What different approximations yield Gravitoelectromagnetism and Weak Field Einstein Equations?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
33 views

This question is inspired by this answer, which cites Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) as a valid approximation to the Einstein Field Equations (EFE).

The wonted presentation of gravitational waves is either through Weak Field Einstein equations presented in, say, §8.3 of B. Schutz “A first course in General Relativity”, or through the exact wave solutions presented in, say §9.2 of B. Crowell “General Relativity” or §35.9 of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

In particular, the WFEE show their characteristic “quadrupolar polarization” which can be visualized as one way dilations in one transverse direction followed by one-way dilations in the orthogonal transverse direction. GEM on the other hand is wholly analogous to Maxwell’s equations, with the gravitational acceleration substituted for the $\mathbf{E}$ vector and with a $\mathbf{B}$ vector arising from propagation delays in the $\mathbf{E}$ field as the sources move.

My Questions:

1. The freespace “eigenmodes” of GEM, therefore, are circularly polarized plane waves of the gravitational $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$. This does not seem to square exactly with the WFEE solution. So clearly GEM and WFEE are different approximations, probably holding in different approximation assumptions, although I can see that a spinning polarization vector could be interpreted as a time-varying eigenvector for a $2\times 2$ dilation matrix. What are the different assumptions that validate the use of the two theories, respectively?
2. The Wikipedia page on GEM tells us that GEM is written in non-inertial frames, without saying more. How does one describe these non-inertial frames? Are they, for example, stationary with respect to the centre of mass in the problem, like for Newtonian gravity? There would seem to be very few GR-co-ordinate independent ways to describe, when thinking of GEM as an approximation to the full EFE, a departure from an inertial frame. It’s not like you can say “sit on the inertial frame, then blast off North from there at some acceleration”.
3. Are there any experimental results that full GR explains that GEM as yet does not? I’m guessing that these will be in large scale movements of astronomical bodies.
4. Here I apologise for being ignorant of physics history and also because I am at the moment just trying to rehabilitate my GR after twenty years, so this may be a naïve one: if GR can in certain cases be reduced to analogues of Maxwell’s equations, what about the other way around: are there any theories that try to reverse the approximation from GR to GEM, but beginning with Maxwell’s equations instead and coming up with a GR description for EM? I know that Hermann Weyl did something like this – I never understood exactly what he was doing but is this essentially what he did?

I am currently researching this topic, through this paper and this one, so it is likely that I shall be able to answer my own questions 1. and 2. in the not too distant future. In the meanwhile, I thought it might be interesting if anyone who already knows this stuff can answer – this will help my own research, speed my own understanding and will also share around knowledge of an interesting topic.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance
asked Aug 23, 2013
I'm no expert on GEM, but I'm sure the key to the answer to 1 and 2 at least has to do with the fact that the GEM field is not the full gravitational field. Rather, the GEM potential comes from the top row of the metric perturbation, something like $A_\mu = h_{\mu\nu} U^\nu$ where $U$ is the velocity of the local frame, and the "gauge transformations" are some restricted version of diffeomorphisms rather than the full group. It seems like GEM is some sort of "square root" of GR, which would explain the spin 1 vs spin 2 difference.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Michael Brown
It would be really interesting to see if this has any relation to the correspondence between scattering amplitudes in gauge theories and gravity (the stuff Bern and Arkani-Hamed talk about a lot). I doubt it, but there are superficial similarities to a non-expert like myself...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Michael Brown
I may understood your questions 3, 4 incorrectly, but, nevertheless, I will try to answer. Maxwell's equations can be derived by applying the Lorentz transformations to the Coulomb law. It is very boring, but it will lead you to the Lorentz force with relativistic expressions of the fields $\mathbf E , \mathbf B$. Then you can take the curl and divergence of these fields and get Maxwell equations.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user PhysiXxx
Analogical action with Newton law will lead you to the gravitational analogue of the Lorentz force with $\mathbf E , \mathbf B$ fields, and to the equations which are very similar to GEM equations. But there is little problem: it is a missing factor 2 near the $\mathbf B$ field in the expression of force (in the Wikipedia's article this factor is hidden by redefinition of $\mathbf B$).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user PhysiXxx
It creates some problems with observations. For example, in 1911 Einstein derived formula for the deflection of rays in a gravitational field from special relativity. The predicted value of deflection in a Sun field was two times less than it should.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user PhysiXxx
 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$wThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.