Derivation of the Teukolsky Equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter geoffc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation
geoffc
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Several years ago as an exercise, I was able to work through the derivation of thethe Teukolsky equation but have since lost my notes. Has anyone else gone through the derivation, and if so, could you give me a sort of complete idiot's guide to going through the steps? It's been quite some time since I worked through the details. At some point I'd like to do the separation of variables and look at some of the papers on perturbation theory.

Many thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Good grief! That would take an awful lot of LaTeX, I think! As you recall, the fact that the Teukolsky equation exists at all is something of a miracle--- like a delicate orchid, it requires special care to present. Particularly if you want an "idiots guide", how about backing way up and discussing metric perturbations generally, to try to carry along some of the more ambitious PF seekers.

For those who have no idea what we are talking about, we are discussing a core topic in the theory of wave propagation near a Kerr object.
 
Last edited:
Suggestion: Work up to it slowly!

Er... I wasn't trying to discourage you, in fact I was encouraging you to try your hand at exposition with some introduction to perturbations generally (in the general math forum, I guess). For example many books on perturbation theory, e.g. Simmonds and Mann, A First Look at Perturbation Theory, Dover reprint of a book originally published in 1986, begin by analyzing the roots of polynomials, and this is directly relevant to a common problem in gtr, in which we have something like the Kottler lambdavacuum (aka Schwarzschild-de Sitter lambdavacuum) and have observed that roots of a fourth order polynomial give the location of two horizons. But the exact expression for these roots are awkward, and it makes good sense to apply perturbation theory to obtain perfectly adequate but much simpler approximations! Then you can discuss application of perturbation theory of ODEs to analyzing some of the classical solar system tests. Continuing, eventually you get to discussing metric perturbations, e.g. linearized gravitational waves propagating on Minkowski or FRW or Schwarzschild backgrounds. The latter brings us to the Regge-Wheeler equation and tensor harmonics. After discussing that we stand at the threshold of generalizing to the Kerr vacuum and deriving the Teukolsky equation.
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for the reference. It's one that I haven't had a chance to take a look at, but certainly will when I get a chance. I had been meaning to sit down and work through a few examples in celestial mechanics which seem to be of increasing importance since people are now treating the three body problem in gr which looks like a complete mess.

Many years back I had worked through a few examples of the Regge-Wheeler equation which, from what I remember, was quite reminiscent of scattering problems from quantum mechanics. What seemed to be quite different was the issue of gauge, which was enough of an issue to confuse even a Chandra.

But assuming I meticulously work through all the examples you suggest (a great idea, by the way), all I really wanted to do was write down the Teukolsky equation pretty much the same way a person would tediously write down the Laplacian in spherical coordinates. You have a wave operator...
 
geoffc said:
all I really wanted to do was write down the Teukolsky equation pretty much the same way a person would tediously write down the Laplacian in spherical coordinates

Now I am confused: if you just want to write down the Teukolsky equation without understanding some way to obtain it (or motivate it, or extend it), you can simply look it up in various books.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top