Inquiry about a derivation in "A First Course in GR" by Schutz

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around equations from "A First Course in GR" by Schutz, specifically equations (10.57), (10.69), and (10.85). Users debate the conditions for the parameter β, concluding that the inequality for β should be 0 < β < 1/6 based on the context of (10.69). Additionally, there is confusion regarding the numerical factor in equation (10.85), where participants question the derivation of the factor (3/(4π))^{1/2} and its absence in their calculations. Clarifications on the definitions of p_c and ρ_c in relation to p_* and ρ are also sought.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity concepts as presented in Schutz's textbook.
  • Familiarity with mathematical inequalities and their implications in physical equations.
  • Knowledge of the definitions and relationships between pressure (p), density (ρ), and their critical counterparts (p_c, ρ_c).
  • Ability to manipulate and derive equations involving constants and numerical factors in physical formulas.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of inequalities in general relativity, focusing on conditions for parameters like β.
  • Study the implications of critical pressure and density in astrophysical contexts.
  • Examine the derivation of numerical factors in equations from "A First Course in GR" to ensure accurate understanding.
  • Explore discussions on the definitions of physical quantities in general relativity to clarify terms like p_c and ρ_c.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in physics, particularly those studying general relativity and seeking clarity on mathematical derivations and conditions presented in Schutz's textbook.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
TL;DR
Hopefully now my post won't be sucked to the BH... :oldbigger:
on page 269 it's written in the second edition of Schutz's textbook that
##(10.69)p_c/\rho_c=\beta (2-5\beta)^{-1}##.
Demanding that this be less than ##1/7## gives:
##(10.70) 0<\beta < 1/6##

Now, if I am not mistaken on page 268 in equation (10.57) the condition should be ##p_c/\rho_c >1/7## (since ##\rho < 7p_*## ).
If this is true (perhaps there's a mistake in
in Eq. (10.57) and sign of inequality should be the other way around).

Anyway, if Eq. (10.57) is the one that should be used on (10.69) then I get the following:
$$b/(2-5b)>1/7 \Leftrightarrow (7b+5b-2)/(2-5b)>0 \Leftrightarrow (12b-2)/(2-5b)>0$$
which means either ##12b-2, 2-5b >0## or ##12b-2, 2-5b<0## the first condition means that (by the fact that ##b\le1##) ##1/6<\beta<2/5## the second condition isn't met.

I have another question regarding his textbook in its second edition:
on page 274 it's written down equation (10.85) as: ##M= (3k^3/(4\pi))^{1/2}##, but I get only that ##M=k^{3/2}## without the numerical constant the includes ##\pi##.

Here are my calculations:
$$M^{1/3} = R\bar{\rho}^{1/3}$$
thus, ##R= M^{1/3}/(\rho^{1/3})##, plug the last equation to (10.84) to get:
##M/(M^{1/3}/(\bar{\rho}^{1/3}))=k\bar{\rho}^{1/3}##
i.e ##M^{2/3}=k##.

How did they get the numerical factor ##(3/(4\pi))^{1/2}##?

Sorry @Dale if you got pissed off of me, I believe it's better to forgive than to be pissed off of someone, is it now OK?

MP.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, kent davidge and Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there anybody in there, just nod if you can hear me?
Anyone knows how to answer my questions?
 
I don't understand the question, because I don't have to book to look up the context. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
vanhees71 said:
I don't understand the question, because I don't have to book to look up the context. Sorry.
Ok, thanks anyway @vanhees71 appreciate you finding the time to look at this thread of mine.

In the past there was a user called Jimmy Snider who went through this book, is he still on PF?
 
Wait! This question was already asked and I commented on it. What happened?
 
@martinbn it got sucked into the BH due to me breaking the rules once more.

Anyway now I edited it to the will of the moderators.
Can you answer these questions again?

Thanks!
 
martinbn said:
Wait! This question was already asked and I commented on it. What happened?
This reply?
About your first question, you have that ##p<p_*## and ##\rho<7p_*##, which is the same as ##\frac{p}{\rho}<\frac{p_*}{\rho}## and ##\frac17<\frac{p_*}{\rho}##. From this you cannot conclude anything about ##\frac{p}{\rho}## and ##\frac17##. But if you choose that ##\frac{p}{\rho}<\frac17<\frac{p_*}{\rho}##, then the above inequalities will be satisfied.
 
Nugatory said:
This reply?
Yes, but it is ok. I was worried that I am imagining things because of all the time I spend outside.
 
  • #10
martinbn said:
Yes, but it is ok. I was worried that I am imagining things because of all the time I spend outside.
Can you help me with my second question?
BTW, I'll read your answer to my first question when I'll find the time, quite hectic schedule I have.
 
  • #11
Nugatory said:
This reply?
I don't understand how are ##p_c ,\rho_c## defined here with respect to ##p^*## and ##\rho##?
It's not clear to me from the book.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
@martinbn or anyone else can answer my questions?

Thanks in advance.
 
  • #13
No one bothers about an incorrect numerical factor?

Pity.
I can upload screenshots of the book, but it won't be from my hardcover copy...
 
  • #14
I am attaching a pic of the two pages where my second conundrum appears for those who don't have the book.
Schutz-274.png
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K