Propagation of changes in a gravitational field

In summary: I think if two black holes are flying past each other - so no merger - their horizons will be deformed and emit gravitational waves then (until being spherical again).This sounds very plausible.
  • #1
Lord Crc
343
47
I thought gravitational waves were how changes in the gravitational field was propagated. The Insight https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/how-fast-do-changes-in-the-gravitational-field-propagate/ says so as well.

What got me confused was the following scenario: take a stationary black hole of suitable size (tens of solar masses?) with an orbiting companion body, a neutron star for example. Then shoot another suitably sized black hole into the system with such a velocity that it grazes the EH of the stationary black hole and escapes the system.

The intruder BH should cause the stationary BH to move no? If it does, the gravitational field felt by the companion mass would change too no? How is this change propagated?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Lord Crc said:
with such a velocity that it grazes the EH of the stationary black hole

It can't both "graze" and "escape". You need to pick one or the other.

I don't see how this in any way contradicts gravitational perturbations traveling at c.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Vanadium 50 said:
It can't both "graze" and "escape". You need to pick one or the other.

Ok, I pick escape. The point being that the intruder should cause the stationary BH to move, or at least it would if they were regular stars. The intruder could be a neutron star if that is better.

Yes the effect is small, I'm trying to grasp the principle.
Vanadium 50 said:
I don';t see how this in any way contradicts gravitational perturbations traveling at c.
I was told that gravitational waves does not escape the event horizon, which got me thinking about the above scenario. Clearly I'm missing something important.
 
  • #4
Lord Crc said:
Ok, I pick escape. The point being that the intruder should cause the stationary BH to move, or at least it would if they were regular stars. The intruder could be a neutron star if that is better.

Yes the effect is small, I'm trying to grasp the principle.
The intruder seems to me to have a similar mass to the components of your binary. The effect will not be small. Why would you think the black hole wouldn't move? There's no "absolute rest" so a black hole moving isn't exactly surprising.
Lord Crc said:
I was told that gravitational waves does not escape the event horizon, which got me thinking about the above scenario. Clearly I'm missing something important.
If you trace the gravitational waves backwards, you'll find that they come from somewhere outside the horizon (to the extent that you can localise the source of gravitational waves - it's complicated). In a sense, you could see it as the gravitational influence of the mass of the hole before it formed, with the pattern modified by later evolution of the "shape" of spacetime, which can depend on other things like other black holes/neutron stars/whatever.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Crc
  • #5
Lord Crc said:
I was told that gravitational waves does not escape the event horizon, which got me thinking about the above scenario. Clearly I'm missing something important.
I think if two black holes are flying past each other - so no merger - their horizons will be deformed and emit gravitational waves then (until being spherical again).
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Crc
  • #6
I am still unclear about what the question is. If you are asking if gravitational changes propagate at c, they do. If you are trying to imagine a situation where you get changes in gravitational sources and could think about measuring this speed, why do you need such a complicated situation? If you are asking about event horizons, why isn't that in the title? And this situation doesn't really involve event horizons.
 
  • #7
Vanadium 50 said:
I am still unclear about what the question is.

I was told gravitational waves do not escape the EH. Based on what I've read, such as the Insight I linked, gravitational waves propagates changes to the gravitational field. Assuming both are true, I don't understand how objects external to a black hole, such as the orbiting planet in my OP, "can tell" if the black hole moves due to an external pertubance.

I'm entirely comfortable with gravitational waves propagating at c, that was never any doubt.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Ibix said:
The intruder seems to me to have a similar mass to the components of your binary. The effect will not be small. Why would you think the black hole wouldn't move? There's no "absolute rest" so a black hole moving isn't exactly surprising.
I meant to say "might be small". I would expect it to move, but clearly I'm missing some pieces to the puzzle.
Ibix said:
If you trace the gravitational waves backwards, you'll find that they come from somewhere outside the horizon (to the extent that you can localise the source of gravitational waves - it's complicated). In a sense, you could see it as the gravitational influence of the mass of the hole before it formed, with the pattern modified by later evolution of the "shape" of spacetime, which can depend on other things like other black holes/neutron stars/whatever.

