Exploring the 2-Body Problem in General Relativity

  • Thread starter quantum123
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Body Gr
In summary: Here, the field due to the cable is far too weak to contribute significantly to the motion of the test particle. In fact, the test particle will almost always travel along the same path as the cable, regardless of the mass of the objects involved.
  • #1
quantum123
306
1
For a 2 body problem in GR, will the metric be that due to one body, or both bodies?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If one body isn't very massive, you use the metric due to the other body, and just have to integrate the geodesic equation for the first. If you think the curvature of spacetime depends on both bodies, you're going to have to find a metric that satisfies the field equation AND physically describes two masses with your initial conditions. This is quite difficult (although as a bonus it will also tell you what kind of gravitational wave signal is produced) and its a good bet there are computers working on this problem right now (hopefully the people take a break for Christmas).
 
  • #3
cesiumfrog said:
If one body isn't very massive, you use the metric due to the other body, and just have to integrate the geodesic equation for the first.

I think this is called "the restricted two-body problem". Since it has the additional constraint that the second object be massless (at least to a good approximation).
 
  • #4
There is an axisymmetric "double Kerr vacuum solution" (two bodies) which can be written down (using a lot of space) in closed form, but its interpretation is trickier than the Kerr vacuum solution (one body).
 
  • #5
In classical electrodynamics, when we have 2 electric charge, we consider the motion of one charge due to the electric field of another and not the resultant field of both of them, otherwise we will be using the "self" field.
You mean in GR, we need to consider the metric of the two body in order to derive the geodesic of anyone body?
 
  • #6
Hi, quantum123, I am not sure whether you are talking to me or not:

quantum123 said:
You mean in GR, we need to consider the metric of the two body in order to derive the geodesic of anyone body?

I can't make sense of this question as stated, but here are some thoughts which might help:

1. by "derive the geodesic of anyone body" you probably mean "solve the geodesic equations in a spacetime model to find the world line of a test particle", whose mass is assumed to be too small to disturb the ambient gravitational field,

2. by "the metric of the two body" you probably mean "an exact vacuum solution of the EFE modeling two bodies forming a gravitationally bound isolated system" (so that this spacetime should be asymptotically flat but not axisymmetric, and not stationary since the two objects should very gradually "spiral" in upon each other),

3. gtr is a relativistic and nonlinear classical field theory, whereas Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is a relativistic and linear classical field theory,

4. the problem of determing the motion of a test particle orbiting an isolated object is not the same as the problem of finding an exact solution describing two objects forming a gravitationally bound isolated system, because in the first case we assume the mass of the test particle is too small to disturb the field of the large object, so in the first case we have the one body problem and in the second the two body problem,

5. the EFE implies that the world lines of test particles are timelike geodesics, and even (with due care) something similar for sizeable bodies; see the "Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman procedure".
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Chris Hillman said:
There is an axisymmetric "double Kerr vacuum solution" (two bodies) which can be written down (using a lot of space) in closed form, but its interpretation is trickier than the Kerr vacuum solution (one body).

Doesn't the double Kerr vacuum solution use an "ideal rod" to keep the two masses apart? Wikipedia mentions something about cables... but I seem to remember reading about the bodies being separated by a rod in some way.

Chris Hillman said:
4. the problem of determing the motion of a test particle orbiting an isolated object is not the same as the problem of finding an exact solution describing two objects forming a gravitationally bound isolated system

Just out of curioisity, is this because even a zero mass particle will effect the gravitational field? So as the mass of an object tends towards zero its path does not tend towards the path through the field from a non-field generating test particle? All though I can imagine the contribution to be minimal.. this makes sense to me considering that an electromagnetic field, for instance, can create a gravitational attraction.
 
  • #8
Jheriko said:
Just out of curioisity, is this because even a zero mass particle will effect the gravitational field?

Here's what I think Chris is saying. Consider a situation in which two massive bodiles (e.g., black holes, neutron stars, etc.) orbit their "centre of mass". In this case, both bodies make substantial contributions to the stress-energy-momentum tensor of the system, so describinging the "dynamics" and "orbital motion" of the system involves solving the Einstein field equation for the appropriate spacetime metric.

Contrast this with the motion of a test particle near a massive body whose metric (e.g., Schwarzschild, Kerr, etc.) is already known. The motion of the test particle is found by solving the geodesic equation of the known metric.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
quantum123 said:
In classical electrodynamics, when we have 2 electric charge, we consider the motion of one charge due to the electric field of another and not the resultant field of both of them, otherwise we will be using the "self" field.

To do things correctly, you do have to use the self-field. It's only in a first (though usually excellent) approximation that the self-fields can be neglected when computing bulk equations-of-motion. A piece of charge cannot "know" which portion of the field around it is due to matter attached to it versus matter that isn't. So the relevant field must be the full physically-measurable one sourced by all objects in combination.

It is possible to show that in many cases of interest, the self-field has an insignificant effect, but that is certainly not true in general.


You mean in GR, we need to consider the metric of the two body in order to derive the geodesic of anyone body?

First of all, objects in GR do not always move on geodesics. In general, that is not the correct way to compute an object's motion (though it will often be close). Regardless, there is a known exact procedure to calculate the center-of-mass motion if the metric is known. As in electromagnetism, the metric used in these equations must be the full one.

But there are other issues in GR that don't exist in Maxwell theory. Perhaps the most conceptually important is that any motion you calculate only has meaning when supplemented with knowledge of the local geometry. You can't say where an object is going with any real meaning if you don't understand concepts of distance, angle, etc. Those concepts are defined by the full physical metric.

Beyond this, (as Chris mentioned) GR is a nonlinear theory. The metric perturbation induced by object B in the vicinity of A depends (a bit) on the metric perturbation of A itself.

Anyway, as in EM, there are interesting regimes where all of these problems can be justifiably ignored or dealt with to a good degree of approximation. The self-fields have no effect on bulk motion in the Newtonian limit, and that can of course be recovered from GR when the appropriate approximations are made.
 

1. What is the 2-body problem in general relativity?

The 2-body problem in general relativity is a theoretical framework used to study the gravitational interactions between two massive objects in the context of Einstein's theory of general relativity. It takes into account the curvature of spacetime caused by the masses of the two objects, and how this curvature affects their motion.

2. How is the 2-body problem different in general relativity compared to classical mechanics?

In classical mechanics, the gravitational force between two objects is described by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which assumes that gravity is a force acting instantaneously at a distance. In general relativity, gravity is described as the curvature of spacetime caused by the masses of the objects, and this curvature affects the motion of the objects in a more complex way than Newton's law.

3. What are some applications of studying the 2-body problem in general relativity?

Studying the 2-body problem in general relativity has important applications in astrophysics and cosmology. It can help us understand the motion of planets and other celestial objects in our solar system, as well as the behavior of binary star systems. It is also crucial for accurately predicting the motion of objects in the strong gravitational fields of black holes and neutron stars.

4. Is the 2-body problem in general relativity a solved problem?

No, the 2-body problem in general relativity is still an active area of research and there are ongoing efforts to find exact solutions for different scenarios. While there are some approximate solutions and numerical methods that can be used, finding exact solutions for the equations of motion in general relativity is a challenging task.

5. How does the 2-body problem in general relativity relate to the study of gravitational waves?

The 2-body problem in general relativity is closely related to the study of gravitational waves, which are ripples in spacetime caused by the acceleration of massive objects. The motion of two massive objects in a binary system can produce gravitational waves, and studying the 2-body problem is crucial for accurately predicting the properties of these waves and detecting them with gravitational wave detectors.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
912
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
78
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
387
Back
Top