B Shapes and gravitational radiation

AI Thread Summary
A perfect sphere does not emit detectable gravitational radiation because it lacks spherically asymmetric motion, which is necessary for gravitational wave production. In contrast, an ovoid or deformed body can create a changing quadrupole moment, leading to the emission of gravitational waves. Spinning neutron stars typically remain nearly spherical due to their dense mass, but minor surface deformations can introduce asymmetry and generate detectable gravitational radiation. The mechanism for this emission relies on the presence of a changing quadrupole moment, which a simple spinning sphere does not possess. Understanding these principles is crucial for detecting and studying gravitational waves.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
IIRC , a perfect sphere will not be detectable with a gravitational detector, but an ovoid shaped body will, why is this so? or am i wrong.
 
Space news on Phys.org
wolram said:
IIRC , a perfect sphere will not be detectable with a gravitational detector, but an ovoid shaped body will, why is this so? or am i wrong.
Why do you think what you think?
 
I found this on wiki
Vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave#Rotating_neutron_stars

As noted above, a mass distribution will emit gravitational radiation only when there is spherically asymmetric motion among the masses. A spinning neutron star will generally emit no gravitational radiation because neutron stars are highly dense objects with a strong gravitational field that keeps them almost perfectly spherical. In some cases, however, there might be slight deformities on the surface called "mountains", which are bumps extending no more than 10 centimeters (4 inches) above the surface,[45] that make the spinning spherically asymmetric. This gives the star a quadrupole moment that changes with time, and it will emit gravitational waves until the deformities are smoothed out.
 
So it seems you have answered your own question.
 
phinds said:
So it seems you have answered your own question.

No, I do not understand the mechanism for the production of gravitational radiation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In order to have gravitational radiation, you have to have a changing quadrupole moment of the field. A simple spinning sphere won't have that.
 
  • Like
Likes wolram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Back
Top