Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Rigorous derivation

  1. Mar 3, 2006 #1

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Well, i'm searching for a rigorous derivation of the famous "perihelium precession problem in General Relativity".

    Did anyone do it...?

    Daniel.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 3, 2006 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What do you mean rigorous. Lillian Lieber did it in her little book "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by deriving the Schwartzschild metric with the usual conditions of isotropy and zero fields at infinity, and then getting the approximate potential for Mercury from that and doing the math. Is that rigorous enough for you?
     
  4. Mar 3, 2006 #3

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Try Weinberg "Gravitation and Cosmology" pages 188 - 194.

    Garth
     
  5. Mar 3, 2006 #4

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Goldstein works this out in the section on time independent pertubation theory in "Classical Mechanics", though he doesn't give the details of how to get the Hamiltonian (which is presented without proof). See pg 510-511.

    MTW's "Gravitation" doesn't give a complete derivation, it leaves it as an exercise (suggesting a few tricks and giving the correct answer) so you'll be better off with one of the other recommendations.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2006
  6. Mar 4, 2006 #5

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I don't have Weinberg's text. The question i have for you is: does this derivation use elliptic functions ? If not, it's not what i'm looking for...

    Daniel.
     
  7. Mar 4, 2006 #6

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You might want to look at this.

    Note: I have no idea whether this paper is of high quality.

    Regards,
    George
     
  8. Mar 4, 2006 #7

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It's fairly easy and straightforwards to work out that the full relativistic treatment of the Schwarzschild orbit involves only replacing coordinate time with proper time, the r coordinate with the Schwarzschild coordinate by the same name (r), and adding an extra term to the Hamiltonian, proportional to 1/r^3.

    I.e. letting L be angular momentum, and E be energy, and setting G=c=1 for simplicity (geometric units), we get

    Newtonian theory

    [tex]
    (\frac{dr}{dt} )^2 = E + \frac{2M}{r} - \frac{L^2}{r^2}
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    \frac{d\phi}{dt} = \frac{L}{r^2}
    [/tex]

    Relativistic theory
    [tex]
    ( \frac{dr}{d\tau} )^2 = (E^2 -1) + \frac{2M}{r} - \frac{L^2}{r^2} + \frac{2ML^2}{r^3}
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    \frac{d\phi}{d\tau} = \frac{L}{r^2}
    [/tex]

    The defintion of energy differs between the two, but in both cases E represents the constant energy energy of an orbiting body, and L represents its constant angular momentum.

    Assuming that the 1/r^3 potential term is small allows one to use pertubation methods to find the perihelion shift - this is the part of the job that Goldstein does (pg 511).

    There's no real need for elliptic functions with this approach.
     
  9. Mar 6, 2006 #8

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Surely there is (need for elliptic functions), as long as this problem does have an exact solution. There's no need for perturbation theory when the problem does have an exact solution. I've done some research and found it. There's no reserve upon the validity of the results presented in the attached document.

    Daniel.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Mar 6, 2006 #9

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    dextercioby asked for a rigorous approach, pervect I think you'll find that to justify the procedure you outlined rigorously you do need elliptic functions.

    And yes dextercioby, Weinberg does use elliptic functions.

    Garth
     
  11. Mar 6, 2006 #10

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Does "rigorous" mean "no approximations"? If so, Goldstein's approach won't be suitable, it assumes the pertubation Hamitonian is small.

    But if you're willing to accept approximations (which is certainly apropriate for the specific case of Mercury), the intergals become simpler.
     
  12. Mar 7, 2006 #11

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Sometimes, we have to accept perturbations (approximations) as the only viable solution, but in this case rigurous= exact solution.

    Daniel.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Rigorous derivation
  1. Deriving the metric (Replies: 5)

Loading...