Was that a response to the question I linked? Just want to verify before I interpret it all wrong.
 
  • #9
So the question you’re asking would be something like, “if changes in the gravitational field are propagated by gravitational waves, and gravitational waves travel at c, then how can anything that happens to the mass within the EH have any effect on things outside of the Horizon?” Is that an accurate paraphrase?
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Crc
  • #10
Look, it really doesn’t matter whether one or both objects in a binary system are BH, a or whether an intruder is a BH or neutron star. For all combinations you may think of, the escaping intruder will result in displacement of both members of the orbital system, with interactions among all three being required to fully describe the result. In addition, gravitational radiation will be released ( distinguishable from that released by the unperturbed binary system). There is essentially no difference which of the three bodies you consider to be a BH vs. neutron stars. No part of this requires propagation of anything across an event horizon, nor propagation of anything faster than c.

Given the above, please try to explain CLEARLY which part is bothering you. I truly have no understanding of what is bothering you about this scenario.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Crc
  • #11
Ok, let me try again.

We have a very massive body A at rest (not absolutely of course) being orbited by a piece of dust D. Another massive body B moves from infinity, goes near enough A to perturb it and escapes the system.

AFAIK this event should cause A to accelerate for a bit and start moving, and thus change the gravitational field around it, as "felt" by D. However assuming the acceleration is sufficiently low, D should keep orbiting A as it moves.

AFAIK the change to the gravitational field that keeps D orbiting A, rather than orbiting the initial position of A, is propagated by gravitational waves emitted by A.

My question is, is the above correct?The reason I ask is because I don't see how can it if A is a black hole and gravitational waves does not escape the event horizon.
 
  • #12
Lord Crc said:
My question is, is the above correct?
Yes, essentially. A simpler example would be two orbiting black holes. Both move around their common centre of mass and continuously emit gravitational radiation.

Lord Crc said:
The reason I ask is because I don't see how can it if A is a black hole and gravitational waves does not escape the event horizon.
The thing to understand is that at any event in spacetime you can only be affected by things in your past light cone. And the past light cone of any event outside an event horizon cannot include the event horizon. So the point I was making in my previous post is that you can always trace gravitational influence "now" back to the time before the event horizon existed. So the gravitational waves are, in some sense, the gravitational influence of the stars that collapsed to form the holes distorted by the later motion of the holes.

I don't know if that picture helps you. Formally, you could say that GR is, at its core, a system of differential equations. If you set up some initial conditions including collapsing stars and work out what happens if you let them collapse, gravitational radiation from their mutual orbit is implied already.
 
  • #13
Ibix said:
The thing to understand is that at any event in spacetime you can only be affected by things in your past light cone. And the past light cone of any event outside an event horizon cannot include the event horizon. So the point I was making in my previous post is that you can always trace gravitational influence "now" back to the time before the event horizon existed. So the gravitational waves are, in some sense, the gravitational influence of the stars that collapsed to form the holes distorted by the later motion of the holes.

I kinda get it but then I don't. In my example, B can linger at infinity for whatever time before it enters the system. How would D know the new trajectory of A, once it starts moving?
 
  • #14
Btw forgot to say thanks guys. It's probably some silly thing, but the disconnect I'm clearly having makes it difficult.
 
  • #15
Lord Crc said:
I kinda get it but then I don't. In my example, B can linger at infinity for whatever time before it enters the system.
Can it? Why does it start moving then? And how was it hovering in the first place?
 
  • #16
Maybe it will help if we get rid of the third body, and just say that “for some reason” the black hole moves. I think that the mention of gravitational waves has caused people to think of the type of gravitational waves that we have observed so far. Specifically, the idea that the BH is already radiating gravity waves before the experiment begins, because it is orbiting something. OP, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is not the situation you are trying to describe. You mean to say that the BH emits a single gravitational wave when it changes course, right? And that change in gravition causes the orbiting body to change its orbit?

