Somewhat dated [2005] so obviously prior to the recent confirmations: Still an excellent rundown on GW in my opinion: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0501041v3.pdf The basics of gravitational wave theory: Eanna ´ E Flanagan ´ † and Scott A Hughes‡ † Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 ‡ Department of Physics and Center for Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 Abstract. Einstein’s special theory of relativity revolutionized physics by teaching us that space and time are not separate entities, but join as “spacetime”. His general theory of relativity further taught us that spacetime is not just a stage on which dynamics takes place, but is a participant: The field equation of general relativity connects matter dynamics to the curvature of spacetime. Curvature is responsible for gravity, carrying us beyond the Newtonian conception of gravity that had been in place for the previous two and a half centuries. Much research in gravitation since then has explored and clarified the consequences of this revolution; the notion of dynamical spacetime is now firmly established in the toolkit of modern physics. Indeed, this notion is so well established that we may now contemplate using spacetime as a tool for other science. One aspect of dynamical spacetime — its radiative character, “gravitational radiation” — will inaugurate entirely new techniques for observing violent astrophysical processes. Over the next one hundred years, much of this subject’s excitement will come from learning how to exploit spacetime as a tool for astronomy. This article is intended as a tutorial in the basics of gravitational radiation physics. 1. Introduction: Spacetime and gravitational waves Einstein’s special relativity [1] taught us that space and time are not simply abstract, external concepts, but must in fact be considered measured observables, like any other quantity in physics. This reformulation enforced the philosophy that Newton sought to introduce in laying out his laws of mechanics [2]: . . . I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not reduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses . . . have no place in experimental philosophy . . . Despite his intention to stick only with that which can be observed, Newton described space and time using exactly the abstract notions that he otherwise deplored [3]: Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external. Special relativity put an end to these abstractions: Time is nothing more than that which is measured by clocks, and space is that which is measured by rulers. The properties of space and time thus depend on the properties of clocks and rulers. The constancy of the speed of light as measured by observers in different reference frames, as observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment, forces us inevitably to the fact that space and time are mixed into spacetime. Ten years after his paper on special relativity, Einstein endowed spacetime with curvature and made it dynamical [5]. This provided a covariant theory of gravity [6], in which all predictions for physical measurements are invariant under changes in coordinates. In this theory, general relativity, the notion of “gravitational force” is reinterpreted in terms of the behavior of geodesics in the curved manifold of spacetime. To be compatible with special relativity, gravity must be causal: Any change to a gravitating source must be communicated to distant observers no faster than the speed of light, c. This leads immediately to the idea that there must exist some notion of “gravitational radiation”. As demonstrated by Bernard Schutz, one can actually calculate with surprising accuracy many of the properties of gravitational radiation simply by combining a time dependent Newtonian potential with special relativity more at link: . Conclusion: This article has summarized many of the most important topics in the theory of GWs. Due to space and time limitations, we sadly were not able to cover all topics with which students of this field should be familiar. In particular, we had hoped to include a discussion of strong field relativity and GW emission. We confine ourselves, in this conclusion, to a (very) brief discussion of important aspects of this subject for GW science, as well as pointers to the relevant literature. Linearized theory as described in Secs. 2 and 5 is entirely adequate to describe the propagation of GWs through our Universe and to model the interaction of GWs with our detectors. In some cases, it is even adequate to describe the emission of waves from a source, as described in Sec. 4 (although for sources with non-negligible self gravity such as binary star systems one has to augment linearized theory as described in Sec. 4.2). However, many sources have very strong self gravity where the linearized treatment is completely inadequate. A variety of formalisms have been developed to handle these cases. • Post-Newtonian (PN) theory. PN theory is one of the most important of these formalisms, particularly for modeling binary systems. Roughly speaking, PN theory analyzes sources using an iterated expansion in two variables: The “gravitational potential”, φ ∼ M/r, where M is a mass scale and r characterizes the distance from the source; and velocities of internal motion, v. (In linearized theory, we assume φ is small but place no constraints on v.) Newtonian gravity emerges as the first term in the expansion, and higher order corrections are found as the expansion is iterated to ever higher order. Our derivation of the quadrupole formula in Sec. 4.2 gives the leading order term in the PN expansion of the emitted radiation. See Luc Blanchet’s recent review [111] and references therein for a comprehensive introduction to and explication of this subject. • Numerical relativity. Numerical relativity seeks to directly integrate Einstein’s equations on a computer. Ideally, we would like to to use a well-understood model of a GW source (e.g., a binary system in which the field strengths are small enough that it is well described by post-Newtonian theory) as “initial data”, and then numerically evolve the