Weak field Newtonian limit

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the gravitational field strength \( g \) from the De Sitter-Schwarzschild spacetime, particularly in the context of weak field limits. Participants explore the implications of using natural units where \( G = c = 1 \) and how to derive the gravitational field strength from the equations presented.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation involving the Ricci tensor and the relationship between the gravitational field strength and energy density, leading to an expression for \( \nabla^2 \phi \).
  • Another participant questions the meaning of "normal units" and suggests that the units used in the original post are acceptable, while also providing a formula for gravitational field strength as \( g^i \equiv \partial^i \phi \).
  • A clarification is made regarding the term "normal units," indicating that it refers to setting \( G = c = 1 \).
  • Participants discuss the need to solve the Poisson equation and mention additional resources that may assist in understanding the problem better.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the interpretation of "normal units," as participants express differing views on the appropriateness of the units used. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the method to derive the gravitational field strength from the equations presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached a resolution on how to express the results in conventional units, and there are unresolved aspects regarding the additional constant mentioned in the context of the Poisson equation.

lailola
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have to calculate the gravitational field strength g given by the De Sitter-Schwarzschild spacetime.

If G=c=1 I get:

[itex]R_{00}\simeq -kT_{00}+\frac{1}{2}kT\eta_{00}+\Lambda \eta_{00}\simeq[/itex]

[itex]-kT_{00}+\frac{1}{2}kT_{00}\eta^{00}\eta_{00} +\Lambda \eta_{00}\simeq -\frac{1}{2}kT_{00}+ \Lambda =-\frac{1}{2}k\rho+ \Lambda[/itex]

On the other side:

[itex]R_{00}\simeq -\Gamma_{00,j}^j \simeq -\frac{1}{2}\bigtriangledown^2g_{00}\simeq -\bigtriangledown^2 \phi[/itex]

Equaling:

[itex]\bigtriangledown^2 \phi=\frac{1}{2}k\rho-\Lambda=4piG\rho-\Lambda[/itex]

The first problem I have is that I don't know how to get this result in normal units, and the second problem is that, from here, I have to find the gravitational field strength g, and I don't know how to do it.

thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What precisely are "normal units"? I would say the units as you use here are just fine. Second, the gravitational field strength is given by

[tex] g^i \equiv \partial^i \phi [/tex]

whereas you have found an expression for [itex]\partial_i \partial^i \phi[/itex]. Looking at the general method to solve the Poisson equation for lambda=0 should help you, e.g. here:

http://cass.ucsd.edu/~ppadoan/new_website/physics105b/Lecture3.pdf

You have an extra constant, which modifies this solution. See also

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0004037,

eqn.2.6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With 'normal' units I mean G=c=1
 
haushofer said:
What precisely are "normal units"? I would say the units as you use here are just fine. Second, the gravitational field strength is given by

[tex] g^i \equiv \partial^i \phi [/tex]

whereas you have found an expression for [itex]\partial_i \partial^i \phi[/itex]. Looking at the general method to solve the Poisson equation for lambda=0 should help you, e.g. here:

http://cass.ucsd.edu/~ppadoan/new_website/physics105b/Lecture3.pdf

You have an extra constant, which modifies this solution. See also

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0004037,

eqn.2.6.

Thank you haushofer, those links have helped me a lot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lailola said:
With 'normal' units I mean G=c=1
Well, there is no c in your equations, so that's easy: just put G=1 :P

Glad I could help :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K