You are on page 1of 24

G en eral Relativ ity an d G ravitation , Vol. 2 9, No.

1 , 1 997

Grav itational Waves in Matter


R . L. Ingrah am 1
Rece ived A pril 9, 199 6 T he t heory of gravitat ional waves in m att er is given. T his covers the quest ions of constitut ive relation, numb er of indep endent polarizat ions, index of refraction, re ect ion and refraction at an interface, etc. T he t heory parallels the fam iliar optics of electrom agn et ic waves in m at erial m edia, but t here are some st riking di erences. T he use of t he Cam pb ell Morgan form alism in w hich the gau ge-invariant t idal force dyad s E an d B rat her than the gau ge-dependent m etric pert urbat ions are t he unknowns is essential. T he m ain just i cat ion of t he t heory at t he m om ent is as a t heoret ical ex ercise wort h doing. T he assumption: size L of t he m edium grav itat ional wave lengt h l ( in nite m edium ) rules out applica t ion t o t he already well-understood det ect ion problem , but there m ay b e an ap plication t o gravitational wave propagat ion through m olecular gas clouds of galact ic or inter-galact ic size. KE Y W ORDS : Grav itat ional wave

optics

; refraction and re ect ion

1. INTRODUCTION Treatments of gravit ational waves may be found in almost any text on general relativity ( gr ) such as Weinberg [1], Misner, T horne, and Wheeler [2], Ohanian and Ru ni [3], Adler, B azin, and Schi [4], t o name a few. er One solves for the propagat ion of the plane gravit ational wave ( g-wave) in vacuo by writing down the linearized Einstein equat ions for h m u , where

gm u
1

gm u + h m u

Departm ent of P hysics, New Mex ico State Un iversity, B ox 30001, Dept. 3D, Las C ruces, New Mex ico 88003, US A 117
0001-7701/ 97/ 0100-0117$09.50/ 0 1997 P lenum P ublishing Corporation

118

In g r a h a m

in a nearly Lorentzian frame (gm u the at space metric and h m u small). T he plane wave propagat es wit h phase velocity c. B y a suit able choice of gauge only the two independent polarizat ions h 11 = h 2 2 and h 12 survive. T he problem of g-wave detection is treated by calculating in one of several ways the scatt ering and absorpt ion cross sections on a detector, usually an elastic solid of size the order of a few meters. T he motion of the solid excited by the g-wave is t reated in idealized form, as essentially two point masses connect ed by a damped spring (cf. Ref. 2, Part VIII, Sec. 37.5, Ref. 3, Sec. 5.6) . T he purpose of this pap er is to establish the basic laws of g-waves propagat ing in in nite or semi-in nite material media, namely the questions of constitutive relation, independent polarizat ion states, index ( or indices) or refraction, re ection and refraction at an interface between di erent media, etc. in other words the gravit ational analogue of the familiar opt ics of electromagnetic waves in media such as is presented in Ch. 7 of J ackson s text [5]. As far as we know, this has not been done. T he reason is quit e clear: we require media whose size L t he g-wave length l gw , while most of the present day detectors are tuned to detect l gw vastly greater t han ( or at least comparable t o) their sizes. For example, for Webers original detectors the ratio L / l g w was about 10 - 5 (Ref. 3, Table 5.5). T hus this t heory has no relevance to the g-wave detection problem. Its main justi cat ion at the moment is as a theoretical exercise worth doing. However, it might nd applicat ion to g-wave propagat ion through molecular gas clouds of cosmic size. One might imagine from the treatment of vacuum g-waves that the analogy with t he electromagnetic ( em ) case in mat ter will be strict, wit h no surprises to be expected. W hile we have found t his t o be true in the main, t here are a few striking di erences. T he reasons for this are rst, that mass is not charge, and second, that the g-wave exerts a tidal force while t he em wave exerts a polar force. We use the Campbell Morgan form of general relativity [6 8], in which one solves for the tidal forces , the two traceless 3-dyads E i j and B i j , rather than the poten tials h m u in the linearized theory. T his means that one works with the gauge-invariant forces rather than wit h t he gaugedependent pot entials. W hile this approach has little advant age over the convent ional approach with the h m u in the vacuum case, we have found that it is clearly better, perhaps even essential, in t he case of a g-wave in matt er because of the severe problems with gauge which arise, especially in the case of two media separated by an interface (Fresnel problem). T he Campbell Morgan theory is of course completely equivalent to the Einstein theory. In our opinion t his brilliant rephrasing of gr has been

