Radial geodesic distance with Schwarzschild's solution

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMan112
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geodesic Radial
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the geodesic distance between two points in a spherically symmetric gravitational field described by the Schwarzschild solution. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and integration involved in determining this distance, particularly focusing on the implications of the Schwarzschild metric and the challenges encountered in the integration process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an integral derived from the Schwarzschild solution to calculate geodesic distance, expressing concerns about its complexity outside and inside the Schwarzschild radius.
  • Another participant points out a potential sign error in the original formulation and emphasizes the need for caution when discussing spatial distances in general relativity.
  • A later reply provides an alternative integration result, suggesting that the two approaches are equivalent up to an additive constant, and discusses the implications of absolute values in the integration process.
  • Further clarification is offered regarding the negative values inside the absolute value bars and how to adjust the integration result accordingly.
  • One participant confirms their results align with the Newtonian approximation, indicating a successful integration at large distances.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the initial integral and its interpretation, indicating that multiple perspectives on the integration process and results exist. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to calculating the geodesic distance.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of integrating within and outside the Schwarzschild radius, as well as the implications of sign errors and absolute values in the context of general relativity. These factors contribute to the ongoing debate about the correct formulation of the geodesic distance.

TheMan112
Messages
42
Reaction score
1
Given we have a spherically symmetric gravitational field around a spherically symmetric body of mass M.

How can I calculate the actual (geodesic) distance between two points with the same angle but at different distances from the center of the body (and field).

I came immediately to think of the Schwarzschild solution which reduces to:

[tex]ds^2 = -(1-r_s/r)^{-1} dr^2 = \frac{1}{(\frac{r_s}{r}-1)} dr^2[/tex]

The geodesic distance would then be:

[tex]\int ^{r_1}_{r_2} ds = \int ^{r_1}_{r_2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{r_s/r-1}}dr[/tex]

Which can't be used outside [tex]r_s[/tex], and creates an insanely complex primitive function inside [tex]r_s[/tex].

What should I do? I need help urgently.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
George Jones said:
You've got a sign wrong.

Care is needed when talking about spatial distances in general relativity.

See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=215488".

Thank you, although I don't see how you came to that integral.

This is what I get by automatic integration: (where of course x = r)

-------------------------
You have entered: f (x) = ((1-((2m)/(x))))^(-1/2).

[tex]\int f(x)dx= \sqrt{1 - {2m \over x} }x +m \log \left( \sqrt{1 - {2m \over x} } +1 \right) -m \log \left( \left| \sqrt{1 - {2m \over x} } -1 \right|\right)[/tex]
-------------------------
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheMan112 said:
Thank you, although I don't see how you came to that integral.

This is what I get by automatic integration: (where of course x = r)

-------------------------
You have entered: f (x) = ((1-((2m)/(x))))^(-1/2).

[tex]\int f(x)dx= \sqrt{1 - {2m \over x} }x +m \log \left( \sqrt{1 - {2m \over x} } +1 \right) -m \log \left( \left| \sqrt{1 - {2m \over x} } -1 \right|\right)[/tex]
-------------------------

I used Maple, but I previously have done this integral by hand. My answer and your answer are equivalent; your answer differs from what is inside my square brackets by an additive constant. This is OK for indefinite integration.

The stuff inside your absolute value bars is always negative (why), so take them off and change the sign of the stuff inside. After this, combine the logs to show the equivalence between our answers.

If you want further hints, just ask.
 
George Jones said:
I used Maple, but I previously have done this integral by hand. My answer and your answer are equivalent; your answer differs from what is inside my square brackets by an additive constant. This is OK for indefinite integration.

The stuff inside your absolute value bars is always negative (why), so take them off and change the sign of the stuff inside. After this, combine the logs to show the equivalence between our answers.

If you want further hints, just ask.

I think I've got it now. I've also checked that my results correspons with the Newtonian approximation by setting m = 0 and integrating at [tex]lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}[/tex] giving [tex]I = \int_r2^r_1 ds = r_1 - r_2. Which is the distance in flat spacetime.<br /> <br /> Thanks a lot![/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K