Integrating partial derivatives in a field equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around integrating partial derivatives in a field equation, specifically focusing on expressing the function ψ in terms of M. The context includes theoretical aspects related to spacetime and field equations, with participants exploring mathematical manipulations and implications of dimensional consistency.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an integral involving the partial derivative of M with respect to r and seeks assistance in expressing ψ in terms of M.
  • Another participant suggests a potential expression for ψ, involving integrals of M and derivatives, but acknowledges the need for simplification.
  • Questions arise regarding the dimensionality of r and its interpretation as a radius, with concerns about dimensional consistency in the expressions provided.
  • Several participants point out a possible transcription error in the original problem statement, leading to confusion about the integrand's form.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether the problem is a homework assignment or part of research, with one clarifying it is related to their research findings involving multiple field equations.
  • There is a suggestion to transform the integral to achieve a specific form, although it is met with skepticism regarding the nature of the original question.
  • One participant proposes a reevaluation of the equations presented, leading to a different expression for ψ based on the relationships between the variables.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the initial transcription of the problem and the dimensional consistency of the expressions. There is no consensus on the best approach to simplify or solve the integral, and multiple competing interpretations of the problem remain.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions about the dimensions of r and the nature of the integral. The discussion also reflects varying levels of clarity and understanding among participants regarding the mathematical expressions involved.

Who May Find This Useful

Researchers or students interested in field equations, integration of partial derivatives, and dimensional analysis in theoretical physics may find this discussion relevant.

Samson Ogaga Ojako
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
I am integrating the below:

\begin{equation}
\psi(r,v)=\int \left( \frac{\frac{\partial M(r,v)}{\partial r}}{r-2M(r,v)}\right)dr
\end{equation}

I am trying to write ψ in terms of M.

Please, any assistance will be appreciated.​
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Is it good enough to write ##\psi## in terms of ##M## and ##\int \frac{M}{r^2}dr##?

If yes then just write ##\psi=\int ((\frac{\partial M}{\partial r}\frac{1}{r}-\frac{M}{r^2})+\frac{M}{r^2}-2M)dr## and notice that the first term is the derivative of ##\frac{M}{r}## so after all it will be $$\psi=\frac{M}{r}-2\int Mdr+\int \frac{M}{r^2}dr+C$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Samson Ogaga Ojako
Is r a radius? (Or any other dimensionsl quantity?) If so, where did this integral come from?
 
Orodruin said:
Is r a radius? (Or any other dimensionsl quantity?) If so, where did this integral come from?
The 'r' is a shell radius while the "v" is the time.
The question is related to spacetime.

Thank you for getting in touch
 
Delta² said:
Is it good enough to write ##\psi## in terms of ##M## and ##\int \frac{M}{r^2}dr##?

If yes then just write ##\psi=\int ((\frac{\partial M}{\partial r}\frac{1}{r}-\frac{M}{r^2})+\frac{M}{r^2}-2M)dr## and notice that the first term is the derivative of ##\frac{M}{r}## so after all it will be $$\psi=\frac{M}{r}-2\int Mdr+\int \frac{M}{r^2}dr+C$$

This looks so good enough, Sir.
I must say, thank you very much.
Let me look at how you were able to simplify the integration first.
This is brilliant.
I will get back to you just now.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Samson Ogaga Ojako said:
The 'r' is a shell radius while the "v" is the time.
The question is related to spacetime.

Thank you for getting in touch
This does not answer where your integral came from. The reason I am asking is that if ##r## is dimensionful, then your expression is dimensionally inconsistent because ##(\partial M/\partial r)/r## does not have the same physical dimension as ##M##.
 
Orodruin said:
This does not answer where your integral came from. The reason I am asking is that if ##r## is dimensionful, then your expression is dimensionally inconsistent because ##(\partial M/\partial r)/r## does not have the same physical dimension as ##M##.
Maybe there is some sort of constant (with the proper units) in front of the ##-2M## term, which he omitted.
 
Orodruin said:
This does not answer where your integral came from. The reason I am asking is that if ##r## is dimensionful, then your expression is dimensionally inconsistent because ##(\partial M/\partial r)/r## does not have the same physical dimension as ##M##.
See the attached for details of how \psi, #M# and #r# are related.

Best regard.
 

Attachments

So you have not transcribed the problem correctly then. The integrand is
$$
\frac{\partial_r M}{r - 2M},
$$
not
$$
\frac{\partial_r M}{r} - 2M.
$$
 
  • #10
Delta² said:
Maybe there is some sort of constant (with the proper units) in front of the ##-2M## term, which he omitted.

I think he is unable to see the typing clearly because of the way the question is typed.

So, I've decided to attach a copy of the typed question to him for a better understanding of the question.

Thank you once again.
Cheers
 

Attachments

  • #11
Orodruin said:
So you have not transcribed the problem correctly then. The integrand is
$$
\frac{\partial_r M}{r - 2M},
$$
not
$$
\frac{\partial_r M}{r} - 2M.
$$
Yeah
 
  • #12
Ah, then what I did in post # 2 is not correct...
 
  • #13
Delta² said:
Ah, then what I did in post # 2 is not correct...

Oh ok.

You can take a second look at it again while I retype the question in LaTeX.

Cheers
 
  • #14
Well this look like some sort of assignment or homework. You have to show us some effort from your side.

All I can think right now is to transform the integral so that we get as end result ##-\frac{1}{2}\ln|r-2M|+\frac{1}{2}\int \frac{1}{r-2M} dr +C##
 
  • #15
Delta² said:
Well this looks like some sort of assignment or homework. You have to show us some effort from your side.

All I can think right now is to transform the integral so that we get as end result ##-\frac{1}{2}\ln|r-2M|+\frac{1}{2}\int \frac{1}{r-2M} dr +C##

It is not really a homework or assignment. This is part of my research finding. I've gotten to a stage where I have 3 field equations with 3 variables #M#, #\psi# and #phi# all are functions of #(r,v)#

\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial {m}}{\partial v} = 4\pi{r^{2}}\phi_{v} \left[e^{-\psi}\phi_{v} + \left( 1-\frac{2m}{r}\right) \phi_{r} \right] = m^{\prime}(v)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial {\psi}}{\partial r} = 4\pi{r^{2}}\phi_{r}^2 = \psi^{\prime}(r)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial {m}}{\partial r} = 2\pi{r^{2}}\phi_{r}^2 \left( 1-\frac{2m}{r}\right) = m^{\prime}(r)
\end{equation}

From equations 2 and 3, I was able to get what I shared online.

\begin{equation}
\psi(r,v)=\int \left( \frac{\frac{\partial M(r,v)}{\partial r}}{r-2M(r,v)}\right)dr
\end{equation}.

I have made some effort to get #\psi# in terms of #M# so that I can solve equation 1.

Please, you can help if you can.
 
  • #16
Can you have a look again at your equations (3) and (4) , because from those two I get that

$$\psi=\int \frac {2r\frac{\partial M}{\partial r}}{r-2M}dr$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Samson Ogaga Ojako
  • #17
Delta² said:
Can you have a look again at your equations (3) and (4) , because from those two I get that

$$\psi=\int \frac {2r\frac{\partial M}{\partial r}}{r-2M}dr$$
Oh ok.

Let me check again then.
 
  • #18
Samson Ogaga Ojako said:
Oh ok.

Let me check again then.
You are right Sir
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
746
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K