Understanding GR Perturbations: J. Albert's Guide

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rawsilk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation and interpretation of the perturbation metric in general relativity, specifically the expression $$g_{ab} = \eta_{ab} + h_{ab}$$ and the conditions under which perturbation theory is valid. Participants explore the concept of "smallness" in perturbations and its implications in different contexts within gravitational theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • J. Albert inquires about a more precise definition of "small" in the context of the perturbation metric and seeks a fundamental understanding of when perturbation theory is valid.
  • One participant suggests that the perturbation can be expressed with a parameter $$\lambda$$, where $$|\lambda| << 1$$, indicating that the smallness is relative to this parameter.
  • Another participant notes that the perturbation must reside in the same space as the background metric and can only be specified after selecting a coordinate map, implying additional constraints on its use.
  • A further contribution explains that the interpretation of the smallness of the metric perturbation is application-dependent, with examples including post-Newtonian and post-Minkowskian expansions, which are relevant in different gravitational contexts.
  • It is mentioned that actual calculations of waveforms from systems like inspiraling compact binaries involve matching different expansions, highlighting the complexity of applying perturbation theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the definition and implications of smallness in perturbations, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a consensus on a singular interpretation or framework.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific applications and the need for careful consideration of the conditions under which different perturbation theories are valid. There are unresolved aspects regarding the constraints on perturbations and the mathematical steps involved in their application.

rawsilk
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I have recently completed two courses in general relativity and am well versed in things like the ray chaudhuri equation, tetrads, etc. I had to give a 2hr talk on gravitational radiation to my class and so understand GWs at some relatively respectable level. What I am inquiring about is the formulation of the perturbation metric in a precise sense. What literature normally says is, $$g_{ab} = \eta_{ab} + h_{ab},$$ where $$h_{ab}\ll \eta_{ab}$$ for non-zero elements. What I want to know is whether there is a more precise definition of "small". More to the point is there a more fundamental point of view for using perturbation theory and when it is valid in differential geometry or math in general. Feel free to use big words ;)

J. Albert
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually this is not entirely true. We usually express the perturbation from a known scenario (metric in GR, fundamental states in QM) in terms of a parameter which contains the <smallness>. So the h ab is small but the radiation field can be <normal>.

g_{\mu_\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \lambda h_{\mu\nu}.

so that |\lambda| &lt;&lt;1 and the components of h have the same order of magnitude as the components of h.
 
I have seen that form too in quantum perturbation theory and Gr lit. Thanks for your input, I'm just curious if there are any other constraints on the perturbation. Of course it must live in the same space as the background metric and can only be specified after choosing a coord map. But certainly there must be other constraints on when it may be used or else there wouldn't exist things like second order perturbation theories. It arises from a Taylor approximation to be sure.
 
What the smallness of the metric perturbation means physically is somewhat application-dependent. If you're doing a post-Newtonian expansion, that's an expansion in orders of v, the typical velocities in your gravitational system. If you're dealing with gravitational radiation far away from any source, you can do a post-Minkowskian expansion, which means you expand in G, the gravitational constant. When calculating actual waveforms from e.g. inspiraling compact binaries, what is done is taking these two expansions, further expanding them into multipoles and then matching the two (the post-Newtonian expansion only works near the source and the post-Minkowskian one only far away, but there is some overlap where you can match them.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K