Does Light Lose Energy and Change Frequency Due to Gravitational Waves?

rahuljayanthb
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
hi,
since light is energy moving through the fabric of space time at velocity c , it should lose energy due to gravitational waves. doesn't this mean that the light from a distant galaxy would keep decreasing in frequency? further more this would imply that light that was originally emitted as blue light would be observed by the observer as (say) red assuming the observer and galaxy are at relative rest.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rahuljayanthb said:
since light is energy moving through the fabric of space time at velocity c , it should lose energy due to gravitational waves.
Gravitational radiation is quadrupole. An object moving at constant speed does not emit gravitational waves.
 
Light does get redshifted due to the expansion of the universe, however.
 
While the OP's premise of straight line photon propagation giving gravitational wave emission is not per se correct, there is something else here that surely needs a good answer. The expected production of HFGW's (high frequency gravitational waves) owing to thermal motion of matter within say the sun, white dwarf stars, neutron stars etc has been calculated e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3343.
Cannot find a single reference to any contribution from radiation (photons). Which seems strange because in large hot stars for instance pressure from thermal radiation dominates. A simple appeal to relativistic beaming would, by analogy with Bremsstrahlung radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung , suggest an infinitely large contribution to HFGW's from photon emission/absorption/scattering events within stellar cores. This doesn't happen. So does this have something to say about the applicability of treating photons as point particles that propagate through space at c? One school of thought in QED views them as such.
 
Last edited:
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
966
Replies
26
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top