Approximation of the FE feat. loose notation

Spinny
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Approximation of the FE feat. "loose notation"

I'm looking for a (professional) relativist to help me clarify something. I refer to the article General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter by Cooperstock and Tieu, available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619v1.

They talk about the Einstein field equations to order G, and list them without any more details except a footnote stating that it's a "loose notation favored by many relativists".

I was wondering if anyone here are familiar with such an approximation scheme and could elaborate on how one goes about making such approximations, or perhaps refer me to some litterature on the subject.

Finally let me just specify that these approximations are not your standard linear approximations, and I can't seem to find any similar procedures in any textbooks (although that may just be because I'm not looking in the right books or at the right places in the books).

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cooperstock & Tiu's paper has been criticized by other authors, such as

This paper by Vogt and Letelier

While Cooperstock and Tiu continue to defend their paper, I personally think it's badly flawed, i.e. I agree with Vogt et al. Some other past threads on the general topic of this paper are:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103248
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=96935

As far as their notation goes, my impression was that they were basically doing a taylor series expansion of the metric in terms of some small paramter, so G(n) should be just a n'th order Taylor series approximation to the actual function that represents G. I'd have to look at the paper to refresh my memory. Unfortunatlely my browser isn't cooperating at the moment, perhaps a reboot will fix the problem.
 
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...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top