Confirming Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity With Calculus, Part 6a: New Differential Equation

In this series, I’m discussing how ideas from calculus and precalculus (with a touch of differential equations) can predict the precession in Mercury’s orbit and thus confirm Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The origins of this series came from a class project that I assigned to my Differential Equations students maybe 20 years ago.

We previously showed that if the motion of a planet around the Sun is expressed in polar coordinates (r,\theta), with the Sun at the origin, then under Newtonian mechanics (i.e., without general relativity) the motion of the planet follows the differential equation

u_0''(\theta) + u_0(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{Gm^2 M}{\ell^2},

where u_0 = 1/r, G is the gravitational constant of the universe, m is the mass of the planet, M is the mass of the Sun, and \ell is the constant angular momentum of the planet. For simplicity, we wrote \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} = \displaystyle \frac{Gm^2 M}{\ell^2}.

We will also impose the initial condition that the planet is at perihelion (i.e., is closest to the sun), at a distance of P, when \theta = 0. This means that u obtains its maximum value of 1/P when \theta = 0. This leads to the two initial conditions

u_0(0) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{P} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad u_0'(0) = 0;

the second equation arises since u has a local extremum at \theta = 0.

In previous posts, we showed that the solution of this initial-value problem is

u_0(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta}{\alpha},

where \epsilon = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{P}. Since r = 1/u_0, we see that the planet’s orbit satisfies

r = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta},

so that, as shown earlier in this series, the orbit is an ellipse with eccentricity \epsilon.

At long last, we’re now ready to see what happens under general relativity. According to the theory of general relativity, the governing differential equation for the orbit of a planet should be changed ever so slightly to

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{Gm^2 M}{\ell^2} + \frac{3GM}{c^2} [u(\theta)]^2,

where a second term was added to the right-hand side. (I will make no attempt here to justify the physics for this second term.) In this second term, c represents the speed of light. Since c is very large, this second term is very, very small. Using \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} = \displaystyle \frac{Gm^2 M}{\ell^2} as before and defining \delta = \displaystyle \frac{3GM}{c^2}, this may be simplified to

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} + \delta [u(\theta)]^2,

Finding an exact solution of this new differential equation is hopeless. While the previous differential equation was linear with constant coefficients, this new differential is decidedly nonlinear because of the new term [u(\theta)]^2.

So, instead of attempting to find an exact solution, we will use the method of successive approximations, mentioned earlier in this series, to find an approximate solution that is very, very close to the exact solution. Since \delta is very, very small, the solution of

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

will be approximately equal to the solution of the “real” differential equation under general relativity. We have already shown that the solution of this simpler differential equation is

u_0(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta}{\alpha}.

Therefore, the method of successive approximations suggests that a better approximation to the true orbit will be the solution of

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} + \delta [u_0(\theta)]^2,

or

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} + \delta \left( \frac{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta}{\alpha} \right)^2.

While significantly messier than the differential equation under Newtonian mechanics, this is now a linear differential equation that can be solved using standard techniques from differential equations. In the next few posts, we will solve this new differential equation, thus finding the predicted orbit of a planet under general relativity.

Confirming Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity With Calculus, Part 5d: Deriving Orbits under Newtonian Mechanics Using Variation of Parameters

In this series, I’m discussing how ideas from calculus and precalculus (with a touch of differential equations) can predict the precession in Mercury’s orbit and thus confirm Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The origins of this series came from a class project that I assigned to my Differential Equations students maybe 20 years ago.

We previously showed that if the motion of a planet around the Sun is expressed in polar coordinates (r,theta), with the Sun at the origin, then under Newtonian mechanics (i.e., without general relativity) the motion of the planet follows the differential equation

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha},

where u = 1/r and \alpha is a certain constant. We will also impose the initial condition that the planet is at perihelion (i.e., is closest to the sun), at a distance of P, when \theta = 0. This means that u obtains its maximum value of 1/P when \theta = 0. This leads to the two initial conditions

u(0) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{P} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad u'(0) = 0;

the second equation arises since u has a local extremum at \theta = 0.

We now take the perspective of a student who is taking a first-semester course in differential equations. There are two standard techniques for solving a second-order non-homogeneous differential equations with constant coefficients. One of these is the method of variation of parameters. First, we solve the associated homogeneous differential equation

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = 0.