Einstein equations from that point to some final equilibrium configuration. The form in which we normally encounter Einstein’s equation in textbooks is not well suited to this task — the coordinate freedom of general relativity means that there is no notion of “time” built into the equation Gab = 8πTab. One must introduce some notion of time for the concept of “initial data” to have any meaning. The 4 dimensions of spacetime are then split into 3+1 dimensions of space and time. Having made this choice, Einstein’s equations take on a particular form which is amenable to numerical computation. A detailed discussion of numerical relativity is given in the contribution by Choptuik to this volume [112]; we also recommend the reviews by Lehner [113] and by Baumgarte and Shapiro [37]. For the purpose of our present discussion, it suffices to remark that it has proven to be extremely difficult to model some of the most interesting and important GW sources. In particular, the final stage of binary black hole mergers — regarded by many as the “Holy Grail” of numerical relativity — has proven to be quite a challenge. • Perturbation theory. In some cases, GW sources can be modeled as nearly, but not quite, identical to some exact solution of the Einstein field equations. For example, the end state of binary black hole coalescence must be a single black hole. As we approach this final state, the system will be well-modeled as the Kerr black hole solution, plus some distortion that radiates away. Another example is a binary consisting of a stellar mass compact body orbiting a massive black hole. The binary’s spacetime will be well-described as a single black hole plus a perturbation due to the captured body. These cases can be nicely described using perturbation theory: We treat the spacetime as some exact background, g B ab, plus a perturbation hab: gab = g B ab + hab . (7.1) We are in the perturbative regime if ||hab||/||g B ab|| ≪ 1. This system can then be analyzed by expanding the Einstein equations for this metric and keeping terms to first order in hab (see Sec. 5.1 for details but without the matter source terms included). This approach has proven to be particularly fruitful when the background spacetime is that of a black hole. For the case of a Schwarzschild background, the derivation of the full perturbation equations is rather straightforward; Rezzolla gives a particularly compact and readable summary [114]. Perturbations of Kerr black holes are not nearly so simple to describe, largely due to the lack of spherical symmetry — expanding the metric as in Eq. (7.1) does not prove to be so fruitful as it is in the Schwarzschild case. Somewhat miraculously, it turns out that progress can be made by expanding the curvature tensor: By expanding the Riemann tensor as Rabcd = RB abcd + δRabcd and taking an additional derivative of the Bianchi identity, ∇eRabcd + ∇dRabec + ∇cRabde = 0 , (7.2) one can derive a wave-like equation for the perturbation δRabcd. This analysis was originally performed by Teukolsky; see his original analysis [115] for details. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A question for those interested in this new cosmological perspective of gravitational radiation, does this 2005 article/paper/tutorial have any aspect that may need updating since the recent discoveries?
The following observations [in 2005] from the article/tutorial, show that the whole aspect of gravitational waves, will be probably the impetus and driving force for cosmological discoveries and data for at least the rest of the 21st century. Another question, could it lead the way to the long sort after QGT? "Electromagnetic waves interact strongly with matter; GWs do not. The weak interaction of GWs is both blessing and curse: It means that they propagate from emission to Earth-bound observers with essentially zero absorption, making it possible to probe astrophysics that is hidden or dark to electromagnetic observations — e.g., the coalescence and merger of black holes, the collapse of a stellar core, the dynamics of the early Universe. It also means that detecting GWs is very difficult. Also, because many of the best sources are hidden or dark, they are very poorly understood today — we know very little about what are likely to be some of the most important sources of GWs".
I have high regard for the mathematics of space time. As this paper takes great pains to explain in section 2, the equations can best be invisioned in a flat or nearly flat spacetime. From that perspective, a dynamical spacetime, where matter dynamics and the curvature of spacetime are merged, then gives was a staring point for the reality of gravitational radiation, and therefore, an explanation of the wave energy found by LIGO. The paper points out that gravitational waves carry energy across spacetime (space between objects), and recognizes that gravitational waves require matter in order for gravitational radiation to be proudced. I would agree with that point in any view of cosmology that includes it, whether it is a spacetime solution or non-spacetime solution. Do gravitational waves, produced by matter, require spacetime to propage? Nothing in the paper, at least that I could understand, gives us any physical explanation of how those physically real energy waves propagate through spacetime. It also implies that the propagation can best be discussed using flat spacetime, meaning that wave energy can propagate without curved spacetime. My question is, can there be something in space, surrounding matter that could be involved in that propagation? This paper strongly implies YES. It is gravitational radiation, in the form of wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at all times. Matter in all places produces spherical gravitational radiation. All space between objects that are composed of matter, is filled with wave energy at all points, and each point in space is being traversed by gravitational wave energy from all directions. There is no point in space that does no contain some level of wave energy density, supporting discussions you may have seen me participate in if you follow along in the AltTheory sub-forum at all.