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

119

unjustly neglected in t he lit erature; for instance, it doesn t appear in [1 4] or in any text known to us. We proceed as follows. T he linearized eld equations in matt er in their Campbell Morgan form are averaged in t he manner of Russako[9] and J ackson ( Ref. 5, Sec. 6.7) to yield the macroscopic Einstein equat ions , the analogue of the macroscopic Maxwell equations. T he bound part of the averaged mat ter tensor Tm u h t m u i is thus expressed in terms of the averaged force E i j via a susceptibility tensor which is determined once a model of the solid or uid medium is given ( constitutive relation ). T he susceptibility for an elastic solid is worked out in detail in the Appendix. It is then shown t hat a harmonic plane g-wave is transverse, i.e., there are only two independent polarizat ion stat es, even in matter. T his is far from obvious, given t he complexity of the source terms in the Campbell Morgan theory, since the traceless 3-dyads E and B a priori allow ve polarizat ions. T his result does depend on the linearity of the constitutive relation, though it seems insensitive to the details of t he susceptibility tensor. T he solution for a harmonic plane g-wave in a solid is obt ained. T wo indices of refraction (birefringence) is the generic case. A special case, analogous to t he em case of an isotropic dielectric (Ref. 5, Ch.7), is then treated, in which there is only one index of refraction. T he solution for a gas or liquid, which is expected to be qualit atively similar, is brie y discussed in the concluding remarks. Finally, the problem of re ection and refraction of a harmonic plane gwave at an interface between media of di erent refractive indices ( Fresnel problem ) is solved. T here is an apparent overdetermination of t he re ected and refracted waves which does not arise in the em case. A solution is obt ained by making a tentative smoot hness hypot hesis which removes this overdetermination. T he pap er closes with conclusions and some open questions. 2. BACKGROUND T he rigorous, nonlinear eld equations in their Campbell Morgan ( cm ) form are obt ained by taking the covariant divergence of t he Weyl tensor Ca b m u and using the Bianchi identities to eliminat e the Riemann tensor R a b m u and the Einstein eld equations 2 Rmu
2 1 2

gm u R = 8pG Tm u

(1)

W e use t he W einberg sign conventions: m et ric of signature ( - + + + ) an d Riem an n t ensor such t hat t he sign on t he source t erm in (1) is a m inus. cm use t he Lan dau conventions as do mt w [2], which di from ours by t he sign of t he Riemann tensor. ers

120

In g r a h a m

to eliminat e the Ricci tensor and its derivatives (see (4.2) of Ref. 6) . T he linearized theory in an almost Lorentzian frame wit h gm u = diag ( + + + ) 1 reduces t o eqs. (4 .5a d), (4.6) , and (4.7) of [6]. T hese will be reproduced below when needed. In the linearized theory the gravit ational force 3-tensors E j k and B j k are de ned (see foot not e 2 above) Ej k

C0 j 0 k ,

Bj k

1 e 2 jF m

CF

0k

(2)

in this frame (Greek letters go from 0 to 3 and late Latin letters i, j , k, . . ., spatial indices, go from 1 to 3). B y de nition they are symmetric and traceless. Notably, E and B are gauge-invariant (unlike the h m u ) because the linearized Riemann tensor is [see for example Ref. 4, eq. (9.72) ]. T he meaning of E in t erms of t he (tidal) gravit ational force is the following: consider two particles a = 1 and 2 of spatial coordinat es X a (t) = B a + j a (t) , where B a are the equilibrium positions and j a ( t) t he small displacements from the equilibrium sit es. T hen their relative acceleration under the gravit ational force E i j (X , t) is j2 i (t) j1 i (t) = E (X 0 , t) i j (B 2 j B 1 j ), (3)

