Relativity and Cosmology Blog

Relativity and Cosmology

This is a Blog on relativity and cosmology for engineers and the like. My website "Relativity-4-Engineers" has more in-depth stuff.

You can comment directly on this Blog if the comment/question is relevant. to the topic Comments/questions of a general nature should preferably be posted to the FAQ section of this Blog (http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/316/Relativity-Cosmology-FAQ).

A complete index to the Relativity and Cosmology Blog can be viewed here: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/browse/22/Relativity-and-Cosmology"

Regards, Jorrie

Previous in Blog: Two-Body Orbits   Next in Blog: Equatorial Bulge
Close
Close
Close
9 comments
Rate Comments: Nested

Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

Posted February 22, 2011 12:00 AM by Jorrie

In my prior Blog,(a) I wrote on the fact that Newtonian two-body orbits are identical to the orbits of 'light-weight' objects around a heavy central mass, provided that the two masses are summed and placed at the location of any one of the two. Now I've found that in most cases, two-body relativistic orbits are also virtually indistinguishable from such 'one-body' orbits.

It is obviously not the case in very strong gravitational fields, where the interaction between the two gravitational fields cause a type of "empty space friction" that emits gravitational waves. The two orbiting, in-spiraling neutron stars pictured here show such a case(b) (it's actually density and temperature distribution plots in the orbital plane, not the neutron stars themselves).

If they orbit at a relatively large distance, the gravitational radiation quickly becomes negligible, because the energy loss rate diminishes with the fifth power of distance.(c) In such a case, the standard relativistic point particle orbital equation do hold. For circular orbits it is relatively easy to work with. The relative circular orbital speed is actually the same as for the Newtonian case.

The relativistic orbital energy has a slightly different look than what Newton predicted.(d)

The ˜ means it is specific energy, Joules per kg of total mass (m1+m2). The relativistic parameter gtt = 1-2G(m1+m2)/(rc2) is the square of the gravitational time dilation factor and the denominator is hence the combined gravitational and velocity time dilation. Here vt is the relative tangential velocity as seen by a distant observer, i.e. the circular orbital speed of eq. 4.

Amazingly, when eq. (19) is approximated for low speed, weak field conditions (vt << c and r >> 2G(m1+m2)/c2), it reduces to: ½ v2 - G(m1+m2)/r + c2, which is the Newtonian specific energy plus c2. The c2 stems from the fact that Einstein added the rest energy E = mc2 to the Newtonian mechanical energy, hence he added specific energy E/m= c2.

For losses due to gravitational waves, we can specialize the equation in note (c) below for circular orbits:

This gives the specific energy loss rate in J/kg per second over one orbit with an average semi-major axis r=a. I have calculated the initial value for two point masses of 1.5 Suns each, orbiting at a distance of 885 km (100 times their combined Schwarzschild radius, orbital period ~ 262 ms, hence very relativistic). The result is a staggering orbital energy loss of 7.63 GJ/sec per kg of combined mass. This increases as the orbit shrinks, so the two masses will spiral into each other in well less than two hours.

[Edit] I've updated the Two-body Orbits PDF to include relativistic orbits. You can download the pdf here.

-J

(a) http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/15924/Two-Body-Orbits

(b) http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~mor/nsgrb.html

(c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity (second last equation)

(d) See eq. 6.7 of Relativity-4-Engineers, chapter 6, freely available here: How Orbits Work. It is modeled after Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation, eqs. 25.17 and 25.18.

--oo0oo--

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

"Almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, vote them!
Anonymous Poster
#1

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/22/2011 1:25 PM

Hi Jorrie, I follow with interest, as far as I can understand, your posts. Very thought provoking, especially the orbit classification of that figure 3 in your updated pdf.

I do not quite understand that V/c^2 axis of the graph. You said it is essentially the orbital energy "without the contribution of the radial velocity component". Then you said that the orbital energy shifts the orbit "up and down" on the graph. The two statements seem contradictory to me, because orbital energy does surely include radial velocity.

I will be grateful if you can help me out of this impasse.

Tom

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#3
In reply to #1

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/23/2011 12:10 AM

Hi Tom, yea, sorry, it was a bit cryptic from me.

I post the graph you referred to here for ease of discussion. Each value of L has its own curve shape, effectively giving the energy at the turning points of valid orbits for that L.

The vertical axis is proportional to total energy E/c2, but since the curve is only for 'effective potential energy', it is marked as V/c2, because the curve excludes radial kinetic energy. Effective potential energy is (sort-of) the `potential to stay in orbit'. If you have too little, you de-orbit, unless you are zooming up and away, fast...

When we draw a horizontal line on the graph (like the dotted line for the elliptical orbit B), it represents the constant total energy E/c2 for valid orbits. I suppose one can generalize the graph with E/c2 on the vertical axis and a legend for different curves.

