Solve Eq. (9.58) on Schutz Page 246 - A First Course in GR

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy Snyder
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Schutz
Jimmy Snyder
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
22
Here is a question from problem 26 part a on page 246 of "A First Course in GR" by Schutz. I doubt that it can be answered by someone without a copy of the book, but I have thought that before and been wrong. If someone without the book wants to help and needs more information then of course I would promptly provide it.

Eq. (9.58) in the vacuum region outside the source - i.e., where S_{\mu \nu} = 0 - can be solved by separation of variables.

Eq (9.58) (edited) follows:

<br /> (\nabla^2 + \Omega^2)(\bar{h}_{\mu \nu}e^{i\Omega t}) = 0<br />

Assume a solution for \bar{h}_{\mu \nu} has the form

<br /> \Sigma_{km}A^{km}_{\mu \nu}f_k(r)Y_{km}(\theta, \phi)/\sqrt{r}<br />

where Y_{km} is the spherical harmonic. (The book uses l as does everyone else on the planet, but I changed l to k so that this post would read more easily).

(a) Show that f_k(r) satisfies the equation:

<br /> \ddot{f}_k + \frac{1}{r}\dot{f}_k + [\Omega^2 - \frac{(k+\frac{1}{2})^2}{r^2}]f_k = 0<br />

where dot means differentiation with respect to r. Without even trying to solve this problem, my question is simply this: how can k show up in the differential equation? Neither A nor Y are functions of r, and k is just a subscript on f.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
k is (related to) the separation constant. When solving partial differential equations by the technique of separation of variables, the separation constant often appears, after rearrangement, in the resulting ordinary differential equations.

Regards,
George
 
George Jones said:
k is (related to) the separation constant.
Thanks George, I got out a book on DiffEQs and looked up separation constant. It looks like I'll be spending some time on this.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top