Could anyone explain to me what I have misunderstood/missed when trying to understand this paper on GR perturbation?

The paper is http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0299v1.pdf

In equation 25 for $R_{00}$,

$$R_{00}= -\frac{1}{2} [\nabla^2 h_{00}+\partial_i h_{00}\partial^i h_{00} -h^{ij}\partial_i\partial_j h_{00}]$$

which if we jump to section V:C where they calculate $h_{00}$ to $\mathcal{O}(4)$, I would have thought this (which equals the LHS of equation 45) gives

$$-[\nabla^2 (U+(1/2)h_{00}^{[4]})+2\partial_i U\partial^i U +2U\nabla^2 U] = -\nabla^2 U-\nabla^2 h_{00}^{[4]} -\nabla^2 U^2$$ right? I am pretty sure I have misunderstood something because when using the well-established equations in the appendix (A2), since there is no contribution to the $\rho v^2$ and $\rho U$ terms from the LHS and they have opposite signs on the RHS of equation 45, how does one get the familiar result - equation 46 - for $h_{00}$ where the coefficents of $\Phi_1, \Phi_2$ are of the same sign? Thank you.

| cite | improve this question | | | | |

The equation you have written is not correct, that is $$ -[\nabla^2 (U+(1/2)h_{00}^{[4]})+2\partial_i U\partial^i U +2U\nabla^2 U] \ne -\nabla^2 U-\nabla^2 h_{00}^{[4]} -\nabla^2 U^2. $$ Rather, it should be $$ -[\nabla^2 (U+(1/2)h_{00}^{[4]})+2\partial_i U\partial^i U +2U\nabla^2 U] = -(1+2U)\nabla^2 U-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2 h_{00}^{[4]} -\nabla^2 U^2-2|\nabla U|^2. $$

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.