I spent two years in intellectual darkness, plowing thru chapter 7 in my GR text. It is extremely thick  mathematics, yet I wanted to know it. I got thru it and  was able to reach out to Alexander Burinskii.  Now I go back thru it, and ask,  WHAT OF COMPLEXIFICATION???   They spend quite some pages  solving the Einstein field equations, given a degenerate form after an Eddington transform. The EFE’s are a set of differential equations, and it seems very convenient in organizing the final 3 into just 2 differential eqs on a complex function. I NEEDED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING DOWN, RIGHT HERE, and it is cool. my authors are doing a more general functional form of what Kerr did, allowing an imaginary  offset of an otherwise “one over ‘r’ ” form. . .
I was entering this arena in 2008, saying in public, we need to complexify GR, clearly, to blend better with quantum field theory. THIS IS SO, but I say DKS is a mistaken effort. Kerr’s first 1963 statement is marvelous.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s