Question on weak field approximation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the weak field approximation in general relativity, specifically focusing on the mathematical treatment of the Newtonian potential in the metric. Participants express confusion regarding the notation and the implications of "correct to first order" in the context of Taylor expansions and small quantities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the simplification of terms in the weak field approximation and questions the connection to Taylor expansions.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical expansion of the term \(\frac{1}{1+2\phi}\) and discusses the implications of smallness for \(\phi\) and its derivatives.
  • There is a request for clarification on the meaning of "big O" notation and its relevance to the approximation.
  • Participants discuss the significance of the order of approximation, noting that "correct to first order" refers to retaining terms up to \(\phi^1\) in the expansion.
  • Some participants express confusion over the notation used in the text, suggesting that clearer notation could alleviate misunderstandings.
  • There is a question about whether the first order approximation can be derived from a Taylor expansion, indicating uncertainty about the process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and implications of Taylor expansions and the order of approximations, but there remains uncertainty and confusion regarding specific notations and their interpretations. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the clarity of the text's presentation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of notation and the assumptions underlying the weak field approximation. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in mathematical expressions and their implications in the context of general relativity.

WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
553
In A First Course in General Relativity, the use of the weak field approximation is confusing to me. I constantly get confused when the term "f(x) is only valid to first order in f..." for the Newtonian potential in the metric comes up. At a certain point the book states:
...1/2(-1/(1 + 2[tex]\phi[/tex]))(-2[tex]\phi[/tex]),0 (where ,0 is the time derivative)
and then the book simplifies this to:
[tex]\phi[/tex],0 + 0([tex]\phi[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex])

I have NO IDEA how that step came about. Does this step and the whole "correct to first order" have to do with a Taylor expansion and if so how does one come to what the book came to? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]\frac{1}{1+2\phi}} \approx 1 - 2 \phi + \mathcal{O}(\phi^2)[/tex]

So when you multiply it all out...
[tex]\partial_0 \left(\phi - 2 \phi ^2\right) = \partial_0 \phi - 4 \phi \partial_0 \phi[/tex]

Since we assume phi is small, phi dot is also small, so the product of two small quantities is really small! Specifically, of order phi^2. So

[tex]= \partial_0 \phi + \mathcal{O}(\phi^2)[/tex]
 
Nabeshin said:
[tex]\frac{1}{1+2\phi}} \approx 1 - 2 \phi + \mathcal{O}(\phi^2)[/tex]

So when you multiply it all out...
[tex]\partial_0 \left(\phi - 2 \phi ^2\right) = \partial_0 \phi - 4 \phi \partial_0 \phi[/tex]

Since we assume phi is small, phi dot is also small, so the product of two small quantities is really small! Specifically, of order phi^2. So

[tex]= \partial_0 \phi + \mathcal{O}(\phi^2)[/tex]

Is there something special about phi? Obviously, in general, smallness of phi implies nothing about its derivative.
 
If you don't mind, could you explain what big omicron of psi ^ 2 actually is? I had no idea it was that; I thought it was a zero being multiplied by the function (and I kept thinking why this was being showed on the text) =p.
 
WannabeNewton said:
If you don't mind, could you explain what big omicron of psi ^ 2 actually is? I had no idea it was that; I thought it was a zero being multiplied by the function (and I kept thinking why this was being showed on the text) =p.

That's 'big O' notation. It means that the error is 'of the order' of the big O argument. Thus:

g(x) = f(x)+O(x^2)

means that g(x) = f(x) + <some function bounded by a constant times x ^2>
 
so what does it mean when psi is only correct to first order? Thanks.
 
PAllen said:
Is there something special about phi? Obviously, in general, smallness of phi implies nothing about its derivative.

In general, you are correct. But this is not something limited to phi, but rather a general feature of doing these "to order x^2" type taylor expansions. Generally, if phi is small, we want it to stay small so our approximation is always valid. The way we do this is by ensuring all derivatives of phi are equally small.

"Correct to first order" means just that: everything up to phi^1 is correct. You can think of the real function we are approximating as an infinitely long series expansion, so we're saying "what we've written down as the solution is correct for the first term of that expansion". Similarly, correct to phi^2 would be stating that we have the first two terms in the expansion correct.

Basically, the nth order comment is just a reference to how many terms in the taylor series we are interested in.
 
Ah ok I think I understand. I think the book should have had an omicron in front of the function and not a zero which was really confusing. If it isn't any trouble could you explain if the given first order approximation can be found using a taylor expansion (or am I missing something?).
 
WannabeNewton said:
Ah ok I think I understand. I think the book should have had an omicron in front of the function and not a zero which was really confusing.
Yes, this probably would have helped! That notation is pretty standard, not sure where you're supposed to be first introduced to it...
If it isn't any trouble could you explain if the given first order approximation can be found using a taylor expansion (or am I missing something?).

Umm, is that not what I did in my first post? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.
 
  • #10
Just not used to seeing it put that way when using taylor series sorry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K