Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:03:50 UTC No. 16471305

You mean linearized field equations?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:53:18 UTC No. 16471682

>>16471305
no, a wave equation, but of course it has to be lineal

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 01:49:48 UTC No. 16472712

>>16471682
There are plenty of nonlinear wave equations. GR is inherently nonlinear and can only be linearized perturbatively. What are you looking for?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:29:42 UTC No. 16473031

>>16472712
>What are you looking for?
gravitational waves far away from a source, in low amplitude to the point where non-linear effects become minimal compared to the linear parts.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:59:16 UTC No. 16473190

>>16471163
Your first step is to expand the metric
g_munu = eta_munu + h_munu + …
You usually pick the deDonder gauge
g^munu Gamma^rho_munu = 0
which is like the Lorenz gauge for gravity
With all this you should end up with the Pauli-Fierz action, which is the kinetic part of the Einstein-Hilbert action
I’m sure you can derive equations of motion from that on your own

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:14:41 UTC No. 16473312

>>16473190
You are just saying random words.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:18:33 UTC No. 16473558

>>16473312
kek if you are OP, then I feel bad for you. If you’re so retarded that you can’t derive EoMs from picrel (m=0 of course), then I’ll spoonfeed you the answer
d’Alambertian * (h_munu - 1/2 eta_munu trace(h)) = 0
here you go

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:33:03 UTC No. 16473742

>>16473558
>D'Alambertian
This isnt the NBA draft, you are i the wrong board

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 06:22:06 UTC No. 16474414

>>16473190
OP here, Something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity
Therefore, by writing it in terms of a "trace-reversed" metric,
h
¯
μ
ν
(
ϵ
)
=
h
μ
ν
(
ϵ
)
−
1
2
h
(
ϵ
)
η
μ
ν
{\displaystyle {\bar {h}}_{\mu \nu }^{(\epsilon )}=h_{\mu \nu }^{(\epsilon )}-{\frac {1}{2}}h^{(\epsilon )}\eta _{\mu \nu }}, the linearized field equations reduce to

◻
h
¯
μ
ν
(
ϵ
)
=
−
2
κ
T
μ
ν
.
{\displaystyle \square {\bar {h}}_{\mu \nu }^{(\epsilon )}=-2\kappa T_{\mu \nu }.}
This can be solved exactly, to produce the wave solutions that define gravitational radiation.

Now, explicitly in free space, what would be the actual equation?
Just the common wave equation, i.e the same as in electromagnetism?
Just put 0 where the energy-momentum tensor goes?

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 06:23:20 UTC No. 16474417

>>16474414
sheeeeeit it looks like shit, just look at the website

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 07:58:58 UTC No. 16474472

>>16471163
dont overthink it
physics is physics

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:00:00 UTC No. 16474474

2/3
>>16474472

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:01:02 UTC No. 16474476

3/3

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:02:03 UTC No. 16474477

>>16474476
and heres how it fits together

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:08:32 UTC No. 16474478

>>16474477
Well poisoning garbage by a jew

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:12:56 UTC No. 16474484

>>16474478
this is why you'll never learn anything, muh jooos
meinwhile I'm reading about fiezou inteferometers, I'm reading about electron/flood/writing/loading guns how electrons act in a vaccume what deflection yokes do inside a CRT chamber what the relation of a pinhole defractor to a point diffraction interferometer is
but anyways you just sit here and spin your wheels in the mud becuase le joos

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:14:45 UTC No. 16474486

>>16474484
>meinwhile I'm reading about fiezou inteferometers,
I studied physics in university for 6 years. You will never amount to shit. Dumb fucktard, stick to popular mechanics magazines

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:16:34 UTC No. 16474488

>>16474486
>I did this thing once you'll never go anywhere stick to banal boomer entertainment
Wow first you said you were fucking retarded in your other post but damn you really all caps it in this one

what kind of physics?

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:17:55 UTC No. 16474490

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:19:31 UTC No. 16474493

>>16474488
>what kind of physics?
Retard, this questions betrays you.
What kind of physics?
Have you ever been to college?
Fucking worthless mongoloid

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:23:00 UTC No. 16474498

>>16474493
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLus8qbBhFs
>diddnt answer the question
>diddnt say what college what he went for
>gaslight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLus8qbBhFs

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:27:01 UTC No. 16474500

BECC ATT and BECC 9C
what can you contribute beyond empty shittalking and muh jooooooooos
>>16474493

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:33:10 UTC No. 16474504

>>16474498
>diddnt answer the question
Its a stupid question asked by a stupid retard (you)
You have never been in a physics lecture in your life. Have fun masturbating to 1960s cathode tube drawings

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:39:31 UTC No. 16474510

>>16474504
the only thing you've added is useless insults and racism, I see your gaslight retard

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:46:17 UTC No. 16474519

>>16474510
You have added nothing to this thread but bumps fucking retard. Get fucked with your 1960s scam UFO bullshit. Kill yourself illiterate dumbass

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:24:45 UTC No. 16474731

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:16:30 UTC No. 16474966

>>16474414
>Now, explicitly in free space, what would be the actual equation?
see >>16473558. Jesus fucking Christ, are “physicists” on this board incapable of deriving EoMs from the Lagrangian?