where X 0 is some xed position between t hem. It is assumed that (a) the oscillat ion amplitudes j j a (t) j j B 2 B 1 j , their equilibrium separation, and that (b) E (X ) varies very little over distances of order j B 2 B 1 j [1 4]. Compare (3) with the usual theory in the standard vacuum gauge, where E i j = 1 h i j . 2 3. THE CONSTITUTIVE RELATION Campbell and Morgan s linearized eld equat ions not ed above for the microscopic quant ities now denoted e i j , bi j , with source t m u are averaged by Russakos method [9] to yield the macroscopic equations for the averaged quant ities E i j , B i j , and Tm u , where E i j h e i j i , etc. Consider a cluster of n atoms at posit ions r A L (t) = y A L (t) + R L (t), A = 1, 2, 3, . . . n , (4)

where the medium of N n at oms is partitioned int o N / n clusters; L, M, . . . lab el the clusters while A, B , . . . label the atoms in the cluster; R L (t) is the center of mass of cluster L; the atoms A L have masses m A L . For a molecular uid, the cluster is a molecule (t his is the case treated by

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

121

Russakoin the em theory); for a solid the cluster will be de ned in more detail below. For any microscopic eld a(r , t), the averaged eld A(r , t) is de ned A(r , t)

h a i (r , t)

T he kernel w ( s) is a smooth function, and its support is chosen large enough relative to the cluster size t hat the averaged eld A varies smoothly in space and time, not re ecting the rapid uctuations on the microscopic level. If d w size of Supp w and d c typical cluster size, we thus assume d w d c . T his also allows the multip ole expansion w (s + y ) w (s ) + [y . w ] (s ) +
1 2

d 3 s w (r
S upp w

s ) a(s , t) , (5)

d 3 s w (s ) = 1 .
Su pp w

[ (y . ) 2 w ] (s ),

(6)

truncated after three t erms, where y as in (4) has size of order d c , as a good approxim ation. See Ref. 9, Secs. II and III, for an expanded discussion of this. Now consider t 0 0 , the microscopic mass density of cluster L, t 00 (r , t) = T he averaged density rL

A=1

m A L d (r

r A L (t) ) .

T0 0

rL (r ) =

h t 0 0 i is, by (5),

m A L w (r

rA L ) .

If we insert (4) and expand around r rL (r ) m L w (r + 1 2 RL )

R L , this becomes m A L yA L i
i

w (r R L ),

RL) (7)

A 2 ij

m A L yA L i yA L j
A

w (r

where m L / x i . (We A m A L is the mass of the cluster and i suppress t he t-dependence for a while to ease the not ation.) Rewrite this in t he usual dyad vector not at ion as rL (r ) pL
i

m L w(r + qL :

RL) w (r qL i j

pL .

w (r

RL) (8a)

m A L yA L i ;
A

R L ), 1 2

m A L yA L i yA L j .

(8b)

122

In g r a h a m

T he vector p L and symmetric dyad q L are the mass-dipole and quadrupole moments of the cluster. All of this is a direct transcription of Ref. 9, Sec. IV, with masses replacing charges. But now we not e that the dipole term vanishes exactly 3 pL

mAL yAL =
A

m A L (r A L
A

RL ) = mL RL

m L RL = 0 .

T his qualit ative di erence from the Maxwell theory, where the dipole term gives the main contribution t o the susceptibility, is to be not ed. T he linearized conservation equations m t m u = 0 imply m T m u = 0, or T0 0 =
i

Ti 0 ,

T0 i =

Tj i ,

(9)

where will mean / t hereafter. From these we infer that the quadrupolar part T ( 2 ) m u of the averaged source tensor is T00 (r , t) = T0
( 2) j (2)

S S S

q L (t) i j
L

2 ij

h d (r

R L (t) ) i , R L (t) ) i ,

(10a) (10b) (10c)

(r , t) = (r , t) =

q L (t) i j i h d (r q L (t) i j h d (r

T(2)

ij

R L (t) ) i .

