Derivation of energy and angular momentum (Schwarzschild metric)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of energy and angular momentum in the context of the Schwarzschild metric. Participants clarify the relationship between the Lagrangian and cyclic variables, leading to the constants of motion for energy (E) and angular momentum (l). A discrepancy arises regarding the factor of 2 in the expressions derived, with one participant questioning whether it was an oversight in the task sheet. It is concluded that the constants can be defined flexibly, and the factor of 2 does not affect the orbits. The conversation emphasizes the importance of not prematurely assuming definitions for constants in calculations.
Lambda96
Messages
233
Reaction score
77
Homework Statement
Derive the equations ##E= mc^2 \bigl( 1- \frac{r_s}{r} \bigr) \dot{t}## and ##l=mr^2 \dot{\varphi}##
Relevant Equations
none
Hi,

Unfortunately, I can't quite work out the terms in the task

Bildschirmfoto 2025-01-21 um 14.58.16.png

Bildschirmfoto 2025-01-21 um 14.58.41.png


The expression in the integral (4) corresponds to the Lagrangian and since ##t## and ##\varphi## are cyclic variables, the following follows:

$$-\frac{d}{dt} \frac{d L}{d \dot{t}}=0 \quad \rightarrow \quad -\frac{d L}{d \dot{t}}=const=E$$

$$-\frac{d}{dt} \frac{d L}{d \dot{\varphi}}=0 \quad \rightarrow \quad -\frac{d L}{d \dot{\varphi}}=const=l$$

Then I received the following:

$$\frac{d}{d \dot{t}} \Bigl( m \bigl( 1- \frac{r_s}{r} \bigr) c^2 \dot{t}^2 \Bigr)= 2m \bigl( 1- \frac{r_s}{r} \bigr) c^2 \dot{t} =E$$

$$\frac{d}{d \dot{\varphi}} \Bigl( m r^2 \dot{\varphi}^2 \Bigr)= 2m r^2 \dot{\varphi}=l$$

I get the same results except for the 2, just my question, did I do something wrong or was the 2 forgotten in the task sheet?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You simply called what is usually called ##E## by ##2E## and the same for angular momentum. If ##E## is constant, then obviously ##2E## is constant as well.
 
As Orodruin says, you can simply take the 2 into the definition of the constant, or not. It makes no difference to the orbits.

However, the reason for the book not having a 2 is that they've chosen their constants to match up to customary definitions. For example, instead of defining ##-dL/d\dot{t}=E## you could have used ##-dL/d\dot{t}=A## where ##A## is an unknown constant. Then you'd get to ##2m\left(1-\frac{r_s}r\right)c^2\dot{t}=A##. Now consider an orbit where the particle comes instantaneously to rest at infinity. What happens to the LHS? And hence how would you define ##A##?

Essentially, you jumped in a bit early with assuming the first constant you saw was ##E##. If you don't assume that and instead use a generic unknown constant, then you can find a case where you can write that constant in terms of what you know.
 
Thanks Orodruin for your help 👍, I thought I had done something wrong I hadn't thought of this simple observation :smile:

Thanks also Ibix for your help 👍
 
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...