A Quadrupole radiation formula for gravity

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the quadrupole radiation power formula for gravity, expressed in geometrized units as P = (1/45)∂∂∂Qkl∂∂∂Qkl. The author compares this to established formulas from Landau & Lifshitz and Ohanian & Ruffini, noting differences in unit conventions. The main challenge arises in converting the formula to conventional units, particularly regarding the correct application of factors of G and c. The author grapples with dimensional analysis to determine why only one factor of G/c^5 should be included in the final expression. Ultimately, the resolution involves ensuring that both sides of the equation maintain consistent dimensions during the conversion process.
Kostik
Messages
274
Reaction score
32
TL;DR
Some help needed converting the formula for quadrupole radiation from geometrized units (##c=G=1##) to conventional units.
I derived the formula for the quadrupole radiation power emitted by a system of masses:
$$P=\frac{1}{45}\dddot{Q}_{kl}\dddot{Q}_{kl} .\quad\quad (*)$$ Note here that: (1) I am using geometrized units, so ##c=G=1##; (2) ##Q_{kl}## is the quadrupole tensor $$Q_{kl} = \int{(3x_k x_l - δ_{kl}\cdot r^2 )ρ} \, dV \quad (r^2\equiv x_k x_k)$$ and (3) repeated indices are summed over. (In Euclidean space ##R^3##, all indices are subscripts.)

This is essentially the same formula given by Landau & Lifshitz "Classical Theory of Fields, 4th Ed." (Eq. (110.16), p. 355) and Ohanian & Ruffini "Gravitation and Spacetime" (Eq. (5.75), p. 195): $$P=\frac{G}{45c^5}\dddot{Q}_{kl}\dddot{Q}_{kl} .$$ Landau & Lifshitz keep all factors of ##c## and ##G##, while Ohanian uses ##c=1## but keeps ##G## separate.

What I want to do is simply convert from geometrized units to conventional units, which means ##t## should be replaced by ##ct## and mass ##m## (or mass density ##\rho##) should be replaced by ##Gm/c^2## (or ##G\rho/c^2##).

Where I'm having trouble is that the power formula has a product ##\dddot{Q}_{kl}\dddot{Q}_{kl}##. So it seems to me that the correct way to convert ##(*)## to conventional units would be
$$P=\frac{1}{45} \left( \frac{G}{c^5} \right)^2 \dddot{Q}_{kl}\dddot{Q}_{kl} .$$ Obviously, this is wrong -- only one factor of ##G/c^5## should be used, which is also consistent with dimensional analysis. (In geometrized units, both sides of ##(*)## are dimensionless.)

I'm just not seeing why I should only add one factor of ##G/c^5##, when surely each factor of ##\dddot{Q}_{kl}## carries its own factor of ##G/c^5##? What am I missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You just have to insert the factors of ##G## and ##c## so the dimensions match correctly. You know that ##[G/c^5] = M^{-1} L^{-2} T^3##. You also know that ##[\dddot{Q}] = [P] = ML^2 T^{-3}##, so ##[P]/[\dddot{Q}]^2 = M^{-1} L^{-2} T^3 = [G/c^5]##
 
Kostik said:
only one factor of ##G/c^5## should be used
But you have to also convert the LHS of the equation to conventional units, so one factor of ##G/c^5## goes on the LHS, and cancels one of the two factors of ##G/c^5## on the RHS, so the end result is one factor of ##G/c^5## on the RHS, as the references you give say.
 
  • Like
Likes phyzguy and Kostik
PeterDonis said:
But you have to also convert the LHS of the equation to conventional units, so one factor of ##G/c^5## goes on the LHS, and cancels one of the two factors of ##G/c^5## on the RHS, so the end result is one factor of ##G/c^5## on the RHS, as the references you give say.
Thank you!
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
704