Note w (r R L ( t)) = h d (r R L (t)) i . T he t ime-dependence has been restored in eqs. (10). We now need the explicit expressions for the time behavior of the quadrupole tensor q(t) as driven by a gravit ational wave. From now on we treat t he case of an elastic solid; the case of a uid will be brie y discussed in the concluding remarks. In the rest frame of the solid as a whole the atoms are bound to equilibrium sites which are xed. (T his leads to the familiar formalism of normal modes and frequencies, of course.) We are thus motivat ed to break up t he relative coordinat e y A L (t) of the cluster in ( 4) into two parts y A L ( t) = b A L ( t) + x A L ( t),
3

(11)

Not e t hat t his is not t he well-known result t hat t he dipole t erm in g-wave em ission is absent ( cf . Ref. 2 P art V III Sec. 36.1) . Here we are dealing with t he const itut ive relation.

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

123

F ig u r e 1 . Cluster L of at om s A = 1, 2, n . At om A L has ( x ed) equilibrium site show n as oA L . oC M (t) and oC M denot e t he clust er s cent er of m ass at t im e t and in equilibrium . T he various coordinates x A L (t) and R L ( t) , b L ( t) ( equilibrium values R L , b L ) are indicated. Som e ot her at om s of t he cluster are shown as .

where x A L ( t) is the displacement from this xed equilibrium site and b A L (t) is the vector from this xed equilibrium site to the exact center of mass of the cluster at time t, R L ( t) (see Figure 1). We also take n 1 so that the cluster size d c j x A L (t) j , that is, j b A L (t) j j x A L (t) j in (11). For x A L (t) we can use the normal mode formalism (see Ref. 10 for example), with a driving force due to the g-wave, which is F A L i = m A L E (R L , t) i j bA L j (12)

by (3). T he averaged eld E and microscopic eld e are essentially the same since we make the size assumption l g w d w [see (5)]. T he various size assumptions will be collected and justi ed below. T he solut ion of this problem is given in the Appendix. ( Compare the similar solution in Ref. 2, Part VIII Ex. 37.10 for t he case of an elastic solid detector , of size

124

In g r a h a m

l g w .) T he result is m A L x A L (t) i =

B=1 M=1

S S
n

N/ n

M A L i ,B M j m B M bB M k E (R M , t) j k .

(13)

Here the symmetric quant ity M A L i , B M j = M B M j , A L i depends on the normal mode amplitudes and frequencies and on the assumed frequency x of the monochrom atic driving force E (R M , t) = E (R M ) e - i x t [see (A .9)]. Insert this into q (8b), use t he breakup (11), and neglect the terms O(x 2 ) relative to the cross term O(bx) since j b A L j j x A L j . We then get the bound part T ( b) of the stress tensor (de ned as that part driven by the applied eld E ) as T ( b) (r , t) i j = K LM
i j ,k F L ,M

A ,B

K L M i j ,k F h d (r

R L ) i E (R M , t) k F ,
(k

m B M bA L ( i M A L j ) ,B M
( b)

bB M F ) ,
( b)

(14)

from (10c), with similar expressions for T00 and T0 i . T he parentheses around a pair of indices means the symmetric part. We have replaced R L (t) and b A L (t) occurring in (10) by their equilibrium values, neglecting higher order e ects in E . If the cluster centroids R L are distributed with number density n (R ) and we write K( R 9 , R 9 9 ) i j ,k F n ( R 9 )n (R 9 9 )K (R 9 , R 9 9 ) i j ,k F and put in the de nition of h d (r T ( b) (r , t) i j = =

s s

d3 R9 d3 R 9 9 d3 R9 9

in t he continuous formalism. Make the tran slation in variance assumption appropriat e for an in nite homogeneous solid medium (i.e., neglecting edge e ects). Insert (16) into (15) and change variables j R 9 9 + s . We get T ( b) (r , t) i j = d 3 j K(r j) i j ,k F E (j, t) k F (17) since h E k F i
4

d 3 s w (s ) K(r

R 9 ) i , we can write (14) as

d 3 s w (s ) K(R 9 , R 9 9 ) i j ,k F d ( r R 9 s , R 9 9 ) i j ,k F E (R 9 9 , t) k F

s ) E (R 9 9 , t) k F (15)

K(R 9 , R 9 9 ) i j ,k F = K(R 9

R 9 9 ) i j ,k F

(16)

E k F by our previous assumption 4 l g w

d w . Equat ion (17)

However, ( 17) is t rue even if E and e are not ident i ed.

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

125

is the desired constitutive relation in position space. Now go to the (spatial and temporal) Fourier transform T ( b) (k , x ) i j We get x (k) i j ,k F

(2p) -

d 3 r dt T ( b) (r , t) i j e -

i(k r- x t)

T ( b) (k, x ) i j = x (k) i j ,k F E (k, x ) k F , x


2

K( k) i j ,k F ,

(18)

where K(k) is (2p) 3 / 2 the spatial Fourier transform of K(r ). T his de nes the susceptibility tensor x in momentum space. Size assumption s. T he various size assumptions are collected here, with a brief justi cation of each. (i) L l g w . Reason: our aim in this paper is to study the charact eristics of macroscopic g-waves propagat ing in e ectively in nit e mat ter, that is, where the edge e ects play a negligible role. (ii) l g w d w . Reason: if d w * l gw , the averaging would wipe out the wave characteristics of t he macroscopic elds E (r , t) and B (r , t) . (iii) d w d c . Reason: so that the averaged elds E and B vary smoothly in space and time, unlike the rapidly uctuating microscopic elds e and b . T he size d c of the cluster is essentially set by quant um mechanics. Further, this inequality allows the t runcation of the multipole expansion (6) after a few terms. (iv) d c j x A L ( t) j . Reason: this justi es the form (12) of the g-wave driving force in the mot ion equation for x A L (t). Further, this permits the neglect of the quadrat ic terms O(x 2 ) relative to the linear terms O(bx) in the solution (13). T he not ion of a cluster of at oms (an essentially microscopic ob ject) has a certain arbitrariness in a solid. B ut not e that its size is bounded both ab ove and below by the assumptions (iii) and (iv) above. Hence we expect t hat t he susceptibility tensor (18) is reasonably unique. 4. PROPAGATION OF A PLANE G-WAVE IN A SOLID We assume that t he elds E and B have the harmonic plane wave forms E (r , t) i j = E i j e i ( k r x t)

B (r , t) i j = B i j e i ( k r -

x t)

126

In g r a h a m

where E i j and B i j here are amplitudes constant in time and space. Assume t hat the linear constitutive relation ( 17) or (18) is valid, and for simplicity treat the nondispersive case x (k) i j ,k F x i j ,k F constant. T hen T ( b) (r , t) m u exp i (k . r x t) also, and we can write the relation for the constant amplitudes T i j = x i j ,k F E k F , (19) where Tm u will mean the bound part only in this section. Further, under G , that is to say, in the source terms can use the vacuum dispersion relation k j k j = x , k= x (under G ),

G Tm u ,

we

since in our solution we neglect terms of O(G 2 ) or higher. De ne the proper fram e of the plane wave as that in which k is along the positive z -axis: k . r = kz . We shall work mainly in the prop er frame in t his section and drop any special not ation for this frame t o ease the not ation. (In the next section, however, it will be necessary to distinguish the proper frames from the int erface frame.) Also in t his section we adopt the convent ion t hat all repeated spatial indices are summed. Remember that all late Latin indices i, j , k, F , m , n etc. = 1, 2, 3. Start with the second order eld equation 5 for B (r , t) j k cm (4.6) (in this section equation numbers cm ( ) will refer always to Ref. 6) B j k = 4pG f e
jF n

F Tn k + e
k

kF n kF n

jF n

T0 n

F Tn j F j T0n g .

