Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:14 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:57 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 9:49 pm
You now have no uniform mass distribution.
You may find these links helpful and certainly interesting!
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/204

Simply consider the gravitational force acting on you at some fixed, finite distance from the rotating mass (or mass ensemble). If you expect to feel a varying force over time as some mass gets closer and farther away from you during a rotation period, then GWs are emitted. It should be intuitive that there are no variations from a rotating uniform sphere, but split it in half and separate them, even infinitesimally, now introduces a varying gravitational field (GWs).
Now there are more complicated GW emission from exotic dynamic mass conditions (time varying mass-currents) and solitons (as I read anyway ), but I believe the discussion here refers to "basic" binary-inspiral-type GWs.

Thanks. Your "whether an observer will experience a time-variable gravitational field" explanation is certainly a much clearer way of understanding this! But it would also imply that an accreting black hole would emit GWs "merely" because it is getting more massive over time, right? And even if it is NOT rotating, though that is probably virtually impossibly unlikely to happen in reality.

An accreting black hole doesn't emit GWs. The accreting material does because it isn't a perfectly homogeneous disc.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:57 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 9:49 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 8:56 pm

Very interesting. Yes, I was referring to an axis perpendicular to the handle, specifically, either X or Y (really, the same case) in the image below, but not Z:


symmetrical dumbbell axes of rotation.jpg


But it still strikes me as odd that a rotating solid sphere generates no GWs, but simply removing a circular slice of arbitrarily small thickness through the center - thereby creating a symmetrical dumb-bell! - will suddenly cause GWs to be created!

You now have no uniform mass distribution.
You may find these links helpful and certainly interesting!
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/204

Simply consider the gravitational force acting on you at some fixed, finite distance from the rotating mass (or mass ensemble). If you expect to feel a varying force over time as some mass gets closer and farther away from you during a rotation perion, then GWs are emitted. It should be intuitive that there are no variations from a rotating uniform sphere, but split it in half and separate them, even infinitesimally, now introduces a varying gravitational field (GWs).
Now there are more complicated GW emission from exotic dynamic mass conditions (time varying mass-currents) and solitons (as I read anyway :?: :idea:), but I believe the discussion here refers to "basic" binary-inspiral-type GWs.

Thanks. Your "whether an observer will experience a time-variable gravitational field" explanation is certainly a much clearer way of understanding this! But it would also imply that an accreting black hole would emit GWs "merely" because it is getting more massive over time, right? And even if it is NOT rotating, though that is probably virtually impossibly unlikely to happen in reality.

alter-ego wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 9:49 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 8:56 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 7:34 pm
A non-zero quadrupole rotation component is required for GW generation. A symmetrical dumbbell has two fundamental rotation axes that generally describe all rotation possibilities: Parallel and perpendicular to the dumbbell handle. Only for the special, on-axis (parallel to the handle) rotation will no GWs be generated. Maximum GWs occur when dumbell rotation is perpendicular to the handle (maximum quadrupole moment).

Very interesting. Yes, I was referring to an axis perpendicular to the handle, specifically, either X or Y (really, the same case) in the image below, but not Z:


symmetrical dumbbell axes of rotation.jpg


But it still strikes me as odd that a rotating solid sphere generates no GWs, but simply removing a circular slice of arbitrarily small thickness through the center - thereby creating a symmetrical dumb-bell! - will suddenly cause GWs to be created!

You now have no uniform mass distribution.
You may find these links helpful and certainly interesting!
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/204

Simply consider the gravitational force acting on you at some fixed, finite distance from the rotating mass (or mass ensemble). If you expect to feel a varying force over time as some mass gets closer and farther away from you during a rotation perion, then GWs are emitted. It should be intuitive that there are no variations from a rotating uniform sphere, but split it in half and separate them, even infinitesimally, now introduces a varying gravitational field (GWs).
Now there are more complicated GW emission from exotic dynamic mass conditions (time varying mass-currents) and solitons (as I read anyway ), but I believe the discussion here refers to "basic" binary-inspiral-type GWs.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 8:56 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 7:34 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:52 pm
Not sure I understand your geometry. What axis "through its handle"?

A non-zero quadrupole rotation component is required for GW generation. A symmetrical dumbbell has two fundamental rotation axes that generally describe all rotation possibilities: Parallel and perpendicular to the dumbbell handle. Only for the special, on-axis (parallel to the handle) rotation will no GWs be generated. Maximum GWs occur when dumbell rotation is perpendicular to the handle (maximum quadrupole moment).