I present the following modification of the question, to which I will then propose an answer (to check if my own understanding is correct). Hope this brings clarity. Suppose the BH in question is of such mass that it has a diameter of ten light minutes. Let us further suppose that the orbiter is just five light minutes outside the Event Horizon. Now, for some reason, the BH moves. Does the The orbit of the orbiting body change five minutes later (the time for a “change” to travel at light speed from the EH), or does the orbit change after 15 minutes?

My tentative answer is that it would take only five minutes for the orbiter to be effected, because he effect is being caused by a change to the space at, or just outside of, the EH, and NOT by any change of conditions inside the EH. Would that be correct? And does it help you answer your original question, @Lord Crc ?
 
  • #17
I still don't understand what you are asking.

Is it about black holes or not?
Is it about gravitational radiation or the gravitational force?
 
  • #18
Lord Crc said:
We have a very massive body A at rest (not absolutely of course) being orbited by a piece of dust D. Another massive body B moves from infinity, goes near enough A to perturb it and escapes the system.

AFAIK this event should cause A to accelerate for a bit and start moving, and thus change the gravitational field around it, as "felt" by D. ...
I don't understand why you describe the effect on D as coming via A only. If B affects A then it also affects D, which will move according to the space-time geometry resulting from the A & B combined.
 
  • Like
Likes nitsuj
  • #19
Lord Crc said:
I was told gravitational waves do not escape the EH.

I think that maybe you have the intuition that for one object's gravity to affect another object, then gravity waves have to propagate from one to the other. That's not true. Gravity is described in General Relativity as a field (a tensor field, actually) extended throughout spacetime. The details of how that field varies from place to place shows the presence of matter. But outside the event horizon of a black hole, the effects of gravity are no different than the effects of any other spherically symmetric object of the same mass.
 
  • #20
Vanadium 50 said:
I still don't understand what you are asking.

Is it about black holes or not?
Is it about gravitational radiation or the gravitational force?

I think his confusion is that he has the intuition that gravitational force between two objects is due to gravitational waves propagating from one to the other. Black holes contradict this intuition.

On the other hand, if this is his confusion, I don't quite understand why one black hole zooming past another is more relevant than just something orbiting a black hole.
 
  • #21
Ibix said:
Can it? Why does it start moving then? And how was it hovering in the first place?
Say it was orbiting at infinity, and it started moving because I triggered a giant rocket engine pushing it into the A-D system.

LURCH said:
Specifically, the idea that the BH is already radiating gravity waves before the experiment begins, because it is orbiting something. OP, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is not the situation you are trying to describe.
Indeed, I assume the original system is free of gravitational waves (D being of negligible mass).

LURCH said:
You mean to say that the BH emits a single gravitational wave when it changes course, right? And that change in gravition causes the orbiting body to change its orbit?
Yes, that was what I was trying to ask (though not sure if it would be a single wave or not).

LURCH said:
My tentative answer is that it would take only five minutes for the orbiter to be effected, because he effect is being caused by a change to the space at, or just outside of, the EH, and NOT by any change of conditions inside the EH. Would that be correct? And does it help you answer your original question, @Lord Crc ?
I'll have to chew on that one.

A.T. said:
I don't understand why you describe the effect on D as coming via A only. If B affects A then it also affects D, which will move according to the space-time geometry resulting from the A & B combined.
Of course B will perturb D as well, but I was focusing on what happens to D due to the acceleration of A.

Vanadium 50 said:
Is it about gravitational radiation or the gravitational force?

It's about changes to the gravitational field, and how these changes are propagated.

stevendaryl said:
I think his confusion is that he has the intuition that gravitational force between two objects is due to gravitational waves propagating from one to the other. Black holes contradict this intuition.

