- #1

shalayka

- 126

- 0

After doing some playing around with area lights in raytracing, I realized that the shape of the emitter has a lot to do with the intensity falloff rate (when the "photons" are always emitted in a direction normal to the surface).

ex: A spherical emitter's field falls off with 1/r^2, a cylindrical emitter's field with 1/r^1, and a plane emitter's field with 1/r^0 (no falloff). I'm assuming there is a law or postulate associated with this falloff-curvature relation, but I don't know what it's called.

What I'm wondering about is whether or not the gravitational field of a macroscopic scale spherical mass is considered to be generated purely by the acceleration of its constituent microscopic / atomic / sub-atomic scale particles (similar to braking radiation)?

ex: Is the field considered to consist of many tiny gravitational waves?

The reason I ask is that if this is the case, and the constituent particles could be formed into a disc and made to oscillate only along the plane (no "up/down" oscillation), would the gravitational field fall off at a rate of 1/r? (The "field" would also be 2D at this point).

To take this further would be to make the constituent particles oscillate along only one direction, forming a 1D field (beam) of gravitational waves with no falloff. From what I understand, this would be similar to the macroscopic gravitational wave, except that there would be many small waves instead of just a single big one?

Is the falloff for a spherical emitter in 4D based on 1/r^3? A spherical emitter in 5D based on 1/r^4?

From what I can gather from various books, there is no such thing as a gravitational "shadow". That is, gravitation isn't blocked by mass like light is. Is this interpretation correct? The reason I wonder is because I also gathered that gravitational waves are self-interacting, so I can't see how a more compact form of energy (mass) wouldn't interact as well, also causing a deflection of the waves. I've also considered that the frequency of the gravitational wave might be a factor, similar to the photoelectric effect, where the absorption and conversion of the photon's energy into an electron's kinetic energy depends on whether or not the energy of the photon meets the requirement of the material's work function.

Thank you for any info you have on the subject. I know it's a lot of questions.

ex: A spherical emitter's field falls off with 1/r^2, a cylindrical emitter's field with 1/r^1, and a plane emitter's field with 1/r^0 (no falloff). I'm assuming there is a law or postulate associated with this falloff-curvature relation, but I don't know what it's called.

What I'm wondering about is whether or not the gravitational field of a macroscopic scale spherical mass is considered to be generated purely by the acceleration of its constituent microscopic / atomic / sub-atomic scale particles (similar to braking radiation)?

ex: Is the field considered to consist of many tiny gravitational waves?

The reason I ask is that if this is the case, and the constituent particles could be formed into a disc and made to oscillate only along the plane (no "up/down" oscillation), would the gravitational field fall off at a rate of 1/r? (The "field" would also be 2D at this point).

To take this further would be to make the constituent particles oscillate along only one direction, forming a 1D field (beam) of gravitational waves with no falloff. From what I understand, this would be similar to the macroscopic gravitational wave, except that there would be many small waves instead of just a single big one?

Is the falloff for a spherical emitter in 4D based on 1/r^3? A spherical emitter in 5D based on 1/r^4?

From what I can gather from various books, there is no such thing as a gravitational "shadow". That is, gravitation isn't blocked by mass like light is. Is this interpretation correct? The reason I wonder is because I also gathered that gravitational waves are self-interacting, so I can't see how a more compact form of energy (mass) wouldn't interact as well, also causing a deflection of the waves. I've also considered that the frequency of the gravitational wave might be a factor, similar to the photoelectric effect, where the absorption and conversion of the photon's energy into an electron's kinetic energy depends on whether or not the energy of the photon meets the requirement of the material's work function.

Thank you for any info you have on the subject. I know it's a lot of questions.

Last edited: