Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Gravitational waves

Tags:
  1. Oct 28, 2017 #1
    does any object with mass that moves create a gravity wave? So if I wave my hand it is in fact creating gravity waves, just very small ones
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2017 #2

    ISamson

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes.
     
  4. Oct 28, 2017 #3

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I think "very small" VASTLY overstates the strength of that particular gravity wave :smile:
     
  5. Oct 28, 2017 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Maybe he/she is severely overweight.

    Zz.
     
  6. Oct 28, 2017 #5

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Yeah, but that would mean he/she would have to shake his/her belly rather that a hand wave. :smile:
     
  7. Oct 28, 2017 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Huh? Where did you get that? An object that is moving at constant velocity does not create a gravitational wave.
     
  8. Oct 28, 2017 #7

    ISamson

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Aren't we talking about a hand moving in space. Is that constant speed?
     
  9. Oct 28, 2017 #8
    why does an object moving at constant velocity not not create a gravitational wave? like the wake from a boat

    even if my hand was stationary the molecules/atoms within my hand are accelerating and decelerating so they would all be , individually, creating, gravity waves

    if space is elastic, as a body moves thru space it deforms space and in its wake space must snap back to its original position, that deformation of space, assuming it is not a linear deformation, would cause space itself to accelerate/decelerate/strech/compact, all other factors remaining the same?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2017
  10. Oct 29, 2017 #9

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Consider that when an object is moving at a constant velocity (relative to what?) then there is an inertial frame in which it is not moving at all.... and all frames must agree about the presence or absence of gravitational waves, so if you can demonstrate that they aren't present using one frame, then you know they aren't present using any frame.

    The boat is moving through the water, displacing it and creating waves in it. But that analogy doesn't work for gravitational waves because space is not a substance that you displace as you move through it.
    You may have been misled by pop-sci presentations that speak of spacetime as a "fabric", a thing that stretches and deforms and could have properties such as elasticity. It's not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
  11. Oct 29, 2017 #10
    is "displace" just another way of saying "deform" which is another way of saying "changes some property of"? It is uncontroversial that a massive object changes the properties of (displaces) space around it as it move thru space

    "You may have been misled by pop-sci presentations that speak of spacetime as a "fabric", a thing that stretches and deforms and could have properties such as elasticity. It's not."

    space "deforms" around a massive objects, and therefore any object with mass. Implicit in that statement is space "un-deforms" after the object has passed by.
     
  12. Oct 29, 2017 #11

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You have to remember that GR models spacetime, not space. Space is what you get when you slice 4d spacetime up into 3d sheets. So "space when you are near a massive body" and "space after the massive body has passed" are two completely separate parts of spacetime - nothing is actually deforming. Any sensible definition of "slicing up spacetime" will give you a sequence of spaces that change geometry smoothly, but the change is the change of slice you are calling "space, now", not from any deformation.

    Some spacetimes include gravitational waves (not gravity waves - those are a kind of surface wave in fluids). Some do not. The spacetime around a body moving in a straight line can't because a distant inertial observer could see the body as stationary.
     
  13. Oct 29, 2017 #12

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  14. Oct 29, 2017 #13
    Please everyone, it should not take until the 12th post to correct this.
     
  15. Oct 29, 2017 #14

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    To be fair, Ibix mentioned it in post #11 while I was typing and linking.
     
  16. Oct 29, 2017 #15
    A couple of posters mentioned it in passing I know, but until your post nobody corrected it.
     
  17. Oct 29, 2017 #16
    so around a massive object, as the space component of spacetime does not deform, I assume only time deforms?
     
  18. Oct 29, 2017 #17

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    There is no such thing as "the space component". The separation into space-like slices is quite arbitrary and can be done in many different ways.

    The pro-tip is that you will not be able to understand what is actually going on from extrapolating popularised descriptions or even more accurate descriptions that use English language. The reason is that language is not precise enough. The terms used do have a precise mathematical meaning, but that can be misrepresented with words having several similar meanings in English. The mental picture you are painting will likely not be accurate. Bottom line is: never use what you read in popular science to extrapolate arguments. Popular science is great for learning about science and creating interest in it, but it is rather useless for learning actual science.
     
  19. Oct 29, 2017 #18
    Im using Serway edition 4....am I wasting my time

    Surely all I have to know is that a massive body moving thru space
    the space ahead of the body has a number of parameters (one of those parameters is gravity?)
    the massive body changes some of those parameters within its immediate surroundings
    once the massive body has passed by, space returns to empty space

    is that fundamentally flawed?
     
  20. Oct 29, 2017 #19

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No. Nothing deforms. Spacetime is the shape it is. It doesn't change.

    If our poor limited human intellects insist on slicing 4d spacetime into a sequence of 3d volumes, and calling each volume "space" and giving each one a sequence number we call "time", then each subsequent volume may be a different "shape". You could regard each one as deformed compared to its neighbour. But nothing is actually changing shape - you are simply looking at a sequence of slightly differently shaped slices of spacetime and mistaking that for one slice that changes shape. So there's no sense of "elastic deformation of a fabric".
     
  21. Oct 29, 2017 #20

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's been fixed in the thread title.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Gravitational waves
  1. Gravitational waves (Replies: 1)

  2. Gravitational waves (Replies: 3)

  3. Gravitational waves (Replies: 2)

  4. Gravitational waves (Replies: 3)

  5. Gravitational Waves (Replies: 15)

Loading...