Very interesting. Yes, I was referring to an axis perpendicular to the handle, specifically, either X or Y (really, the same case) in the image below, but not Z:


symmetrical dumbbell axes of rotation.jpg


But it still strikes me as odd that a rotating solid sphere generates no GWs, but simply removing a circular slice of arbitrarily small thickness through the center - thereby creating a symmetrical dumb-bell! - will suddenly cause GWs to be created!

alter-ego wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 7:34 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:52 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:46 pm

And a dumbbell-shaped body rotating about a line through its "handle"? At what point does "two bodies orbiting each other emitting GWs" become "one asymmetrical rotating body not emitting GWs"?

Not sure I understand your geometry. What axis "through its handle"?

A non-zero quadrupole rotation component is required for GW generation. A symmetrical dumbbell has two fundamental rotation axes that generally describe all rotation possibilities: Parallel and perpendicular to the dumbbell handle. Only for the special, on-axis (parallel to the handle) rotation will no GWs be generated. Maximum GWs occur when dumbell rotation is perpendicular to the handle (maximum quadrupole moment).

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:52 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:46 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 9:03 pm
Two bodies orbiting each other create waves in the plane of their orbit. A rotating body produces no gravitational radiation if it is spherical. Otherwise it does.

And a dumbbell-shaped body rotating about a line through its "handle"? At what point does "two bodies orbiting each other emitting GWs" become "one asymmetrical rotating body not emitting GWs"?

Not sure I understand your geometry. What axis "through its handle"?

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:46 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 9:03 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 8:47 pm

Ok, one more: two identical bodies orbiting a common center of gravity emit GWs, correct?

Now, what about a single rotating body, which seem to me quite similar. Is it constantly emitting GWs or not?

Two bodies orbiting each other create waves in the plane of their orbit. A rotating body produces no gravitational radiation if it is spherical. Otherwise it does.

And a dumbbell-shaped body rotating about a line through its "handle"? At what point does "two bodies orbiting each other emitting GWs" become "one asymmetrical rotating body not emitting GWs"?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 9:03 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 8:47 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:42 pm
It's not a matter of what individual particles are doing. You need to look at the system, which is a spherically symmetric, non-varying mass. That is true if it pulses in and out in size (which some bodies actually do). If you want the gruesome details, you can check out Birkhoff's theorem, which describes spherically symmetric cases in GR.



Again, there is no "main body", there's just a spherically symmetric mass which is oscillating while maintaining that symmetry. Not sure it's physically accurate, but by analogy you could imagine that if you're observing this from a distance, a blob of mass moving towards you is exactly offset by a blob of the same mass moving away from you.

Ok, one more: two identical bodies orbiting a common center of gravity emit GWs, correct?

Now, what about a single rotating body, which seem to me quite similar. Is it constantly emitting GWs or not?

Two bodies orbiting each other create waves in the plane of their orbit. A rotating body produces no gravitational radiation if it is spherical. Otherwise it does.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 8:47 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:42 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:26 pm

Alright. Perhaps I'll have to not understand that. If the body blowing off mass is doing so symmetrically (spherically or maybe radially in a single plane?) IT won't experience any acceleration, but the blown off matter certainly will, and so, won't IT create GWs?

It's not a matter of what individual particles are doing. You need to look at the system, which is a spherically symmetric, non-varying mass. That is true if it pulses in and out in size (which some bodies actually do). If you want the gruesome details, you can check out Birkhoff's theorem, which describes spherically symmetric cases in GR.

Finally, one last hypothetical: if a body blows off matter symmetrically and that matter falls back symmetrically, I might guess that the main body would emit GWs due solely to the fluctuation in mass. But that's probably not right either. It's back to the "attempt to understand GWs" drawing board for me!

Again, there is no "main body", there's just a spherically symmetric mass which is oscillating while maintaining that symmetry. Not sure it's physically accurate, but by analogy you could imagine that if you're observing this from a distance, a blob of mass moving towards you is exactly offset by a blob of the same mass moving away from you.

Ok, one more: two identical bodies orbiting a common center of gravity emit GWs, correct?

Now, what about a single rotating body, which seem to me quite similar. Is it constantly emitting GWs or not?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:42 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:26 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:04 pm

There is acceleration happening anytime a body isn't moving in a straight line.