AFAIK, a test particle orbiting a mass at rest (relative to the test particle) does so due to the static gravitational field, no waves involved. This I get, I think. When the mass is accelerated, the gravitational field changes. AFAIK the acceleration causes the mass to emit gravitational waves. When the acceleration stops the field is static again. Assuming the acceleration is slight enough then the test particle should still orbit the mass, though, I assume, the orbit would be perturbed.

I had assumed the perturbation of the orbit of the test particle, causing it to orbit in the new, static field, was due to the gravitational wave emitted by the mass when it was accelerated, but I got doubts about this when I was told gravitational waves do not escape a black hole.

My apparently confusing three-body problem was just the first thing that popped into mind as I contemplated this.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Lord Crc said:
AFAIK, a test particle orbiting a mass at rest (relative to the test particle) does so due to the static gravitational field, no waves involved. This I get, I think. When the mass is accelerated, the gravitational field changes. AFAIK the acceleration causes the mass to emit gravitational waves. When the acceleration stops the field is static again. Assuming the acceleration is slight enough then the test particle should still orbit the mass, though, I assume, the orbit would be perturbed.

That intuition is almost right, but not quite. In sort of the same way that a planet can have a stable orbit around a star, the gravitational field itself can change in time in a smooth, predictable way. Those changes are not due to gravitational waves. It's only higher-order changes that propagate as gravitational waves.
 
  • #23
Lord Crc said:
Of course B will perturb D as well, but I was focusing on what happens to D due to the acceleration of A.
GR is non-linear, so you it's not so easy to decompose the effect of multiple sources, as if it was were a linear superposition.
 
  • #24
Lord Crc said:
I was told gravitational waves do not escape the EH.

First, "I was told" is not a valid reference. You need to tell us what specific reference you got this from.

Second, when black holes merge, gravitational waves are emitted. Those waves do not come from inside the horizon. But they do come from the black hole merger. So the actual intuition you are using here, which is something more like "black holes can't emit gravitational waves" is clearly wrong.

The scenario you described in your OP is basically a weaker version of a black hole merger, where the holes don't merge, they just make a close approach and then separate. Yes, gravitational waves should be emitted from this process, but they will be much weaker than the gravitational waves emitted from a black hole merger.
 
  • #25
stevendaryl said:
That intuition is almost right, but not quite. In sort of the same way that a planet can have a stable orbit around a star, the gravitational field itself can change in time in a smooth, predictable way. Those changes are not due to gravitational waves. It's only higher-order changes that propagate as gravitational waves.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So presumably these changes propagates at c as well?

A.T. said:
GR is non-linear, so you it's not so easy to decompose the effect of multiple sources, as if it was were a linear superposition.

Point taken!

PeterDonis said:
First, "I was told" is not a valid reference. You need to tell us what specific reference you got this from.
I did link to the relevant post in my reply #3. Though the current theme doesn't make it abundantly clear IMO.

PeterDonis said:
Second, when black holes merge, gravitational waves are emitted. Those waves do not come from inside the horizon. But they do come from the black hole merger. So the actual intuition you are using here, which is something more like "black holes can't emit gravitational waves" is clearly wrong.
I thought it was the mass inside the black hole that emitted the waves, and that these waves escaped the event horizon.
 
  • #26
Vanadium 50 said:
I am still unclear about what the question is.
I see now that it was confusing to link to the Insight without specifying better that I was really just using a single line as a reference, and that my question wasn't really about the speed of gravity. Sorry about that.
 
  • #27
Lord Crc said:
I thought it was the mass inside the black hole that emitted the waves, and that these waves escaped the event horizon.

No, it isn't. The waves are emitted from the region of fluctuating spacetime curvature outside the horizon; basically they carry away the fluctuating spacetime curvature so that what remains is the smooth horizon of the new, merged black hole.
 
