I Max Amplitude Gravitational Waves: 2?

James Essig
Messages
68
Reaction score
2
I am curious as to what the maximum amplitude of gravitational waves is. I have read that the maximum amplitude as such is equal to two but I cannot seem to find again a reference that states this clearly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
James Essig said:
I have read that the maximum amplitude as such is equal to two

Where have you read that?
 
I am not sure. My memory seems to indicate that I read of the value of two in a Wikipedia article but upon searching related Wikipedia topics, I cannot find any verifying statements. Wikipedia is far from the most credible sources, so perhaps a more credible source is preferred. By a factor of two, I mean the extent of the space of maximum space contraction is 50 % of the extent of the space of maximum space expansion as a result of a passing gravitational wave.
 
I have never heard this before. I suspect that your recollection is mistaken.
 
James Essig said:
By a factor of two, I mean the extent of the space of maximum space contraction is 50 % of the extent of the space of maximum space expansion as a result of a passing gravitational wave.

I have never heard this either so I agree with @Dale that your recollection is most likely mistaken.

As far as a general answer to your question, gravitational waves are standardly treated using the linearized approximation of GR, which assumes that any perturbations of the metric are small; since the size of the perturbation of the metric is the amplitude of the gravitational wave, that would mean that the amplitude of gravitational waves should be small. Of course "small" does not have a precise definition; it depends on the problem and on how accurate you want your predictions to be. But generally speaking, if the perturbation is not small, the linearized approximation is no longer valid, which means whatever you're studying is no longer usefully viewed as a "gravitational wave"; it's a more general curved spacetime.
 
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