An algebraic manipulation in Schutz's book on GR

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Gr Manipulation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a potential error in equation (11.34) of Schutz's book on General Relativity, specifically regarding the term \(\frac{6M^3}{L^2}y\), where the user calculates it should be \(\frac{6M^3}{L^4}y\). The calculations presented involve the use of Maple's expand command to verify the algebraic manipulation. Participants agree that the units of each term must be consistent, confirming that the denominator should indeed be \(L^4\) to maintain dimensional accuracy. The conversation highlights a broader concern about the proofreading quality of Schutz's text.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity concepts, particularly in relation to Schutz's textbook.
  • Familiarity with algebraic manipulation of equations in physics.
  • Knowledge of dimensional analysis and unit consistency.
  • Experience with mathematical software like Maple for verification of calculations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review Schutz's "A First Course in General Relativity" for additional context on equation (11.34).
  • Study dimensional analysis techniques to ensure unit consistency in physical equations.
  • Learn how to use Maple for algebraic verification in physics problems.
  • Investigate common errors in General Relativity textbooks and their implications on understanding the subject.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in physics, particularly those studying General Relativity, as well as educators looking to identify and address common errors in academic texts.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
TL;DR
Some algebraic manipulation, which I think there's a misprint in the book.
Please let me know what do you think?
Attached is a pic of the page in the book:
My problem is with equation (11.34) specifically with the term ##\frac{6M^3}{L^2}y## I get ##L^4## instead of ##L^2##.
Here are my calculations (I also checked it with maple's expand command):
$$\frac{E^2-1}{L^2}+\frac{2M^2}{L^4}+\frac{2M}{L^2}y-[y^2+\frac{2yM}{L^2}+\frac{M^2}{L^4}]+$$
$$+2M[y^3+\frac{M^3}{L^6}+3y^2\frac{M}{L^2}+3y\frac{M^2}{L^4}]$$

so if we neglect the term ##2My^3##, we should be getting as I wrote.
I don't see where did I make a mistake?
Can you spot it?

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • schutz(11.34).png
    schutz(11.34).png
    67.1 KB · Views: 182
Physics news on Phys.org
that's an alge-bruh moment. Yeah I agree, assuming I didn't f*ck it up too...
$$\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{dy}{d\phi}\right)^2 &= \frac{\tilde{E}^2}{\tilde{L}^2} - \left(1-2M\left(y + \frac{M}{\tilde{L}^2}\right)\right)\left(\frac{1}{\tilde{L}^2} + \left(y+\frac{M}{\tilde{L}^2}\right)^2\right) \\ \\
&= \frac{\tilde{E}^2 - 1}{\tilde{L}^2} + \frac{2M}{\tilde{L}^2} \left(y + \frac{M}{\tilde{L}^2}\right) - \left(y^2 + \frac{2My}{\tilde{L}^2} + \frac{M^2}{\tilde{L}^4}\right) + 2M\left(y^3 + \frac{3My^2}{\tilde{L}^2} + \frac{3M^2y}{\tilde{L}^4} + \frac{M^3}{\tilde{L}^6}\right) \\ \\
&= \frac{\tilde{E}^2 + M^2/\tilde{L}^2 - 1}{\tilde{L}^2} + \frac{2M^4}{\tilde{L}^6} + \frac{6M^3 y}{\tilde{L}^4} + \left(\frac{6M^2}{\tilde{L}^2} - 1\right)y^2 + \mathcal{O}\left(y^3\right)
\end{align*}$$
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MathematicalPhysicist
It seems he carries this mistake in the definition of ##y_0## on the following page.
 
I have a question to the experts, @vanhees71 @PeterDonis @Dale or others who know about GR.

Does this mistake appear also in the literature outside of Schutz's textbook?
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
My problem is with equation (11.34) specifically with the term ##\frac{6M^3}{L^2}y## I get ##L^4## instead of ##L^2##.

Just based on looking at units I think you are correct. The units of each term should be inverse length squared. The units of ##y## are inverse length; the units of ##M## and ##L## are both length; so for the units to be right you need ##L^4## in the denominator.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MathematicalPhysicist and vanhees71
My general impression of Schutz is that it needed a better proof reader.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K