Gravitational Analog to Maxwell's Eq.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kcdodd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analog Gravitational
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the gravitational analogs to Maxwell's equations, specifically focusing on the equations related to gravitomagnetism and the implications for momentum and energy conservation. Participants explore the derivation of these equations and the presence of a factor of two in the Lorentz force analog.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equations of gravitomagnetism and questions the factor of two in the Lorentz force analog, seeking clarity on its derivation.
  • Another participant references the Wikipedia article, suggesting it may provide an answer to the original query.
  • A different participant attempts to scale the fields to eliminate the factor of two but finds that it leads to a different factor in their derivation, indicating that the issue may not be straightforward.
  • Another participant shares a dissertation they found relevant to the topic, indicating ongoing interest in the subject matter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance and implications of the factor of two in the Lorentz force analog, with no consensus reached on how to resolve the issue.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the derivations and interpretations may depend on specific assumptions or scaling methods, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

kcdodd
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
To start, I came across this wikipedia entry on a gravitational analog to maxwell's equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Restating the listed equations:

\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E_g} + 4\pi G \rho_g = 0

\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B_g} = 0

\nabla \times \mathbf {E_g} + \frac{\partial \mathbf {B_g}}{\partial t} = 0

\nabla \times \mathbf {B_g} - \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \mathbf {E_g}}{\partial t} + \frac{4\pi G}{c^2}\mathbf{J_g}= 0

Now, they also list the lorentz force analog (which I will rewrite as the force density here):

\mathbf{F} = \rho_g \mathbf{E_g} + \mathbf{J_g}\times 2\mathbf{B_g}

That factor of two in front of the magnetic analog is what my question is all about.

When I follow a procedure to derive momentum conservation by manipulating the above equations in the same way done for maxwells equations, I arrive at this:

\frac{1}{4\pi G} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathbf{E_g}\times\mathbf{B_g}) + \frac{1}{4\pi G}(\nabla\frac{1}{2}E_g^2 - (\mathbf{E_g}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{E_g} - (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E_g})\mathbf{E_g}) + \frac{c^2}{4\pi G}(\nabla\frac{1}{2}B_g^2 - (\mathbf{B_g}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{B_g} - (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B_g})\mathbf{B_g}) - \rho_g\mathbf{E_g} - \mathbf{J_g}\times\mathbf{B_g} = 0

Where the two messy parts I would naively identify as the divergence of the stress tensor of the gravity field. And the source terms as the Lorentz force analog. However, I do not get a factor of 2 in front of the JxB term, which bothers me.

And, also for completeness, for energy conservation I got:

\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\nabla\cdot (\mathbf{E_g}\times \mathbf{B_g}) + \frac{1}{8\pi G}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(E_g^2 + c^2B_g^2) - \mathbf{J_g}\cdot\mathbf{E_g} = 0

Both look pretty much the same as for EM, except the minus signs in front of the sources, and the constants of course. However, the absence of the 2 in the Lorentz force bothers me. I can manipulate the derivation to get a two there, however that throws off the identification of the stress tensor because the derivatives do not factor, and a factor of 2 appears in the constants as well. EG

\frac{1}{2\pi G} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\mathbf{E_g}\times\mathbf{B_g}) + \frac{1}{2\pi G}(\nabla\frac{1}{2}E_g^2 - (\mathbf{E_g}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{E_g} - \frac{1}{2}(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E_g})\mathbf{E_g}) + \frac{c^2}{2\pi G}(\nabla\frac{1}{2}B_g^2 - (\mathbf{B_g}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{B_g} - (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B_g})\mathbf{B_g}) - \rho_g\mathbf{E_g} - \mathbf{J_g}\times2\mathbf{B_g} = 0

Any help on understanding the problem will be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The WP article you linked to seems to answer your question, at "In some literature..."

-Ben
 
If I scale the fields by 1/2 as they suggest to get rid of the 2, then I get 1/2 there when doing the derivation. I don't think its that simple.
 
I was actually recently looking at the same WP article.

I also found this disertation interesting: http://idea.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/1123/1/Medina_Jairzinho.pdf"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
988
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K