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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether light loses energy and changes frequency due to gravitational waves. Participants explore the implications of gravitational waves on the frequency of light emitted from distant galaxies, considering both theoretical and observational aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that light, as energy moving through spacetime, should lose energy due to gravitational waves, leading to a decrease in frequency as observed from a distant galaxy.
  • Another participant reiterates the idea that light should lose energy due to gravitational waves but notes that gravitational radiation is quadrupole and that objects moving at constant speed do not emit gravitational waves.
  • A different participant acknowledges that light experiences redshift due to the expansion of the universe, which may relate to the broader discussion of frequency changes.
  • One participant questions the correctness of the original premise regarding photon propagation and gravitational wave emission, introducing the concept of high-frequency gravitational waves (HFGWs) produced by thermal motion in stars, and notes a lack of references to contributions from radiation (photons).
  • This participant also raises a point about the treatment of photons as point particles in quantum electrodynamics (QED) and questions the implications of this perspective in relation to gravitational wave production.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between light, gravitational waves, and frequency changes. There is no consensus on whether light loses energy due to gravitational waves or how this relates to the behavior of photons in stellar environments.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the nature of gravitational waves and their interaction with light remain unaddressed. The discussion also highlights the complexity of gravitational wave production and the role of thermal radiation in stellar contexts, which may not be fully resolved.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K