If a body blows off mass in a spherically symmetric way, it won't create gravitational radiation.

Alright. Perhaps I'll have to not understand that. If the body blowing off mass is doing so symmetrically (spherically or maybe radially in a single plane?) IT won't experience any acceleration, but the blown off matter certainly will, and so, won't IT create GWs?

It's not a matter of what individual particles are doing. You need to look at the system, which is a spherically symmetric, non-varying mass. That is true if it pulses in and out in size (which some bodies actually do). If you want the gruesome details, you can check out Birkhoff's theorem, which describes spherically symmetric cases in GR.

Finally, one last hypothetical: if a body blows off matter symmetrically and that matter falls back symmetrically, I might guess that the main body would emit GWs due solely to the fluctuation in mass. But that's probably not right either. It's back to the "attempt to understand GWs" drawing board for me!

Again, there is no "main body", there's just a spherically symmetric mass which is oscillating while maintaining that symmetry. Not sure it's physically accurate, but by analogy you could imagine that if you're observing this from a distance, a blob of mass moving towards you is exactly offset by a blob of the same mass moving away from you.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 7:26 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:04 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 7:33 pm

Just to be clear, the outspiraling Moon is also giving rise to GWs, right? That is, there's acceleration happening there too.

And I presume that "decretion" of matter such as what occurs when stars blow off their layers for various reasons will also cause GW?

There is acceleration happening anytime a body isn't moving in a straight line.

If a body blows off mass in a spherically symmetric way, it won't create gravitational radiation.

Alright. Perhaps I'll have to not understand that. If the body blowing off mass is doing so symmetrically (spherically or maybe radially in a single plane?) IT won't experience any acceleration, but the blown off matter certainly will, and so, won't IT create GWs?

Finally, one last hypothetical: if a body blows off matter symmetrically and that matter falls back symmetrically, I might guess that the main body would emit GWs due solely to the fluctuation in mass. But that's probably not right either. It's back to the "attempt to understand GWs" drawing board for me!

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:04 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 7:33 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:05 pm
The process of accretion involves accelerated mass. So it produces gravitational radiation. (Accretion always involves inspiraling matter.) It is the acceleration that matters. Spin a barbell and you produce gravitational radiation, despite the fact that the two masses remain at a fixed distance from each other.

Just to be clear, the outspiraling Moon is also giving rise to GWs, right? That is, there's acceleration happening there too.

And I presume that "decretion" of matter such as what occurs when stars blow off their layers for various reasons will also cause GW?

There is acceleration happening anytime a body isn't moving in a straight line.

If a body blows off mass in a spherically symmetric way, it won't create gravitational radiation.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:04 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 7:33 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:05 pm
The process of accretion involves accelerated mass. So it produces gravitational radiation. (Accretion always involves inspiraling matter.) It is the acceleration that matters. Spin a barbell and you produce gravitational radiation, despite the fact that the two masses remain at a fixed distance from each other.

Just to be clear, the outspiraling Moon is also giving rise to GWs, right? That is, there's acceleration happening there too.

And I presume that "decretion" of matter such as what occurs when stars blow off their layers for various reasons will also cause GW?

There is acceleration happening anytime a body isn't moving in a straight line.

If a body blows off mass in a spherically symmetric way, it won't create gravitational radiation.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 7:33 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:05 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:59 pm

Nice! So I could power a few dozen LED light bulbs with this power! :-)

As for mechanisms that cause GW "radiation", what about an object that changes in mass due to accreting matter? I'm thinking mainly about the BHs in the centers of galaxies that can accrete huge amounts of mass over time.

Also, I presume that "inspiraling" of orbiting objects is not required for GW emission, and even the "outspiraling" Moon orbiting the Earth is radiating GWs sine there is still acceleration involved.

The process of accretion involves accelerated mass. So it produces gravitational radiation. (Accretion always involves inspiraling matter.) It is the acceleration that matters. Spin a barbell and you produce gravitational radiation, despite the fact that the two masses remain at a fixed distance from each other.

Just to be clear, the outspiraling Moon is also giving rise to GWs, right? That is, there's acceleration happening there too.

And I presume that "decretion" of matter such as what occurs when stars blow off their layers for various reasons will also cause GW?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:05 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:59 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:09 am

GW power ≈ 200 Watts
Inspiral time ≈ 10²³ years

Nice! So I could power a few dozen LED light bulbs with this power!

