Orbital Precession in the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics - Comments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the topic of orbital precession in the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, focusing on theoretical aspects, mathematical formulations, and potential applications in simulating black hole orbits. Participants explore various properties of orbits, including those around super-extremal black holes and the implications of different metrics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant points out a typo regarding the stability of oscillations outside a specific radius and suggests improvements for the presentation of the original post.
  • Another participant expresses interest in studying orbits in a Kerr metric for super-extremal black holes, indicating that such orbits could exhibit unusual behavior.
  • A request is made for clarification on the origin of conclusions regarding photon orbits related to vanishing denominators of certain parameters.
  • A participant shares their experience with simulating complex orbits in a Kerr metric, noting that their equations of motion did not seem to be affected by the presence of horizons.
  • References to literature on the geometry of the Kerr solution and its implications, such as closed timelike curves, are provided, along with a suggestion that these resources may be beneficial to others.
  • One participant mentions a potential disagreement between different sources regarding the ##\Theta## potential but later clarifies that their findings show the potentials to be equal, opting to use the simpler form for simulations.
  • A participant expresses appreciation for the clarity and presentation of the original post.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and interests, particularly regarding the study of super-extremal black holes and the implications of different metrics. There is no consensus on the conclusions drawn from the discussions, and some disagreements about specific technical details are noted.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions related to the equations of motion in different metrics. The implications of the presence of horizons in simulations remain a point of exploration.

Bill_K_Insights
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Bill_K submitted a new PF Insights post

Orbital Precession in the Schwarzschild and Kerr Metrics

Schwarzschild-.png


Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nice post! There's a typo:

Outside $r = 6m$, oscillations are stable.

I guess you need something like two pound signs to do math here, not a dollar sign. Also, there are a number of bad line breaks - Wordpress blogs are unforgiving when you hit the carriage return.

What I'd really love to see is a study of orbits in a Kerr metric that describes a 'super-extremal' black hole, one with ##J^2 > M^2##. These could get pretty weird!
 
Thanks for the Post!

Could someone explain where the conclusion about the photon orbits come from, i.e. that they exist for vanishing denominators of ##L## and ##\Gamma##?
 
john baez said:
What I'd really love to see is a study of orbits in a Kerr metric that describes a 'super-extremal' black hole, one with ##J^2 > M^2##. These could get pretty weird!
Good idea! I went away and commented out the horizon calculations in my own minimal simulator (I started a thread for it but struggling to find it ATM!), and tried a fairly complex bound 3+1D orbit with a = 1.1 and a = 1.5. Both produced "valid" orbits. It seems on the face of it that the equations of motion do not care about the existence of horizons ;)

For info, the equations I use are from this paper for the Kerr-deSitter spacetime, and previously the seminal Wilkins paper. Both are full 3+1D solutions based on Hamilton-Jacobi analysis.
 
Thanks! You may know about this article; it's not about the geodesics just the geometry of the Kerr solution, with a reasonable amount of detail on the 'ring singularity' and the closed timelike curves it gives rise to - those were my main concerns this weekend:
I just noticed this:
  • Leonardo Gualtieri and Valeria Ferrari, Black Holes in General Relativity, http://www.roma1.infn.it/teongrav/leonardo/bh/bhcap4.pdf.
You may know all this stuff, but it seems nice.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: m4r35n357
The first one is new to me (reading now, thanks), but I have seen the latter, very nice derivations for 2+1D and 3+1D. I wonder why the authors stopped short of providing equations for ##\frac {d t} {d \tau}## and ##\frac {d \phi} {d \tau}## though.

This is an issue ATM because I think I have found a disagreement between Wilkins and Kraniotis et. al. in the ##\Theta## potential . . . my eyes say so and so does Maxima.

[EDIT] pardon this but I've just showed in Maxima that they are equal after all. Since the Kerr-deSitter ##\Theta## potential is simpler, I shall use it for Kerr (##\Lambda = 0##) simulations in preference to the form in Wilkins.
 
Last edited:
Very nicely, clearly, and succinctly presented - thank you for this :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
999
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K