Gravitational Analog to Maxwell's Eq.

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:
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
Back
Top