The characteristic equation of this differential equation is r^2 + 1 = 0, which clearly has the two imaginary roots r = \pm i. Therefore, two linearly independent solutions of the associated homogeneous equation are u_1(\theta) = \cos \theta and u_2(\theta) = \sin \theta.

(As an aside, this is one answer to the common question, “What are complex numbers good for?” The answer is naturally above the heads of Algebra II students when they first encounter the mysterious number i, but complex numbers provide a way of solving the differential equations that model multiple problems in statics and dynamics.)

According to the method of variation of parameters, the general solution of the original nonhomogeneous differential equation

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = g(\theta)

is

u(\theta) = f_1(\theta) u_1(\theta) + f_2(\theta) u_2(\theta),

where

f_1(\theta) = -\displaystyle \int \frac{u_2(\theta) g(\theta)}{W(\theta)} d\theta ,

f_2(\theta) = \displaystyle \int \frac{u_1(\theta) g(\theta)}{W(\theta)} d\theta ,

and W(\theta) is the Wronskian of u_1(\theta) and u_2(\theta), defined by the determinant

W(\theta) = \displaystyle \begin{vmatrix} u_1(\theta) & u_2(\theta) \\ u_1'(\theta) & u_2'(\theta) \end{vmatrix}  = u_1(\theta) u_2'(\theta) - u_1'(\theta) u_2(\theta).

Well, that’s a mouthful.

Fortunately, for the example at hand, these computations are pretty easy. First, since u_1(\theta) = \cos \theta and u_2(\theta) = \sin \theta, we have

W(\theta) = (\cos \theta)(\cos \theta) - (\sin \theta)(-\sin \theta) = \cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta = 1

from the usual Pythagorean trigonometric identity. Therefore, the denominators in the integrals for f_1(\theta) and f_2(\theta) essentially disappear.

Since g(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}, the integrals for f_1(\theta) and f_2(\theta) are straightforward to compute:

f_1(\theta) = -\displaystyle \int u_2(\theta) \frac{1}{\alpha} d\theta = -\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} \int \sin \theta \, d\theta = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}\cos \theta + a,

where we use +a for the constant of integration instead of the usual +C. Second,

f_2(\theta) = \displaystyle \int u_1(\theta)  \frac{1}{\alpha} d\theta = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} \int \cos \theta \, d\theta = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}\sin \theta + b,

using +b for the constant of integration. Therefore, by variation of parameters, the general solution of the nonhomogeneous differential equation is

u(\theta) = f_1(\theta) u_1(\theta) + f_2(\theta) u_2(\theta)

= \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}\cos \theta + a \right) \cos \theta + \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}\sin\theta + b \right) \sin \theta

= a \cos \theta + b\sin \theta + \displaystyle \frac{\cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta}{\alpha}

= a \cos \theta + b \sin \theta + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}.

Unsurprisingly, this matches the answer in the previous post that was found by the method of undetermined coefficients.

For the sake of completeness, I repeat the argument used in the previous two posts to determine a and b. This is require using the initial conditions u(0) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{P} and u'(0) = 0. From the first initial condition,

u(0) = a \cos 0 + b \sin 0 + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

\displaystyle \frac{1}{P} = a + \frac{1}{\alpha}

\displaystyle \frac{1}{P} - \frac{1}{\alpha} = a

\displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{\alpha P} = a

From the second initial condition,

u'(\theta) = -a \sin \theta + b \cos \theta

u'(0) = -a \sin 0 + b \cos 0

0 = b.

From these two constants, we obtain

u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{\alpha P}  \cos \theta + 0 \sin \theta + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

= \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(  1 + \frac{\alpha-P}{P} \cos \theta \right)

= \displaystyle \frac{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta}{\alpha},

where \epsilon = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{P}.

Finally, since r = 1/u, we see that the planet’s orbit satisfies

r = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta},

so that, as shown earlier in this series, the orbit is an ellipse with eccentricity \epsilon.

Confirming Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity With Calculus, Part 5c: Deriving Orbits under Newtonian Mechanics with the Method of Undetermined Coefficients

In this series, I’m discussing how ideas from calculus and precalculus (with a touch of differential equations) can predict the precession in Mercury’s orbit and thus confirm Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The origins of this series came from a class project that I assigned to my Differential Equations students maybe 20 years ago.

