are there any fields of astrophysics with no general relativity?by chill_factor Tags: astrophysics, fields, relativity 

#1
Apr2212, 02:59 AM

P: 887

Is there any research in astrophysics today that does not involve general relativity?




#2
Apr2212, 12:43 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,180

Well, not really, but, there are any number of situations where velocity is not an issue or is so low that relativity has no meaningful effect  like exobiology.




#3
Apr2212, 03:11 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,935





#4
Apr2212, 03:34 PM

P: 887

are there any fields of astrophysics with no general relativity? 



#5
Apr2212, 04:41 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,194

1) People modeling compact objects such as neutron stars, black holes, or white dwarves. 2) Cosmologists. This might just be failure of imagination on my part, but I've talked to a fair few astronomers and almost unless they're explicitly in one of these two categories they mostly moan about the index manipulation twenty years ago in graduate school. (I just remembered there's a lot of lensing work going on. But in this, GR is treated rather as a black box. Sure, it's necessary to know qualitatively what's going on, but to do the actual work no deep knowledge of GR is required.) 



#6
Apr2312, 11:55 PM

P: 887

I'm curious about astrophysics and want to read a technical book on it for fun, which is why I asked about how much relativity is in astronomy. It would do me no good to buy a book that I can't understand. My B.S. is in Chemistry, so I'm very ignorant about astronomy. I heard that thermodynamics and statistical physics are very important in theoretical astronomy. Is that true? If so, that's very interesting, because those are the same things that are important in materials. 



#7
Apr2412, 12:20 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,180





#8
Apr2412, 12:29 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,194

Astrophysics is such an incredibly broad thing, that literally any branch of physics is used by someone who considers themselves an astrophysicist. I think the best way to approach the field in a serious manner is to identify an object or situation that's of interest to you. Are you interested in how stars form? How they work? How planets form? How galaxies form? About gas between stars? About the universe as a whole? The list goes on for a long time. Of course the answer might be all of the above, but try to latch onto one particular topic to begin with and study in at least some depth. 



#9
Apr2412, 03:37 AM

P: 887

hopefully, it will be a good experience over the long and boring summer. can't party every day =) 



#10
Apr2712, 01:16 PM

P: 241

Well, a rotating star that collapses has to take into account relativistic effects.
Jets emitted from stars going supernova can reach speeds where it matters. Supernova effects themselves are obviously full of relativistic interactions. Neutron stars, black holes, hypervelocity partner ejection, all in all I don't see a reason to specifically avoid learning about GR while being interested in any branch of physics. Isn't that kinda like trying to avoid learning how to multiply while being interested in math? If you're scared by things like the Einstein Field Equations, that just means you're not an eldritch horror from beyond the stars, you don't have to know those by heart. 



#11
Apr2812, 12:19 AM

P: 514

In effect, most astrophysical phenomena are well within the Newtonian limit. It is easy to estimate the size of the departure from that limit:
Kinetic: (v/c)^{2} Potential: (G*M)/(r*c^{2}) In gravitydominated systems, the virial theorem indicates that these quantities will be rather close, so one usually needs to calculate only one of them. I suggest that you people try calculating some departure sizes. In most cases, the departure is very small, and in most of these cases, it is too small to measure. Exceptions:
In the weak case, one needs high precision to detect GR effects. High precision like high angular resolution or highprecision timing. One can express several of these effects in "postNewtonian" form, with the Newtonian equations of motion with correction terms added. For propagation of light, one can treat spacetime as having a variable refractive index, with the variation being another postNewtonian effect. Most of the tests of GR have been of its weakcase postNewtonian effects. In the strong case, one needs to use the full apparatus of GR, or whatever similar theory one may wish to evaluate. However, it's VERY hard to resolve noncosmological strongcase objects, and that can make it difficult to test hypotheses about them. Try estimating the angular sizes of the Crab Nebula pulsar, the Cygnus X1 black hole, our galaxy's central black hole, and M87's central black hole. 



#12
May112, 11:28 PM

P: 6,863

Supernova calculations typically are run with general relativity turned off. You find that it doesn't make a difference, and once you find it doesn't make a difference, then you just eat computer CPU for no good reason. 



#13
May112, 11:35 PM

P: 6,863

The interesting stuff in collapsing stars happens at > 0.5 solar masses where GR turns out to be not relevant. You can calculate the GR correction factor and what people have found is that it turns out that it's near zero for any of the interesting parts. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Special Relativity: From an Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie  Introductory Physics Homework  5  
Outlining the fields of astrophysics and particle  Career Guidance  0  
Astrophysics  Special Relativity  Advanced Physics Homework  3  
magnetic fields and relativity  General Physics  6  
How to decide between 2 fields of research(Astrophysics vs Brain Modelling)?  Academic Guidance  10 