Thanks for reviving this quantum wave. gravity is spacetime....or at least a property of spacetime as far as GR is concerned.
Thank you for the paper. I would have never come across it otherwise. It supports some of my thinking, though I have chosen to read the implications, as well as the words.
Space, other than a construction of light travel time, also a precept of relativity theory, should not be combined with time as it is in 'spacetime'. To do so leads to a mathematical construction that, while internally consistent and even capable of making accurate predictions, also leads to a construct that is incomplete, particularly with regard to entanglement, quantum spin, and the rotational dynamics of a universe comprised only of time and the transfer of energy. Any curvature contrived of such interactions between time and the fiction we refer to as space are merely artifacts rendered of a proportional misconception about the fundamental nature of time itself. Dilation of time intervals exists. Curvature of space does not. This is most easily rendered mathematically by a consideration of the relative motion of the 'at rest' roadbed used in the Lorentz transformations of special relativity. Neglecting any inertia relative to that frame is a huge conceptual oversight never remedied in any effective manner other than to ignore it mathematically as well as physically. And that is all I ever meant or intended to say here on the subject of spacetime, as eloquently and compactly as I am capable of expressing it in language other than tha applicable math, only some of which exists. Happy Thanksgiving.
I'll venture a response. I hear you saying that Spacetime is adequate as far as it goes, but on some fronts it is incomplete, in that it doesn't entirely fit certain circumstances that we can observe. This is clearly true. It is true, the rate that time is measured to be passing in a rest frame is different from the rate that time is measured to be passing in a moving frame, using identical atomic clocks. The same is true about measurements of gravitational time dilation from sea level to mountain top. Experimental evidence proves that time dilation does exist. In line with your point though, mechanistically, until LIGO, there was no evidence of anything in that space that would cause the dilation. It is no longer theoretical though, there is gravitational wave energy in that space. As theorized in the OP paper, and confirmed by the LIGO discovery of the predicted gravitational wave energy pattern by the interferometer device, gravitational energy is a form of energy radiation from existing matter, and is present in space. According to that paper, matter is required for gravitational waves to exist. The simple existence of matter produces energy radiation that takes the form of gravitational wave energy. This energy is predicted to be propagated even in flat spacetime, meaning no curvature is required for it to propagate.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Apologies for the clumsy way I tried to say it when first joining these forums. The mathematics associated with GR is awesome, but something incomplete about it still bothers me. For anyone else who has the same itch, see if you can find a way to scratch it, even if it means starting again from scratch.
Isn't that simply summed up in the quote by John Wheeler, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve" also I find this relevant....... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The red highlighted part by me, appeared confusing so I E-Mailed Sten Odenwald and he apologised and did say it was a typographical error.
Okay, you are absolved of any previous statements you might have made in regard to GR that may or may not have been misstated or misconstrued Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. As it relates to the LIGO discovery of gravitational waves and the comments on their origination from the paper in the OP, Would you or some member mind taking a crack at the questions: 1) Is there any disagreement about the conclusion that there is energy radiation in space from the presence of mass? 2) If there is agreement that there is gravitational energy radiation in space, is there any agreement that, given the premise that matter radiates gravitational energy, then all space is filled with gravitational waves of a full range of magnitudes, continually emitted by all objects with mass, coming and going in all directions, at all times, at all points in space? If so, I would characterize that by saying that all space is filled with wave energy, and the wave energy density of any point in space is the sum of the wave energy passing that point from all directions.
I have always thought that statement about matter and spacetime should have some mechanistic physics behind it. The idea of gravitational wave energy density at all points in space would make the energy density of space a background energy, that could then be examined as to how objects of mass interact with the inflow of the gravitational wave energy coming to it from all directions, in varying magnitudes.
