Solving for the Missing Factor: Jumping into a Non-Rotating Black Hole

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cozycoz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proper time experienced by a person free-falling into a non-rotating black hole, specifically focusing on the derivation of an equation related to this scenario as presented in Lambourne's book. Participants are examining the mathematical steps and simplifications involved in reaching the final expression for proper time.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derived expression for proper time as a function of radial position, questioning the presence of a factor of ##\frac{2}{3}## in the book's result.
  • Another participant suggests that the simplifications made in the derivation may be missing a factor of ##\frac{1}{2}## and recommends considering higher-order terms in the Taylor expansion of the arctangent function.
  • A third participant offers an alternative derivation that leads to a different expression for proper time, arguing that their approach does not involve trigonometric functions and yields a result without the ##\pi/2## term.
  • A later reply acknowledges a previous omission of the ##\frac{1}{2}## factor but claims that it does not affect the overall result, while also confirming the presence of the ##\frac{2}{3}## factor in their calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the derivation of the proper time equation, with some supporting the book's result and others proposing alternative approaches. There is no consensus on the correct expression or the factors involved in the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their simplifications, particularly regarding the treatment of Taylor series expansions and the inclusion of higher-order terms. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainty about the mathematical steps leading to the final expressions.

cozycoz
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
I'm reading Lambourne's <Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology>, and I cannot get a result the book describes. It's on equation (6.7) in 173p.

When a person free-falls into a non-rotating black hole from ##r=r_0## to some position ##r=r'##, the proper time becomes
$$τ(r')-τ(r_0)=\frac{r_0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r_S}}[\frac{π}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0}(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})}+\arctan(-\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0-r'}})].$$

Now we can simplify the above by taking the limits of ##r_0>>r'##.
First, using ##\arctan{x}=x+O(x^3)##,
$$\arctan(-\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0-r'}})=-\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0-r'}}+O[(-\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0-r'}})^3],$$
and here, for
$$\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0-r'}}=\sqrt{\frac{\frac{r'}{r_0}}{1-\frac{r'}{r_0}}} << 1,$$
we can ignore ##O(x^3)##. Then
$$\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0}(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})}+\arctan(-\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0-r'}})$$ $$≈\frac{r_0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r_S}}[\frac{π}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0}}(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})^{\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{\frac{r'}{r_0}}(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})^{-\frac{1}{2}}].$$

By using
$$(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})^{\frac{1}{2}}≈1-\frac{r'}{r_0}$$ $$(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})^{-\frac{1}{2}}≈1+\frac{r'}{r_0},$$
I get
$$τ(r')-τ(r_0)=\frac{r_0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r_S}}[\frac{π}{2}-(\frac{r'}{r_0})^{\frac{3}{2}}].$$
This is my result, but the book says

$$τ(r')-τ(r_0)=\frac{r_0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r_S}}[\frac{π}{2}-\frac{2}{3}(\frac{r'}{r_0})^{\frac{3}{2}}].$$

Where did the factor ##\frac{2}{3}## come from?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$$(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})^{\frac{1}{2}}≈1-\frac{r'}{r_0}$$ This is missing a factor 1/2 for the fraction on the right side. Same for the following equation.

You probably have to consider the x3 term of the arctan. The leading term of the argument to the third power has the same power as your result.
 
cozycoz said:
$$τ(r')-τ(r_0)=\frac{r_0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r_S}}[\frac{π}{2}-\frac{2}{3}(\frac{r'}{r_0})^{\frac{3}{2}}].$$

There's something strange about that result. An alternative derivation of the ##r_0 \gg r_S## case is as follows:

Start with the equation:

##(\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 = c^2 [ \frac{E}{mc^2} - 1 + \frac{r_s}{r}]##

##E## turns out to be the constant value of the expression ##mc^2 (1 - \frac{r_s}{r}) \frac{dt}{d\tau}##. If the object drops from ##r_0 \gg r_S##, then ##E \approx mc^2##. So the equation simplifies to:

##(\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 = c^2 [ \frac{r_s}{r}]##

This has the exact solution:

##\tau = \frac{r_0}{c} \sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r_S}} (1 - (\frac{r}{r_0})^{\frac{3}{2}})##

There is no ##\pi/2##. With the choice ##E = mc^2##, there is no trigonometric functions involved, it's just rational powers of ##r##.

One way to see that this equation works is that in the limit ##r \rightarrow r_0##, ##\tau \rightarrow 0##.
 
mfb said:
$$(1-\frac{r'}{r_0})^{\frac{1}{2}}≈1-\frac{r'}{r_0}$$ This is missing a factor 1/2 for the fraction on the right side. Same for the following equation.

You probably have to consider the x3 term of the arctan. The leading term of the argument to the third power has the same power as your result.
I omitted ##\frac{1}{2}## only here. I actually calculated with it so it changes nothing, sorry for the mistake!

But I've done considering ##x^3## term and got ##\frac{2}{3}## factor. Thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K