Does object lose kinetic energy due to emitting gravitational waves?

I always thought when there is no force acting on an object it moves at constant speed but every object that moves generates gravitational waves what causes that object to lose energy. Does it mean that object loses kinetic energy and slows down and after some (very long) time will stop.
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,541
946
I always thought when there is no force acting on an object it moves at constant speed but every object that moves generates gravitational waves what causes that object to lose energy. Does it mean that object loses kinetic energy and slows down and after some (very long) time will stop.
Basically, yes. In GR, all orbits are, in principle, unstable and inspiral occurs until merger. Except for massive, compact objects orbiting closely, the effect is too small and too slow to ever be observed, in practice. Ultimately, this is similar to the classical EM prediction that co-orbiting opposite charges will spiral together emitting EM radiation, except that for GR the power of the radiation is miniscule and the time scale of inspiral is huge (for ordinary stars and planets).
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,601
4,880
At constant velocity an object will not emit gravitational waves. There will be a frame where it is at rest, and it obviously cannot lose energy in that frame. It needs to be accelerated (such as in an orbit, where the speed is constant, but the velocity is not)
 
There are still 2 things I don't understand about it
1.Does not moving object lose energy due to gravitation field it creates?
2.What if gravitation force caused by gravitation field is the force that causes object to move and thus lose energy? If first statement is false wouldn't it mean the energy "is created" which is considered as impossible?
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,379
1,388
1.Does not moving object lose energy due to gravitation field it creates?
No

2.What if gravitation force caused by gravitation field is the force that causes object to move and thus lose energy? If first statement is false wouldn't it mean the energy "is created" which is considered as impossible?
With two objects the system has potential energy, which is converted into kinetic energy.
 
With two objects the system has potential energy, which is converted into kinetic energy.
but when object 1 creates gravitational field and don't lose any energy to does it what causes object 2 constant acceleration gaining kinetic energy and vice versa isn't it like "gravitation constantly creates kinetic energy" ?
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,379
1,388
24,390
6,023
It needs to be accelerated
Actually, even that isn't enough; if the acceleration is constant (here we mean coordinate acceleration, since it is present for an object in a free-fall orbit), as for example in a perfectly circular orbit, no gravitational waves are emitted. The acceleration has to be changing with time (which for any real orbit it will be, since no real orbit will be perfectly circular).
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,541
946
Actually, even that isn't enough; if the acceleration is constant (here we mean coordinate acceleration, since it is present for an object in a free-fall orbit), as for example in a perfectly circular orbit, no gravitational waves are emitted. The acceleration has to be changing with time (which for any real orbit it will be, since no real orbit will be perfectly circular).
Isn't the direction of coordinate acceleration changing for a circular orbit? So you are claiming that doesn't matter? Note that the quadrupole moment is changing in time for a circular orbit, and has nonzero second derivative (at least in cartesion coordinates). Certainly the case of two equal masses co-orbiting in a circle is a canonic example of GW production. If, in the limit, of infinite mass ratio there is no GW, this seems rather trivial because, in some sense, the second body doesn't really exist.
 
24,390
6,023
Isn't the direction of coordinate acceleration changing for a circular orbit? So you are claiming that doesn't matter?
Not for GW emission, no.

Note that the quadrupole moment is changing in time for a circular orbit, and has nonzero second derivative (at least in cartesion coordinates).
IIRC, the GW emission depends on the third time derivative of the quadrupole moment, not the second. The third derivative is zero for a circular orbit (of a test body--the mass ratio issue you bring up is a valid point).
 
Last edited:

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,541
946
Not for GW emission, no.



IIRC, the GW emission depends on the third time derivative of the quadrupole moment, not the second. The third derivative is zero for a circular orbit (of a test body--the mass ratio issue you bring up is a valid point).
See:

http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/grnotes-six.pdf [Broken]
p. 158 on

The formula is for second derivative, not third. Further, exact circular orbit is discussed on p. 159 as producing GW. The test body case is s a non-sequiter not because 'exact symmetry' can't be achieved but because exact test body for finite larger mass, means the test body doesn't exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
24,390
6,023
The formula is for second derivative, not third.
The formula for the metric perturbation ##h_{\mu \nu}## depends on the second derivative. But the formula for radiated power, which is what we've been discussing, depends on the third derivative. See equation 6.105.

Regarding the circular orbit, yes, you are correct; I was mis-remembering how the third time derivative of the quadrupole moment behaves. I agree now that any two bodies with finite mass orbiting each other will have a nonzero third time derivative of their quadrupole moment, even if both orbits are exactly circular. Sorry for the confusion on my part.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,601
4,880
Actually, even that isn't enough; if the acceleration is constant (here we mean coordinate acceleration, since it is present for an object in a free-fall orbit), as for example in a perfectly circular orbit, no gravitational waves are emitted. The acceleration has to be changing with time (which for any real orbit it will be, since no real orbit will be perfectly circular).
That's true. I felt that the OP's difficulty was probably not that the problem wasn't complicated enough, though. If you feel that adding more levels of complication will help, more power to you.
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,541
946
The formula for the metric perturbation ##h_{\mu \nu}## depends on the second derivative. But the formula for radiated power, which is what we've been discussing, depends on the third derivative. See equation 6.105.

Regarding the circular orbit, yes, you are correct; I was mis-remembering how the third time derivative of the quadrupole moment behaves. I agree now that any two bodies with finite mass orbiting each other will have a nonzero third time derivative of their quadrupole moment, even if both orbits are exactly circular. Sorry for the confusion on my part.
I've always seen the first formula as the one that defines the 'existence' of GW (the formula Carroll give goes back to Einstein (1916)!). Carroll says:

"The gravitational wave produced by an isolated nonrelativistic object is therefore proportional
to the second derivative of the quadrupole moment of the energy density"

However, I would agree that a perturbation carrying no energy is not 'real radiation', and for that you need 3d derivative to be nonzero.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top