A Gravitational Energy: Field x Moment

jaumzaum
Messages
433
Reaction score
33
Hello!
I was wondering if it is possible to express the gravitational energy as a product of the gravitational field by a moment, as we do with the magnetic and electric energy? Would this require the existence of bodies with negative mass? How could we relate this to the existence or total energy of a gravitational wave?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
The source term for gravitational radiation is a time varying quadropole moment, if that's what you mean. There's no dipole term possible because mass is always positive.

As far as I'm aware the only time an energy of the gravitational field is completely well defined is in the stationary case, which is just the gravitational potential. But by definition a changing quadropole moment is not stationary, so I don't think this applies.
 
Moderator's note: Moved thread to relativity forum.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
jaumzaum said:
I was wondering if it is possible to express the gravitational energy as a product of the gravitational field by a moment

You mean can we take U = mgh and arrange it like so: U = g(mh)? Sure. But why?
 
jaumzaum said:
Hello!
I was wondering if it is possible to express the gravitational energy as a product of the gravitational field by a moment, as we do with the magnetic and electric energy? Would this require the existence of bodies with negative mass? How could we relate this to the existence or total energy of a gravitational wave?

We've got about three different restricted definitions of energy in GR that I'm aware of, which in general are derived from the metric, and not from a 'gravitational field', which is a bit vague. These are due to Bondi, ADM, and Komarr, and none of them are in the form of mgh, which I am guessing what you mean by the product of a field (g) and a moment (mh). So I'd venture to say the answer is "no".

Most of the definitions we have of energy require asymptotic flatness, so they don't apply to an infinite expanding universe. Komarr's defintion is linked to Noether's theorem, which arose from Hilbert's investigations into energy in GR, and requires time translation symmetry. It also doesn't apply to an infinite expanding universe.
 
  • Like
Likes PAllen
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top