(20)

In the prop er frame for the component s j 3 t his reduces to the relation (x
2

k 2 )B j 3 = 4pG x

j 3n

(Tn 3 + T0n )

(21)

between amplitudes. Conservation 6 (9) gives T0 0 = T0 3 = T3 3 , T0i = T3 i (under G ; proper frame). (22)

Hence t he right member of (21) vanishes: B j 3 = 0, or B is tran sverse. T he rst order equat ion cm (4.5a) reads

j B j k = 4pG e
5 Note that our signs agree with 6

kj n

j T0 n .

(23)

cm s. T his holds separately for t he b ound an d t he free parts of Tm u .

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

127

Since B is transverse, this gives T0a = 0, a = 1, 2, and combining this wit h (22), we get t he new restrictions on Tm u , T0 a = T3a = 0 (under G ; proper frame) ,

where a, b, c, . . . = 1, 2 in this section refer to the transverse directions. T he second order eld equation cm (4.7) is E j k = 4pG f where T T hen
1d 3 jk j

Tj k

j k T00
j im

F TF k + k F TF j + e

kF n

i F Tm n g ,

(24)

(x (x

gm u T m u . Note
2

T = 0 under G , so this term never contributes.

k 2 )E a 3 = 4pG f x k )E 3 3 = 4pG f x = 4pG x


2 2

2 2

Ta 3
x

2 2

T33 + x

T00

T3 a g = 0,
x
2

T33
x

f T00

T33 g = 0 .

T33 g

T hus E j 3 = 0: E is tran sverse. T he rst order eld equation cm (4.5b) reads

j E j k = 4pG f j Tj k

1 3

k (Ti i + 2T00 ) g .

(25)

W ith the use of E transverse and equations already obt ained on the amplitudes Tm u this yields the new information T11 + T22 = 0, hence T = 0 (under G ; proper frame).

T he other rst order eld equations cm (4.5c) and (4.5d) are

e e

kF m kF m

F B j m E j k = 4p G f j T0k Tj k + 1 d j k T g , 3 1 F E j m + B j k = 4pG f e j F m F Tm k + 3 e F j k F T g .

(26) (27)

T hese are compat ible with E and B transverse and give no new information for j k = 3k. Incidentally, t hese two ( curl ) equations are independent, and imply all the ot hers; the set of eld equations cm ( 4.5a d), (4.6) , and ( 4.7) is thus a convenient redundant set. T hus there are only two independent polarizat ions, E 11 = E 2 2 and E 12 . Adopt the convenient not ation E 1 1 = E 22

a,

E 12

(proper frame) .

(28)

128

In g r a h a m

For the transverse components of any symmetric dyad A de ne A+

A11

A22 ;

2A 1 2

(proper frame).

(29)

T hen a little algebra on (19) proves the lemma T11 T22 = x + + a + x + b , 2T1 2 = x
+

a + x

b.

(30)

T hen t he transverse component s of ( 24) yield (x (x


2

k2 ) a k )b
2

4pG x 4pG x

(x + + a + x + b ) = 0 , (x
+

a + x

b) = 0 .

(31)

T he vanishing determinant gives t he dispersion relation with k / x index of refraction, k / x

n , the

n = 1 [ (x + +

p G (x + + + x

D ),
1/ 2

) +

4x 2 +

> 0.

(32)

T hus two indices of refraction (birefringence) is the general case. Also not e that if x i j , k F is real [which means that the wave is o resonance with any normal mode; see (A .8)] t hen k are real: propagat ion wit hout attenuation. T he corresponding amplitudes are, from (31),

a = a b;

(x+ +

D ) / 2x + .

Now solve (20) for B a b . T he 11 and 22 component s yield (x


2

k 2 )B 1 1 = 4pG x = (x
2

(x
2

a + x

b)

[by use of the lemma (30)] [by (31)]

k )b

while t he 12 component yields (x


2

k 2 )B 1 2 = 4pG x = 4pG x = (x
2

2 2

( T11
2

T2 2 ) (by the lemma) [by (31)] .

