Anisotropic instead of isotropic metric deriving acceleration

Agerhell
Messages
157
Reaction score
2
In this documentation from Nasa a procedure to get to what I guess is the gravitational acceleration according to the post-Newtonian expansion at the 1PN-level for the spherically symmetric case is found:

http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/Monograph/series2/Descanso2_all.pdf

The procedure is based on using the metric shown in expression (4.60) on page (4.42). The metric is a low order expansion of the isotropic Schwarzschild metric. The procecure to get to the expression for the acceleration is a bit beyond me.

My question is:

What expression for the gravitational gravitation do you get if you use the anisotropic Schwarzschild metric and apply the same procedure?

I would also like to know why the isotropic Schwarzschild metric is used to derive an expression for the acceleration and not the anisotropic metric, which is more common in basic textbooks...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Agerhell said:
What expression for the gravitational gravitation do you get if you use the anisotropic Schwarzschild metric and apply the same procedure?
Why don't you try it and let us know what you get?

Agerhell said:
I would also like to know why the isotropic Schwarzschild metric is used to derive an expression for the acceleration and not the anisotropic metric, which is more common in basic textbooks...
Probably because the reference they cribbed it from ("HRTW") used isotropic coordinates.
 
Bill_K said:
Why don't you try it and let us know what you get?

Hmm... I will start. Maybe someone can continue or ells I will continue later.

According to the book you assume:

L^2=\frac{ds^2}{dt^2}

Then you get the equations of motion from the expression:

\frac{d}{dt}(L\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x_i}})-(\frac{\dot{L}}{L})(L\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x_i}})- L\frac{\partial L}{\partial x_i}=0, x_i = x,y,z

There is some approximation involved:

\frac{\dot{L}}{L}\approx \frac{L\dot{L}}{c^2}

The expression on the right side just above replaces the expression to the left. The book also states that "##L\dot{L}## is obtained by differentiating a simplified expression for ##L^2## containing terms to order ##1/c^0## only."

Assuming:

ds^2=(1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}+2\frac{(GM)^2}{r^2c^4})c^2dt^2-(1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2})(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)

according to the book this will result in:

{\bf \ddot{r}}=\frac{GM}{r^3c^2}((\frac{4GM}{r}-v^2){\bf r} +4({\bf r\cdot\dot{r}}){\bf \dot{r}})

I might have done some mistake here, interpreting what I read, but this is sort of standard procedure for how you get from a metric via some Lagrangian method to equations of motions? If anyone have a link to page describing this procedure in general it would be helpful.

I vaguely remember dealing with Lagrangians back at university. If I am trying to use polar coordinates (anisotropic Schwarzschild) I am sure there will be some extra complications...
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top