This is a complex question that begs a more detailed answer than can be given either from relativity or quantum mechanics in their current forms. Things having mass also have inertia. Inertia is of FOUR distinct forms or flavors: 1) translational inertia that is due to relative linear motion 2) translational inertia that is due to a lack of linear motion ('rest' frame or vector sum of ±c for all inertial frames) 3) rotational inertia (or quantum 'spin') that is due to relative rotational motion 4) rotational inertia (or quantum 'spin') that is due to a lack of relative rotational motion. The Higgs boson is THE ONLY particle with zero quantum spin. Relative motion of energy gives rise to time interval dilation effects, not the least of which is the apparent temporal PERMANENCE of matter itself relative to a frame of reference at rest relative to the geometric center of an internal rotational mode of propagation. Some forms of matter are more permanent than others. Time dilation differences in the composite internal rotational inertial structures no doubt explains this effect, but it would be difficult to unravel using mathematics that is the current state of the art. In this subquark domain, space is nothing and time and energy is everything there is. Knowing that the speed of light is proportional to time will avail you nothing. This rotational propagation is is much faster, the basis of time itself. You cannot divide by zero here, so a different approach will be needed. Imagining space to be curved in the manner of a Euclidean solid to explain it is just a child's naive fairy story. The only absolute space is the center of rotation of the energy propagation mode that results in the creation of a particle of matter. The only absolute time is the instant of 'now' that is the same for entangled particles of matter or the Higgs field everywhere in 'space', which is simply light travel time between centers of quantum rotation of particles having mass. At the rotational centers of particles having mass, time dilation is the same as it is for the Higgs field. This is how the Higgs mechanism imparts mass to electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, neutrinos, and their antiparticles. About 2% of atomic structure all told, but the Higgs can also decay to produce gluons, so there seems to be a connection to the boson responsible for color charge exchanges between quarks as well. That would be 100% for those keeping score of what parts of atomic structure need inertia in order to remain an actual structure. All of space is filled with an entangled Higgs field, which interacts via the Higgs mechanism even within the cores of matter bound in black holes. These objects are round, like other large gravitating bodies for a reason related to the only field capable of converting rotational inertia or quantum spin into linear inertia hard limited and with a rest frame that are both DEFINED by the speed of light. There's the source of your "curvature" of space, if there is any. Curvature means nothing if flatness remains undefined. The Higgs field defines the flatness of time 'spin' that gives inertia itself meaning.
Thanks for putting that together in a nice package. I can see where inertia plays a significant role, along with mass. I would have to ask some questions to be able to make some parallels between that and the concept that I put forth. I was taking the paper in the OP, and the subsequent confirmation of gravitational waves by LIGO, to postulate a simple wave energy background that fills all space. To recap, that background exists because mass is described as the source of gravitational radiation, and I am referring to gravitational energy as wave energy emitted by massive objects. My first question in regard to your scenario: is there a big bang event in your story? Do you have thoughts about if that event was a singularity without any explanation (something from nothing), or do you suppose there were preconditions to the event? If so, what sort of preconditions could produce the scenario of mass/inertia/Higgs boson/field/mechanism and various decay products?
I've given you the key to understanding gravitation on a deeper level than quantum loop gravity or any competing mainstream theory. Light energy or photons cannot propagate in their linear mode of propagation at c in a straight line, with inertia in a single non-rotating or curving direction in the absence of gravitation, without the Higgs field. Neither can gravitational waves, or inertia itself exist without it. I previously didn't know that linear inertia itself could propagate in "empty" space outside of matter, but apparently, it can. Before the actual discovery of the Higgs boson, this could only have been a guess. The displacement waves coupled to/from the field are very small in terms of both energy and light travel time (less than 1% of the diameter of a proton), but it is there. These ideas explain also why it is so weak an interaction, and also the fundamental basis of the force hierarchy problem. The coupling is weak because the ratio of the relative rates of rotational vs linear modes of propagation of energy in this universe is a large number, if it is even a number that can be expressed as a proportion to another large number, such as c, at all. For energy to interact with other energy at all, relative rates of time dilation must be comparable to within a small percentage. This is why proportional mathematics alone does not suffice or even begin to explain things like the speed of quantum entanglement. But you could also think of it as "at rest", if you really understood what "at rest" actually means, particularly in terms of time dilation, for both linear and rotational propagation modes of energy. There isn't anything else to describe in this universe that can really be called a science. Now you also understand why even gravitational energy is conserved, an important question for GW investigators. You could easily stare at the 19th century mathematics and Noether's theorem for a period of time spanning many thousands lifetimes and not realize the universe works in this manner. It's a theorem that is true and completely outside of the self-consistent framework of that system of symbolic logic. Time and energy transfer events are all that exists, and all that has ever existed. So perhaps the Big Bang was nothing more special than an energetic collision. Time in the proximity of that event was no doubt dilated in the extreme, other than at the geometric centers of bound particles of energy (matter), which are as timeless as the center of a black hole, or some energy traversing the universe at c. Unless you can answer the question: "relative to what?", don't bother to tell us how long ago it was and call it science.
