Schwarzschild Geodesics: An Overview

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of equations related to Schwarzschild geodesics, specifically focusing on the relationship between variables such as ##u##, ##D##, and ##\alpha## in the context of light paths around a black hole. Participants express confusion regarding the mathematical derivations presented in a referenced paper and the implications of the Schwarzschild coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the derivation of ##v_1(0)=1D⋅tanα## from ##v_0(0)=1D##, noting that the equations may not be derived in the paper itself.
  • There is uncertainty about the meaning of distance ##D## in relation to the radial coordinate ##r## in Schwarzschild coordinates, with some arguing that ##r## does not represent a physical distance from a center.
  • One participant mentions that the video referenced in the paper does not adequately explain the derivation of the equations, leading to confusion.
  • Some participants suggest that the approximation of ##u = \frac{1}{D}## is only valid when far from the black hole, raising concerns about its applicability near the horizon.
  • There is a discussion about the initial conditions used in the equations, with some participants expressing skepticism about the clarity and correctness of the source material for learning numerical simulations in general relativity.
  • Participants express a desire for recommendations on literature or resources for studying numerical relativity, but there is a lack of consensus on suitable references.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express confusion and skepticism regarding the derivations and the clarity of the source material. There is no consensus on the correctness of the equations or the appropriateness of the approximations used.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding due to the unclear derivation of equations and the potential misinterpretation of initial conditions. The discussion highlights the complexity of applying mathematical concepts in the context of general relativity.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying general relativity, particularly in the context of numerical simulations and the interpretation of Schwarzschild geodesics.

Goldman clarck
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Hi, I started reading this ![paper](https://github.com/Python-simulation/Black-hole-simulation-using-python/blob/master/Black%20hole%20simulation.pdf) dealing with the simulation of a Schwarzschild black hole in python, what I didn't understand is how did the author of the paper derive ##v_1 (0) = \frac{1}{D \cdot \tan \alpha}## from ##v_0 (0) = \frac{1}{D}##?
Can anyone here kindly provide an answer.
(Below are screenshots from the paper)
[Mentors' note: edited to fix the Latex]
242207
242208
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Goldman clarck said:
what I didn't understand is how did the author of the paper derive v1(0)=1D⋅tanα from v0(0)=1D?

I don't know, and I'm not even sure why those equations make sense. It looks like those equations are taken from reference [5], not derived in the paper itself.

What I don't understand is where the distance ##D## is coming from, since the radial coordinate ##r## in Schwarzschild coordinates does not equal radial distance, and since there is no spatial "center" to the black hole anyway (##r = 0## is not a point at the center, it's a spacelike like to the future of every event inside the horizon). So I'm not sure what the author of the paper thinks he is doing.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Goldman clarck
I watched the video he referred to, the video is in french by the way and doesn't provide any explanation to how the second equation has been derived, except mentioning that ##u' = \frac{1}{D \cdot tan \alpha}## is the derivative of ##u = \frac{1}{D}## when ##\phi = 0##, where ##D## is the distance between the black hole and the observer and ##\alpha## defining the initial direction of the photon.
I've been trying the whole day but with no success, now I'm confused.
 
Last edited:
Goldman clarck said:
xcept mentioning that ##u' = \frac{1}{D \cdot \alpha}## is the derivative of ##u = \frac{1}{D}## when ##\phi = 0##, where ##D## is the distance between the black hole and the observer and ##\alpha## defining the initial direction of the photon.

Hm, ok, if he's using the standard method of rewriting the orbital equations, where ##u = 1 / r##, then I can see why he would say that the value of ##u## at time ##0## (which is what I think he means by ##v_0##, although his notation is very confusing) would be ##1 / D##--but that's still only correct in the approximation where we are very far from the hole, so "distance from the hole" can be taken as a good approximation of the radial coordinate ##r##. But if he means to include trajectories of photons close to the hole's horizon, then this approximation no longer works.

In general, I don't think this is a good source from which to try to learn how to do numerical simulations in GR.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Goldman clarck
If ##u = \frac{1}{D}## is correct as an approximation (the source he stated uses the Euler method to solve the light path around a the Schwarzschild spacetime) then how ##u' = \frac{1}{D \cdot tan \alpha}## (which is confusingly denoted as ##v_1(0)## in the paper) was derived from ##u = \frac{1}{D}## when ##\phi = 0##, do you have any idea please? and what books, articles or any other source would you suggest for me to start with numerical relativity if you don't mind me asking?
 
Goldman clarck said:
If ##u = \frac{1}{D}## is correct as an approximation (the source he stated uses the Euler method to solve the light path around a the Schwarzschild spacetime) then how ##u' = \frac{1}{D \cdot tan \alpha}## (which is confusingly denoted as ##v_1(0)## in the paper) was derived from ##u = \frac{1}{D}## when ##\phi = 0##,

The ##\phi = 0## part is just because he has to choose some particular value of ##\phi## as the "initial" value (the word "initial" is a bit misleading since the trajectory can be extended into both the future and the past from this point).

I'm not sure how he's deriving ##u' = \frac{1}{D \cdot tan \alpha}## since the initial value of ##u## should be a position, not a velocity. Again, I don't think this is a good source to learn from.

Goldman clarck said:
what books, articles or any other source would you suggest for me to start with numerical relativity

Unfortunately I don't have any good references to suggest, since I have not studied numerical relativity. Possibly some other posters here might.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Goldman clarck
Thank you @PeterDonis for the valuable time you spent discussing the thread, really appreciate it.
 
Goldman clarck said:
Thank you

You're welcome!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K