Timeline for Binary Black Hole Solution of General Relativity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2016 at 19:06 | comment | added | AGML | @Otto Well, you're coming at the topic from a somewhat unusual angle. You might try Shapiro's or Albucierre's books on numerical relativity, particularly the parts about initial conditions/ binary black holes. The self-force is discussed in Poisson's review relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2011-7, but it is pretty intimidating after the first couple of sectoins. Poisson's book ("Gravity") might also be of some interest. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 10:00 | comment | added | OTH | I see, thanks AGML I know this is a bit off topic but would you happen to have a source I could use to read more about these things? | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 16:52 | comment | added | AGML | @Otto Well, this is sort of how people generate initial data for binary black hole simulations in practice: you first simply add two Kerr-Schild metric together, and then optimize certain constraint equations to make things consistent/vacuum. I've never heard of someone trying this on a whole four-metric at once, though. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 1:16 | comment | added | OTH | Thanks for your time. Exactly because GR is nonlinear I'm asking if it is possible to add a perturbation on top of it. I'm just curious since I haven't seen anyone superpose two black holes and then adding a perturbation to make first order corrections to the system $\overset{0}{g_{\mu\nu}}+\overset{1}{g_{\mu\nu}}+\epsilon h_{\mu \nu}$. I suppose that superposing two black hole solution works if they are infinitely far away right? I'm just wondering if there is some more fundamental problem with this vs the usual way to perturb black holes. | |
| Mar 23, 2016 at 16:37 | comment | added | AGML | @Otto Since GR is nonlinear, stitching together two black hole solutions is not trivial. You can't just superpose them, for example, like you can in EM theory. The basic problem is in coming up with a self-consistent history of the system: the geometry at a given moment depends on its entire past light cone. Similar problems obtain when adding a "static" perturbation: strictly speaking, this isn't consistent with GR. However you can do things like this in approximate limits. | |
| Mar 23, 2016 at 3:21 | comment | added | OTH | How about stitching together two black hole solutions? You mentioned perturbing an exact black hole solution; how about solving the perturbation without evolving the black hole metric? E.g. adding a static perturbing field. | |
| Dec 1, 2015 at 20:09 | history | answered | AGML | CC BY-SA 3.0 |