We previously showed that if the motion of a planet around the Sun is expressed in polar coordinates (r,theta), with the Sun at the origin, then under Newtonian mechanics (i.e., without general relativity) the motion of the planet follows the differential equation

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha},

where u = 1/r and \alpha is a certain constant. We will also impose the initial condition that the planet is at perihelion (i.e., is closest to the sun), at a distance of P, when \theta = 0. This means that u obtains its maximum value of 1/P when \theta = 0. This leads to the two initial conditions

u(0) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{P} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad u'(0) = 0;

the second equation arises since u has a local extremum at \theta = 0.

We now take the perspective of a student who is taking a first-semester course in differential equations. There are two standard techniques for solving a second-order non-homogeneous differential equations with constant coefficients. One of these is the method of undetermined coefficients. First, we solve the associated homogeneous differential equation

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = 0.

The characteristic equation of this differential equation is r^2 + 1 = 0, which clearly has the two imaginary roots r = \pm i. Therefore, the solution of the associated homogeneous equation is u_h(\theta) = a \cos \theta + b \sin \theta.

(As an aside, this is one answer to the common question, “What are complex numbers good for?” The answer is naturally above the heads of Algebra II students when they first encounter the mysterious number i, but complex numbers provide a way of solving the differential equations that model multiple problems in statics and dynamics.)

Next, we find a particular solution to the original differential equation. Since the right-hand side is a constant and r=0 is not a solution of the characteristic equation, this leads to trying something of the form U(\theta) = A as a solution, where A is a soon-to-be-determined constant. (Guessing this form of U(\theta) is a standard technique from differential equations; later in this series, I’ll give some justification for this guess.)

Clearly, U'(\theta) = 0 and U''(\theta) = 0. Substituting, we find

U''(\theta) + U(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

0 + A = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

A = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

Therefore, U(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} is a particular solution of the nonhomogeneous differential equation.

Next, the general solution of the nonhomogeneous differential equation is found by adding the general solution to the associated homogeneous differential equation and the particular solution:

u(\theta) = u_h(\theta) + U(\theta) = a \cos \theta + b\sin \theta + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}.

Finally, to determine a and b, we use the initial conditions u(0) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{P} and u'(0) = 0. From the first initial condition,

u(0) = a \cos 0 + b \sin 0 + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

\displaystyle \frac{1}{P} = a + \frac{1}{\alpha}

\displaystyle \frac{1}{P} - \frac{1}{\alpha} = a

\displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{\alpha P} = a

From the second initial condition,

u'(\theta) = -a \sin \theta + b \cos \theta

u'(0) = -a \sin 0 + b \cos 0

0 = b.

From these two constants, we obtain

u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{\alpha P}  \cos \theta + 0 \sin \theta + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

= \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(  1 + \frac{\alpha-P}{P} \cos \theta \right)

= \displaystyle \frac{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta}{\alpha},

where \epsilon = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{P}.

Finally, since r = 1/u, we see that the planet’s orbit satisfies

r = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta},

so that, as shown earlier in this series, the orbit is an ellipse with eccentricity \epsilon.

The reader will notice that this solution is pretty much a carbon-copy of the previous post. The difference is that calculus students wouldn’t necessarily be able to independently generate the solutions of the associated homogeneous differential equation and a particular solution of the nonhomogeneous differential equation, and so the line of questioning is designed to steer students toward the answer.

Confirming Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity With Calculus, Part 5b: Deriving Orbits under Newtonian Mechanics with Calculus

In this series, I’m discussing how ideas from calculus and precalculus (with a touch of differential equations) can predict the precession in Mercury’s orbit and thus confirm Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The origins of this series came from a class project that I assigned to my Differential Equations students maybe 20 years ago.

We previously showed that if the motion of a planet around the Sun is expressed in polar coordinates (r,theta), with the Sun at the origin, then under Newtonian mechanics (i.e., without general relativity) the motion of the planet follows the differential equation

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha},

where u = 1/r and \alpha is a certain constant. We will also impose the initial condition that the planet is at perihelion (i.e., is closest to the sun), at a distance of P, when \theta = 0. This means that u obtains its maximum value of 1/P when \theta = 0. This leads to the two initial conditions

u(0) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{P} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad u'(0) = 0;

the second equation arises since u has a local extremum at \theta = 0.