  • Like
Likes nitsuj
  • #28
PeterDonis said:
No, it isn't. The waves are emitted from the region of fluctuating spacetime curvature outside the horizon; basically they carry away the fluctuating spacetime curvature so that what remains is the smooth horizon of the new, merged black hole.
So the mental image I have now is that the EH is like a Neumann boundary in regular PDEs. And the waves come from the exterior reacting to this boundary moving and changing. Is that closer or even more wrong?
 
  • #29
Lord Crc said:
the mental image I have now is that the EH is like a Neumann boundary in regular PDEs

I don't think this is a good way to think about it. The EH can't even be locally defined; to know exactly where the EH is, you have to know the entire future of the spacetime.
 
  • #30
Oh shoot, forgot about that point.
 
  • #31
Lord Crc said:
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So presumably these changes propagates at c as well?

It depends on what you mean by "propagate". The gravitational field can change with time. That doesn't imply anything "propagating". Propagation is really applicable to perturbations. If you jiggle a mass, then that will cause a jiggle in the gravitational field, and that will propagate out at the speed of light.

I thought it was the mass inside the black hole that emitted the waves, and that these waves escaped the event horizon.

No, gravitational waves are disturbances in the gravitational field. The "source" of a gravitational wave isn't a mass, it's a little jiggle in a gravitational field. So the waves don't propagate from the center of the black hole; they propagate from the field surrounding the black hole.
 
  • #32
stevendaryl said:
It depends on what you mean by "propagate". The gravitational field can change with time. That doesn't imply anything "propagating". Propagation is really applicable to perturbations. If you jiggle a mass, then that will cause a jiggle in the gravitational field, and that will propagate out at the speed of light.
Right, and my misunderstanding was equating that jiggle with gravitational waves.
stevendaryl said:
No, gravitational waves are disturbances in the gravitational field. The "source" of a gravitational wave isn't a mass, it's a little jiggle in a gravitational field. So the waves don't propagate from the center of the black hole; they propagate from the field surrounding the black hole.
Gotcha. I'll have to spend some time reprogramming my brain but I think I got the point now.

Thank you all for your input and patience. Clearly I need to work on my question-asking skills.
 

1. How does the propagation of changes in a gravitational field occur?

The propagation of changes in a gravitational field occurs through the curvature of spacetime. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, massive objects create a curvature in the fabric of spacetime, and this curvature is what causes the gravitational force. Any changes in the distribution of mass or energy in the universe will cause a ripple effect in this curvature, propagating changes in the gravitational field.

2. What are some examples of changes in a gravitational field?

Changes in a gravitational field can occur due to the movement of massive objects, such as planets, stars, or galaxies. It can also be caused by the addition or removal of mass in a particular region, such as a black hole merging with another black hole or a supernova explosion. Gravitational waves, which are ripples in the fabric of spacetime, are another example of changes in a gravitational field.

3. How fast do changes in a gravitational field propagate?

Changes in a gravitational field propagate at the speed of light. This means that any changes in the gravitational field will be felt at a distant location after the light from the source has traveled to that location. For example, if the sun suddenly disappeared, we would still feel its gravitational pull for about 8 minutes, which is the time it takes for light to travel from the sun to Earth.

4. Can changes in a gravitational field be predicted?

Yes, changes in a gravitational field can be predicted using mathematical equations and models based on Einstein's theory of general relativity. These predictions have been confirmed through observations and experiments, such as the detection of gravitational waves. However, predicting the exact timing and magnitude of changes in a gravitational field can be challenging due to the complexity of the system.

5. How do changes in a gravitational field affect objects?

Changes in a gravitational field can affect objects by altering their trajectories or orbits. For example, the gravitational pull of the moon causes tides on Earth, and the gravitational pull of the sun keeps planets in their orbits. Changes in the gravitational field can also cause objects to accelerate towards or away from each other, depending on the direction of the change. These effects are essential for understanding the dynamics of the universe and the behavior of celestial bodies.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
123
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top