Solving A2/15 B2/23 (Part ii) on Page 50 Cambridge Maths

Tangent87
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am doing question A2/15 B2/23 (specifically part (ii)) at the top of page 50 here:

http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/pastpapers/2001/Part_2/list_II.pdf

I have done everything up to and including showing the impact parameter is given by b=h/E, but I am having trouble doing parts (a), (b), (c). To be honest I don't even know where to start, it says to consider equation (*) and so far all I've been able to show is that if \frac{dr}{d\lambda}=0 then we have the cubic equation for r: r^3-b^2r+2Mb^2=0. But looking at the three separate cases in parts a,b, and c I'm guessing we want some kind of quadratic where the discriminant is b^2-27M?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
fzero said:
It sounds like they want you to know Cardano's method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_function#Cardano.27s_method There is a discriminant for roots of the cubic.

You may well be right, as using Cardano's method we get this as one of the solutions to the cubic:

r=(Mb^2)^{1/3}\left[\left(-1+\sqrt{1-\frac{b^2}{27M^2}}\right)^{1/3}+\left(-1-\sqrt{1-\frac{b^2}{27M^2}}\right)^{1/3}\right]

So now we can kind of see where the conditions on b2 and M2 are going to come from. But I'm not sure what we've done physically, i.e.

Why do we set dr/d\lambda equal to zero?
What is the GR significance of the solution r we found above?
Do we have to worry about the other two roots to the equation?

I think we need to answer these questions first before we do anything else.
 
I'm not sure how much use this is but could you not use a particle in a potential approach.

You have the equation ( \frac{dr}{ d\tau} )^2 + V(r) = E^2

You can show that the potential has a maximum at r=3M with V(r=3M)=\frac{h^2}{27M^2}

Now the particle has energy E and we know from the definition of impact parameter that b= | \frac{h}{E} | so E^2=\frac{h^2}{b^2}

So if the particle has energy greater than the potential then it has enough energy to reach r=2M and be swallowed by the black hole. This means

E^2 > V(r) \Rightarrow \frac{h^2}{b^2} > \frac{h^2}{27M^2} \Rightarrow b^2 < 27 M^2

That would answer part b) I think. You can then do something similar for a).

As for c), I would GUESS (but am far from sure) that it would be some sort of orbit around the black hole. Since if b>27M^2 it's reflected and if b<27M^2 it's swallowed so if b=27M^2 wouldn't it make sense for there to be a balance between attraction and repulsion?
 
Tangent87 said:
You may well be right, as using Cardano's method we get this as one of the solutions to the cubic:

r=(Mb^2)^{1/3}\left[\left(-1+\sqrt{1-\frac{b^2}{27M^2}}\right)^{1/3}+\left(-1-\sqrt{1-\frac{b^2}{27M^2}}\right)^{1/3}\right]

So now we can kind of see where the conditions on b2 and M2 are going to come from. But I'm not sure what we've done physically, i.e.

Why do we set dr/d\lambda equal to zero?
What is the GR significance of the solution r we found above?
Do we have to worry about the other two roots to the equation?

I think we need to answer these questions first before we do anything else.

dr/d\lambda tells us whether the photon is moving towards or away from the BH. For the photon approaching from infinity, dr/d\lambda&lt;0 for large initial r (so we would take the negative root of (*) for consistency). Now if dr/d\lambda \neq 0 for any positive r, then the photon will continue traveling to r=0. If there is a root, then the sign of dr/d\lambda changes and the photon is moving away from the BH. I suppose we need to compare with r_s=2M to see that if the root is physical.

You will need to consider all roots on principle to determine if there is a physical root corresponding to deflection. You should find that for b^2=27M^2 there are two degenerate real roots, so dr/d\lambda will not change sign.
 
Thank you all, although I quite like latentcorpse's approach as we then don't need to solve a cubic.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Replies
51
Views
10K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Back
Top