As for mechanisms that cause GW "radiation", what about an object that changes in mass due to accreting matter? I'm thinking mainly about the BHs in the centers of galaxies that can accrete huge amounts of mass over time.

Also, I presume that "inspiraling" of orbiting objects is not required for GW emission, and even the "outspiraling" Moon orbiting the Earth is radiating GWs sine there is still acceleration involved.

The process of accretion involves accelerated mass. So it produces gravitational radiation. (Accretion always involves inspiraling matter.) It is the acceleration that matters. Spin a barbell and you produce gravitational radiation, despite the fact that the two masses remain at a fixed distance from each other.

Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:39 pm So, we live in a universe full of older and newer gravitational waves. Let’s call the idea – POND. There are little, old splashes and big, new splashes that we can measure.

What happens when they run into each other? Constructive and destructive interference? Sounds like a gravity-type mechanism to begin to work with.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:59 pm

alter-ego wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:09 am

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:26 pm

It is accelerating masses that produce GWs. And extended masses that change size non-spherically. A single mass moving at a constant velocity does not radiate GWs. Masses orbiting each other always do so. Yes, the Earth radiates GWs as it orbits the Sun.

GW power ≈ 200 Watts
Inspiral time ≈ 10²³ years

Nice! So I could power a few dozen LED light bulbs with this power! :-)

As for mechanisms that cause GW "radiation", what about an object that changes in mass due to accreting matter? I'm thinking mainly about the BHs in the centers of galaxies that can accrete huge amounts of mass over time.

Also, I presume that "inspiraling" of orbiting objects is not required for GW emission, and even the "outspiraling" Moon orbiting the Earth is radiating GWs sine there is still acceleration involved.

alter-ego wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:09 am

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:26 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:20 pm Thanks guys. So, is it only changing gravitational fields that produce GWs? Does a single mass moving alone in space produce GWs? How about one mass orbiting another: does that always produce GWs? Is the Earth's orbit around the Sun creating GWs?

It is accelerating masses that produce GWs. And extended masses that change size non-spherically. A single mass moving at a constant velocity does not radiate GWs. Masses orbiting each other always do so. Yes, the Earth radiates GWs as it orbits the Sun.

GW power ≈ 200 Watts
Inspiral time ≈ 10²³ years

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:26 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:20 pm Thanks guys. So, is it only changing gravitational fields that produce GWs? Does a single mass moving alone in space produce GWs? How about one mass orbiting another: does that always produce GWs? Is the Earth's orbit around the Sun creating GWs?

It is accelerating masses that produce GWs. And extended masses that change size non-spherically. A single mass moving at a constant velocity does not radiate GWs. Masses orbiting each other always do so. Yes, the Earth radiates GWs as it orbits the Sun.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:20 pm Thanks guys. So, is it only changing gravitational fields that produce GWs? Does a single mass moving alone in space produce GWs? How about one mass orbiting another: does that always produce GWs? Is the Earth's orbit around the Sun creating GWs?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:21 pm

2. Are these GWs directional, like the EM waves emitted by rotation or "lighthouse-like" pulsars that emit radiation along their spin axes?

I don't know if there are any directional sources. But most are likely produced by two bodies, and the propagation is substantially on the plane of their orbit.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:09 pm
... have the potential to cancel each other out when they overlap, which is something that EM waves don't do (or do they?). Is the GWB simply what's left over after such cancellation effects?

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:09 pm So, it's Thursday stupid question time again:

As I understand it, the GWB is apparently the total combined effect of millions or billions of events like black hole and neutron start mergers and rotating neutron stars, all emitting gravitational waves at various frequencies.

1. Why are there different frequencies in the first place?

2. Are these GWs directional, like the EM waves emitted by rotation or "lighthouse-like" pulsars that emit radiation along their spin axes?

3. I would think GWs, in a manner naively similar to waves on water, have the potential to cancel each other out when they overlap, which is something that EM waves don't do (or do they?). Is the GWB simply what's left over after such cancellation effects? (Hmm, I can also imagine that overlapping waves might result in low frequency waves with high frequency waves embedded in them resulting in smaller ripples on top of longer ripples.)

4. Aside: why are GWs limited by the speed of light, and why are they obliged to travel at light speed anyway? After all, they are ripples IN space-time that are propagating, not actual matter or energy travelling THROUGH space-time.