Gravitational Radiation and Cosmological Constant

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

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

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.
 
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...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top