I Gravitational Waves & Energy: Is There a Consensus?

[epovo]

I understand that any source of gravitational waves loses energy, which is carried away by the waves. But since the waves are perturbations in spacetime rather than a physical field, they cannot carry energy the way photons do. I have read that this used to be a source of considerable controversy in the past. Is there any consensus these days and what would the answer be?

 

[Ibix]

Are you asking if gravitational waves carry energy? If so, the answer is yes. See the Hulse-Taylor binary and Feynman's sticky bead thought experiment.

 

[epovo]

No, not really. I am aware of the sticky bead thought experiment. I want to reconcile that in my mind with the fact that spacetime is not a physical field.

 

[PeterDonis]

spacetime is not a physical field

What do you mean by "a physical field"?

 

[haushofer]

No, not really. I am aware of the sticky bead thought experiment. I want to reconcile that in my mind with the fact that spacetime is not a physical field.

In GR, spacetime is a manifold plus a metric on it (not just the metric, which was the source of great confusion for Einstein, see 'the hole argument'). But the metric is as "physical" as e.g. the el.magn. gauge field A. At least, in GR it is.

 

[epovo]

What I mean is that $T_{\alpha\beta}=0$ away from the source. If the wave contains energy then $T_{\alpha\beta}\neq0$ at that point, leading to a contradiction.

 

[Mihai_B]

What I mean is that $T_{\alpha\beta}=0$ away from the source.

About that ...

Note to the Fifteenth Edition
In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning.
June 9th, 1952, A. Einstein, Relativity - The Special and The General Theory

and

A complete field theory knows fields and not the concepts of particle and motion. For these must not exist independently of the field but are to be treated as part of it.
July 1935, A.Einstein, N.Rosen - The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity

 

[epovo]

Well, it's still true that that $T_{\alpha\beta}=0$ is the starting point from which we derive the gravitational wave equation.

 

[PeterDonis]

If the wave contains energy then $T_{\alpha\beta}\neq0$ at that point,

This is not correct. Please take some time to learn what GR actually says about gravitational waves. The fact that they do carry energy even though they can propagate through regions where $T_{\alpha \beta} = 0$ was established in the 1960s and has been part of standard GR ever since. All of the major GR textbooks written since then cover this (for example, MTW has a good discussion of it).

 

[PeterDonis]

The OP's question has been answered. Thread closed.