A Some questions about the derivation steps in the Gravitational deflection of light section in Schutz

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of equation (11.53) from equation (11.49) in the context of gravitational deflection of light. The original poster expresses confusion about neglecting the term ##2Mu^3## and how to incorporate the additional term of ##O(M^2u^2)##. They attempt to derive the relationship using the chain rule and approximations, but realize they made an error in their calculations. The key point is the transition from the approximations made in the derivation, particularly regarding the behavior of the terms as ##Mu## approaches zero. Ultimately, the clarification emphasizes the importance of careful handling of the approximations in the derivation process.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
TL;DR
My question is referring to some derivation from pages 293-294 of Schutz's second edition (2009) of A First Course in GR.
In the screenshots below there are the equations (11.49) and (11.53).

I don't understand how did he derive equation (11.53) from Eq.(11.49)?
From (11.49) I get: ##d\phi/dy= d\phi/du du/dy = (1/b^2-u^2+2Mu^3)^{-1/2}(1+2My)##.
It seems he neglected the ##2Mu^3## since ##Mu\ll 1##, so ##y\approx u##, but how do we get the added term of ##O(M^2u^2)##?

schutz2.pngschutz1.png
schutz1.png
schutz2.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would have thought\begin{align*}
\dfrac{d\phi}{dy} = \dfrac{d\phi}{du} \left( \dfrac{dy}{du} \right)^{-1} &= \dfrac{( 1 - 2Mu)^{-1} }{\left( b^{-2} - u^2(1-2Mu) \right)^{1/2}}
\end{align*}then because ##y^2 = u^2(1-Mu)^2 \sim u^2(1-2Mu)## and also ##(1-2Mu)^{-1} \sim 1+2Mu + O(M^2u^2) \sim 1 + 2My + O(M^2u^2)## you get ##\mathrm{11.53}##...
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and MathematicalPhysicist
ergospherical said:
I would have thought\begin{align*}
\dfrac{d\phi}{dy} = \dfrac{d\phi}{du} \left( \dfrac{dy}{du} \right)^{-1} &= \dfrac{( 1 - 2Mu)^{-1} }{\left( b^{-2} - u^2(1-2Mu) \right)^{1/2}}
\end{align*}then because ##y^2 = u^2(1-Mu)^2 \sim u^2(1-2Mu)## and also ##(1-2Mu)^{-1} \sim 1+2Mu + O(M^2u^2) \sim 1 + 2My + O(M^2u^2)## you get ##\mathrm{11.53}##...
It seems I got it wrong. Thanks for correcting me.
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...