{3})^{2}+(dx^{4})^{2}.

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't see a metric in the OS paper with any resemblance to the one listed in this Wikipedia article. Maybe it's from a later work? If so, there needs to be an appropriate citation. JKeck (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of showing my ignorance of GR, where does "rotating" (as in "rotating vacuum solution" in the first sentence) come from? The word appears only once in the OS paper and doesn't seem to figure very significantly. Btw for the time being I've posted the paper here: here. JKeck (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first metric you list is essentially equation 19 from the paper. It comes from the coordinate transformation defined by equation 18. The "rotating vacuum solution" terminology is a little confusing, but it is supposed to refer to a spacetime consisting entirely of circularly polarized gravitational waves. Teply (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]