Hope this clears it up a bit.

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
Anonymous Poster
#7
In reply to #3

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/23/2011 10:51 PM

Tx Jorrie, this helps. I can see the elliptical orbits now, with constant E/c up to just less than 1. I can see what happens if the energy constant drops below your point A. I presume it falls directly (or spiral?) into the singularity at r=0.

I can also see what happens for E/c above 1, but what happens if the energy constant goes up to beyond your point E? Or is that forbidden territory in relativity?

Tom

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#8
In reply to #7

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/24/2011 1:14 PM

Hi Tom, you wrote: "I can see what happens if the energy constant drops below your point A. I presume it falls directly (or spiral?) into the singularity at r=0."

It spirals in, but below the event horizon (rc2 / GM = 2), the orbit is in any case undefined in the coordinate system used here. The latter is a tad complex, but if you want, I can direct to literature that explains it well.

"I can also see what happens for E/c above 1, but what happens if the energy constant goes up to beyond your point E? Or is that forbidden territory in relativity?"

It is not forbidden in general, but for any given (constant) angular momentum, energy above point E does not follow the relativistic Kepler laws. Energy will surely be conserved, but I do not think angular momentum is conserved in such a case. I will take a closer look at this (haven't thought about it up to now :)

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4273
Good Answers: 213
#2

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/22/2011 11:35 PM

The denominator of your Equation 19 looks suspiciously like the Lorentz contraction, if you replace the gtt with the value 1. One of the things from the ancients (i.e., 1950's), it seems that one could use a constant "rest mass" in Einstein's equation rather than allowing for a relative mass, if you included the Lorentz contraction. If you write Einstein's equation as;

E = M * c2

(1 - v2/c2)1/2

It becomes pretty obvious that the limit as v approaches c is infinite, but obviously with 0 in the denominator, Energy of a body moving at c would be undefined...

One seldom encounters the Lorentz contraction in today's discussions, for some reason. But it is interesting to see the same relationship showing up in your gravitational energy formula...

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#4
In reply to #2

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/23/2011 12:31 AM

Hi CW, yep, whether you call it Lorentz contraction or time dilation, it's true. I prefer the latter.

Lorentz contraction (like velocity time dilation) is a coordinate choice (observer dependent) quantity and hence has no absolute meaning. That is why absolute mass is much more useful than relative mass.

"One seldom encounters the Lorentz contraction in today's discussions, for some reason."

I think the fact that you cannot really measure Lorentz contraction like you can do with time dilation (bring clocks together again and compare their readings), it is bit more slippery.

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply
Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6
#5
In reply to #4

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/23/2011 5:10 AM

I am trying to find the correlation used in determining your equation for the microscopic. It is fantastic when we find constants such as velocity, etc... It even works out for the delay effect of the observer, or the observed, unlike Lorentz contraction. When it comes to Magnetic, Gravitational, Electric, Chemical, Thermal etc... effects upon Larger bodies of Mass, the observer stands a chance of defining in your fashion the relativistic aspect of the observation. The problem with particle theory, first and foremost, is the ether and what its true value or chemistry or relativistic nature is. Then we must tackle the communication issue of separated particles. I really enjoy your work. I do not in any way mean to be disrespectful. it took me a minute to finally even comment. Did I make sense ? or did I miss some new findings in particle theory?

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#6
In reply to #5

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/23/2011 5:59 AM

Hi George,

Careful, when I wrote: "Now I've found that in most cases, two-body relativistic orbits are also virtually indistinguishable from particle orbits" I did not refer to particles orbits around nuclei, i.e. it has nothing to do with particle physics.

My sentience was 'relativistic-speak' for objects with absolutely negligible mass in orbit around a massive object, like Earth. These equation do not apply in the case of 'real' particle physics like electron-proton interactions. General relativity simply does not work at microscopic scale...

Sorry if this created some confusion. I will change the wording of my OP somewhat to be clearer about this issue.

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6
#9
In reply to #6

Re: Relativistic Two-Body Orbits

02/24/2011 8:49 PM

Thank You for taking the time to answer. General Relativity simply does not work with the microscopic. May I be so bold as to ask if you could share any ideas you may have regarding one complete theory? I have been working with magnetism and electricity and there is an aspect of the magnetic field that does not conform with the laws of attraction. As a result, the explanation I came up with opened the door for explanations in other areas both micro and macro. I am working hard to find flaws in my ideas because they are so different from anything I've been used to. Thanks again for your time. G. Hatt Jr.

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 9 comments

"Almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, vote them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Poster (2); cwarner7_11 (1); George Hatt Jr (2); Jorrie (4)

Previous in Blog: Two-Body Orbits   Next in Blog: Equatorial Bulge

Advertisement