I A computation of an integral on page 344 of Schutz's textbook

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a calculation error in integrating an expression from Schutz's textbook on general relativity. The user initially misapplies the differential notation, confusing the integration of d(chi^2) with d(r^2) and the corresponding factors. Clarifications highlight that the correct integration involves d(chi) and d(r) with the appropriate square root factor. The user acknowledges the mistake and expresses gratitude for the clarification. The conversation emphasizes the importance of precise notation in mathematical integration.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
On page 344 of "A First Course in GR" he writes the following:
Consider, next, ##k=1##. Let us define a new coordinate ##\chi(r)## such that:
$$(12.16)\ \ \ d\chi^2 = \frac{dr^2}{1-r^2}$$
and ##\chi =0 ## where ##r=0##. This integrates to
$$(12.17) \ \ \ r=\sin \chi,$$
When I do the integration I get the following: ##\int_0^{\chi^2}d\chi^2= \int_0^{r^2}\frac{dr^2}{1-r^2}= \chi^2 = -\ln (1-r^2)##, after I invert the last relation I get: ##r=\sqrt{1-\exp(-\chi^2)}##, where did I go wrong in my calculation?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should of course integrate
$$\int \mathrm{d} \chi = \int \mathrm{d}r \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-r^2}}...$$
 
  • Like
Likes MathematicalPhysicist
vanhees71 said:
You should of course integrate
$$\int \mathrm{d} \chi = \int \mathrm{d}r \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-r^2}}...$$
Ah, yes you are correct. It's ##(dx)^2## and not ##d(x^2)##.
I am really getting old and sloppy... :-(
 
How do you define and Integral with ##\mathrm{d} x^2##, and it's not ##\mathrm{d} (x^2)=2x \mathrm{d} x##, because you want ##\chi## and not something else ;-).
 
vanhees71 said:
How do you define and Integral with ##\mathrm{d} x^2##, and it's not ##\mathrm{d} (x^2)=2x \mathrm{d} x##, because you want ##\chi## and not something else ;-).
I meant I thought it was ##d(\chi^2)=\frac{d(r^2)}{1-r^2}##. But now I see my mistake, thanks for clearing this simple thing.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads