Gravitational Radiation and Cosmological Constant

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between gravitational radiation and the cosmological constant, particularly in the context of gravitational wave detection. Participants explore the implications of a non-zero cosmological constant on the propagation of gravitational waves and whether it is considered in current gravitational wave searches, such as those conducted by Advanced LIGO.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the cosmological constant is rarely mentioned in discussions about gravitational waves, suggesting it should impact radiation propagation due to the non-Ricci flat background.
  • The same participant presents a modified equation of motion for gravitational perturbations that includes the cosmological constant, indicating potential effects on wave dynamics.
  • Another participant suggests that the small value of the cosmological constant might explain its absence in discussions, but questions whether this implies a negligible impact on wave dynamics.
  • A different participant notes that LIGO may not be sensitive enough to detect effects from the cosmological constant, proposing that LISA might be more suitable for such investigations.
  • References to recent research and summaries are provided to support the discussion, indicating ongoing exploration in the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of the cosmological constant in the context of gravitational wave propagation. While some acknowledge its smallness as a reason for its neglect, others argue that this does not necessarily mean it lacks impact. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which the cosmological constant should be considered in gravitational wave research.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the cosmological constant's effects and the sensitivity of current gravitational wave detectors. The mathematical implications of the modified equation of motion are not fully explored, leaving open questions about the dynamics involved.

Markus Hanke
Messages
259
Reaction score
45
How come that, in the context of discussing the search for gravitational waves, I never see the cosmological constant mentioned ? We know that ##\Lambda \neq 0##, so this seems strange to me; in the presence of a non-vanishing constant, the background is not Ricci flat in the vacuum case, so this should have some impact on how the radiation propagates. In fact, in the linearised case, and in Lorentz gauge, the equation of motion for the perturbance ##h_{\mu \nu}## becomes

[tex]\displaystyle{\square \left ( h_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu}h \right )=-2\Lambda \left (\eta_{\mu \nu}+h_{\mu \nu} \right )}[/tex]

I guess over distances which can be considered small ( in the cosmological sense ) a case can be made to ignore the r.h.s.; but for very distant sources of gravitational radiation I don't think things are that simple.

Naively I would expect a Doppler-like effect ( a frequency shift ) for very distant sources, and I would also expect that the ##\Lambda## enters into how the radiation actually couples to the source in the first place. I am unfortunately not in a position to estimate the magnitude of the impact that has on the dynamics of the wave, so I am curious if anyone on here with more advanced knowledge can comment on that ? Is the cosmological constant taken into account in searches for gravitational waves ( e.g. at Advanced LIGO ) ? If not, why not ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Good question. I guess it is because Lambda is incredibly small.
 
haushofer said:
Good question. I guess it is because Lambda is incredibly small.

Yes, you are right of course - but does that necessarily mean that it has a negligible impact on the dynamics of the wave ? I think that question deserves a closer look.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K