1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravitomagnetism equations-wikipedia wrong?

  1. Nov 19, 2008 #1
    gravitomagnetism equations--wikipedia wrong?

    Hi, I read the wikipedia article from:

    (scroll down to the "Maxwell's eq" for gravity)

    where it says
    [tex]\nabla \times \mathbf{B}=-4\pi G\mathbf{J}[/tex]
    (neglect the other terms)

    however, when I compare that to Sean Carroll's book of GR (spacetime and geometry),
    on page 282, (7.31) it reads something like
    [tex] \nabla^2 \mathbf{\omega}=-16 \pi G T_{0j}=-16 \pi G \mathbf{J}[/tex]
    Carroll defines,
    [tex]\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times \mathbf{\omega}[/tex]

    so in effect, we have something like
    [tex] \nabla \times \mathbf{B}=-16 \pi G \mathbf{J}[/tex]

    while a factor of two is reasonable since the the force law in Carroll's book is without the 2 in front of B, the additional factor of 4 is just weird... I could not get around that at all. Is wikipedia wrong or am I missing something?
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 19, 2008 #2

    Jonathan Scott

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: gravitomagnetism equations--wikipedia wrong?

    I also noticed the same oddity recently. Even with their factor of 2 on Bg, something seems to be wrong there. When I tried myself to make gravity look like Maxwell's equations long ago, just assuming an overall factor of 2 was not enough to make it work, and I'm sure there were additional factors of 2 or 4 which appeared in the equations.

    My suspicion is that the equations quoted in the Wikipedia case have ignored the curvature of space and are therefore already missing some factors of 2 compared with a more accurate version of those equations. I'll see if I can find time to check it out more carefully later.
  4. Nov 19, 2008 #3

    Jonathan Scott

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: gravitomagnetism equations--wikipedia wrong?

    OK, I found a useful refresher in arXiv:gr-qc/0311030, "Gravitoelectromagnetism: A Brief Review" by Bahram Mashhoon, referenced in the Wikipedia article, and I've also compared it with chapter 6 of Ciufolini & Wheeler "Gravitation and Inertia". (I don't have the Carroll book here). There definitely seems to be factor of 2 anomaly in one part of the Wikipedia entry compared with the other two. There are also some sign inconsistencies, but I think this is simply because the convention for the direction of the ordinary gravitational field varies between the sources.

    The gravitomagnetic fields is called B in Mashhoon's paper, Bg in the Wikipedia entry and H in Ciufolini & Wheeler. It appears that the definitions of these versions of the field are all different, giving H = -2B = 4Bg.

    The "Maxwell's equations" equivalent match between Mashhoon and the Wikipedia entry seems to be correct at least as far as factors of two are concerned (although the sign convention for E is reversed).

    The amount of gravitomagnetic field due to a rotating body also matches, in that the factor applied to J/r3 is 2 for H, -1 for B and 1/2 for Bg.

    However, the Wikipedia entry expression in terms of Bg for the "Lorentz force law" seems to be out by a factor of 2 compared with the other two sources. The cross-product factor in Ciufolini & Wheeler is H and in Mashhoon it is -2B, which means that in the Wikipedia entry it should be 4Bg.

    If the quantity which Carroll is using for the field is equivalent to H in Ciufolini and Wheeler, the equation would be consistent with the Wikipedia entry, as this would be equal to 4Bg. The Wikipedia entry is therefore slightly in error in a second way, in that some of the literature uses a field which is four times rather than twice Bg.
  5. Nov 19, 2008 #4
    Re: gravitomagnetism equations--wikipedia wrong?

    Thanks for the reply. that clarifies a lot!!! so the mistaken part is the wikipedia force law... someone seriously should change it and perhaps mention the different "B" fields occuring in the literature. I am not that good at writing explanations so maybe someone else can take on this task? :biggrin: (plus.. I'm feeling lazy right now)
  6. Nov 20, 2008 #5

    Jonathan Scott

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: gravitomagnetism equations--wikipedia wrong?

    I already added a note to the talk page about the apparent error in the force law, to make sure it is at least recorded in some way.
  7. Nov 20, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: gravitomagnetism equations--wikipedia wrong?

    There's a lesson here: don't trust wikipedia for advanced topic like this. Instead, why not use a review paper, like the one Jonathon links to?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Gravitomagnetism equations-wikipedia wrong?
  1. Gravitomagnetism ! (Replies: 7)

  2. Gravitomagnetic waves? (Replies: 6)