- #1
atikof
- 3
- 0
"Gravitomagnetism is a widely used term referring specifically to the kinetic effects of gravity, in analogy to the magnetic effects of moving electric charge".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
Essentially the idea is to take Maxwell's equations and make a substitution of charge with mass, and of current with moving mass. The equations read then:
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E_g} = - 4 \pi G \rho_g [/itex]
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B_g} = 0 [/itex]
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E_g} = -\partial_t B_g[/itex]
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B_g} = -\frac{4\pi G}{c^2} \vec{j_g} - \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t \vec{E_g}[/itex]
(You could also think of a scalar potential [itex]\phi_g[/itex] and a vector potential [itex]\vec{A_g}[/itex] to describe the dynamics, just like in electromagnetism)
However, Wikipedia says that you can't have a full analogy, because the sources [itex]\rho_g [/itex] and [itex] \vec{j_g} [/itex] don't form a 4-vector, but "instead they are merely a part of the stress–energy tensor".
Why? The only difference I can think of between charges and masses is that mass is always positive (and gravity is always attractive because of the minus signs in the equations). Is that reason enough to make the combination [itex](\rho_g,\vec{j_g})[/itex] not transform as a 4-vector and have to invoke the stress-energy tensor?
For instance, let's have a massive charged particle (its rest mass will be [itex]m_0[/itex] and its charge [itex]q[/itex]). If its 4-velocity is [itex]u^\mu[/itex], then the 4-current (to which the electromagnetic field couples) should be [itex]j^\mu=q u^\mu [/itex]. And its 4-momentum (to which gravity couples) [itex]p^\mu = m_0 u^\mu[/itex]. But those are both 4-vectors! Where's the problem then? What's the precise relationship between the 4-vector [itex] p^\mu=(E,\vec{p})[/itex] and the (not a 4-vector) [itex]j^\mu_g = (\rho_g, \vec{j_g})[/itex]?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
Essentially the idea is to take Maxwell's equations and make a substitution of charge with mass, and of current with moving mass. The equations read then:
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E_g} = - 4 \pi G \rho_g [/itex]
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B_g} = 0 [/itex]
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E_g} = -\partial_t B_g[/itex]
[itex] \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B_g} = -\frac{4\pi G}{c^2} \vec{j_g} - \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t \vec{E_g}[/itex]
(You could also think of a scalar potential [itex]\phi_g[/itex] and a vector potential [itex]\vec{A_g}[/itex] to describe the dynamics, just like in electromagnetism)
However, Wikipedia says that you can't have a full analogy, because the sources [itex]\rho_g [/itex] and [itex] \vec{j_g} [/itex] don't form a 4-vector, but "instead they are merely a part of the stress–energy tensor".
Why? The only difference I can think of between charges and masses is that mass is always positive (and gravity is always attractive because of the minus signs in the equations). Is that reason enough to make the combination [itex](\rho_g,\vec{j_g})[/itex] not transform as a 4-vector and have to invoke the stress-energy tensor?
For instance, let's have a massive charged particle (its rest mass will be [itex]m_0[/itex] and its charge [itex]q[/itex]). If its 4-velocity is [itex]u^\mu[/itex], then the 4-current (to which the electromagnetic field couples) should be [itex]j^\mu=q u^\mu [/itex]. And its 4-momentum (to which gravity couples) [itex]p^\mu = m_0 u^\mu[/itex]. But those are both 4-vectors! Where's the problem then? What's the precise relationship between the 4-vector [itex] p^\mu=(E,\vec{p})[/itex] and the (not a 4-vector) [itex]j^\mu_g = (\rho_g, \vec{j_g})[/itex]?