In the previous post, we confirmed that

u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta}{\alpha}

solved this initial-value problem. However, the solution was unsatisfying because it gave no indication of where this guess might have come from. In this post, I suggest a series of questions that good calculus students could be asked that would hopefully lead them quite naturally to this solution.

Step 1. Let’s make the differential equation simpler, for now, by replacing the right-hand side with 0:

u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = 0,

or

u''(\theta) = -u(\theta).

Can you think of a function or two that, when you differentiate twice, you get the original function back, except with a minus sign in front?

Answer to Step 1. With a little thought, hopefully students can come up with the standard answers of u(\theta) = \cos \theta and u(\theta) = \sin \theta.

Step 2. Using these two answers, can you think of a third function that works?

Answer to Step 2. This is usually the step that students struggle with the most, as they usually try to think of something completely different that works. This won’t work, but that’s OK… we all learn from our failures. If they can’t figure out, I’ll give a big hint: “Try multiplying one of these two answers by something.” In time, they’ll see that answers like u(\theta) = 2\cos \theta and u(\theta) = 3\sin \theta work. Once that conceptual barrier is broken, they’ll usually produce the solutions u(\theta) = a \cos \theta and u(\theta) = b \sin \theta.

Step 3. Using these two answers, can you think of anything else that works?

Answer to Step 3. Again, students might struggle as they imagine something else that works. If this goes on for too long, I’ll give a big hint: “Try combining them.” Eventually, we hopefully get to the point that they’ll see that the linear combination u(\theta) = a \cos \theta + b \sin \theta also solves the associated homogeneous differential equation.

Step 4. Let’s now switch back to the original differential equation u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}. Let’s start simple: u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = 5. Can you think of an easy function that’s a solution?

Answer to Step 4. This might take some experimentation, and students will probably try unnecessarily complicated guesses first. If this goes on for too long, I’ll give a big hint: “Try a constant.” Eventually, they hopefully determine that if u(\theta) = 5 is a constant function, then clearly u'(\theta) = 0 and u''(\theta) = 0, so that u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = 5.

Step 5. Let’s return to u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}. Any guesses on an answer to this one?

Answer to Step 5. Hopefully, students quickly realize that the constant function u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} works.

Step 6. Let’s review. We’ve shown that anything of the form u(\theta) = a\cos \theta + b \sin \theta is a solution of u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = 0. We’ve also shown that u(\theta) = \displaystyle\frac{1}{\alpha} is a solution of u''(\theta) + u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}. Can you think use these two answers to find something else that works?

Answer to Step 6. Hopefully, with the experience learned from Step 3, students will guess that u(\theta) = a\cos \theta + b\sin \theta + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} will work.

Step 7. OK, that solves the differential equation. Any thoughts on how to find the values of a and b so that u(0) = \displaystyle \frac{1}{P} and u'(0) = 0?

Answer to Step 7. Hopefully, students will see that we should just plug into u(\theta):

u(0) = a \cos 0 + b \sin 0 + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

\displaystyle \frac{1}{P} = a + \frac{1}{\alpha}

\displaystyle \frac{1}{P} - \frac{1}{\alpha} = a

\displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{\alpha P} = a

To find b, we first find u'(\theta) and then substitute \theta = 0:

u'(\theta) = -a \sin \theta + b \cos \theta

u'(0) = -a \sin 0 + b \cos 0

0 = b.

From these two constants, we obtain

u(\theta) = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{\alpha P}  \cos \theta + 0 \sin \theta + \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha}

= \displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha} \left(  1 + \frac{\alpha-P}{P} \cos \theta \right)

= \displaystyle \frac{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta}{\alpha},

where \epsilon = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha - P}{P}.

Finally, since r = 1/u, we see that the planet’s orbit satisfies

r = \displaystyle \frac{\alpha}{1 + \epsilon \cos \theta},

so that, as shown earlier in this series, the orbit is an ellipse with eccentricity \epsilon.