( x + + a + x + b)

k )a

T hus B 1 1 = B 22 = b , B 12 = a (proper frame).

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

129

In 3-dyad vector not ation B i = k Ei , k

k / k,

i = 1, 2, 3,

(33)

where the suppressed vector index is the same on both sides. T his is subtly but de nitely di erent from the case of an em plane wave in matter, B = nk E ( em case).

4.1. The sim ple m odel. De ne the simple model by the susceptibility xij , kF

x (d 2

ik

jF

+ d

iF

j k ),

(34)

where x is a constant scalar and d i j gi j = + 1 if i = j , 0 if i = j . T his / has the correct symmetries. Its use is primarily to make manageable the derivation of the Fresnel condit ions at an interface (next section) . Also it corresponds to the simple dispersionless isotropic dielectric case D = e E , B = mH usually adopt ed in the derivation of the Fresnel condit ions in the em case ( cf. say Ref. 5, Sec. 7.3) . However, whether (34) is realistic for any elastic solid is unknown at the moment . As an exercise, let us rederive some results directly in this simple case, as a check on the general solut ion just obt ained above. On the simple model Ti j = x E i j (35) in any frame. Accepting the general results that E and B are transverse, and the conservation equat ions (22), we get T00 = T0 i = Ti i = T = 0 (under G ), (36)

valid in any frame. Equation (24) for the transverse component s in the proper frame gives (x
2

k 2 )E 1 1

4pG x x

(E 1 1

E 22) = 0

(37)

for j k = 11. Here we used the convenient lemma

j im

kF n

k i kF Tm n = 11 : x = 22 : x

2 2

T2 2 T1 1
2 2

= 12 : x = 21 : x (under G ; proper frame) .

T1 2 T1 2

130

In g r a h a m

However, E 2 2 = E 11 , so we get from (37) (x


2

k2

8p G x x
2

)a = 0 , 8p G x ) or

that is, the dispersion relation k 2 = x k = x (1

(1

4p G x )

V.

(38)

Component j k = 22 yields t he same equation, while j k = 12 gives x 2 k 2 8pG x x 2 = 0, or the same dispersion relation. To solve for B , not e that the curl equation (26) can be written in the same 3-dyad vector not at ion used before as k B j + VE j = 0 ,

where (38) was used. Take k this equation, use a vector identity and k . B j = 0, and divide out k 2 . We get Bj = k Ej ,

or just (33). Now we check that the dispersion relation (38) agrees with the general case (32). For the simple model ( 34) we get x 11 ,11 = x 2 2,22 = x , and therefore from (29) x + + = 2x , x+ = x
+

x 1 1,2 2 = x 22 ,11 = 0

= 0,

= 2x .

T herefore D in (32) = 0, insuring monorefrigence, and k/ x

n = 1

4pG x ,

(39)

which agrees with (38). T he phase velocity is thus > c or < c according as x > 0 or < 0. 5. CONTINUITY CONDITIONS AT A N INTERFACE. THE FR ESNEL PROBLEM. To get the continuity condit ions across a plane interface between two media we integrate the divergence equations (23) and ( 25) over a Gaussian

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

131

pillbox and the curl equations (26) and (27) over a Stokesian strip, bot h straddling the interface, in the way familiar from em theory (cf. Ref. 5, Sec. I5 for example). B ecause of the complexity of the right hand sides as compared to the em case, we give this only for the simple model constitutive relation (35), not e (36) , in this paper. Applying Gausss and Stokes theorems, we get rst from (23) and (26)

D (n . B k ) = 0 , D (n B k ) = 0 ,

(40a) (40b)

where n is the unit normal to t he int erface point ing from medium 1 to medium 2, and for any quant ity Q(r , t)

DQ

Q2

Q1 ,

(41)

the jump across t he int erface. Together eqs. (40) imply D B j k = 0, j , k = 1, 2, 3 as usual. However, this is immediately seen t o overdetermine the problem. T his appears probable because there are only two polarizat ions, and hence four unknowns (those for t he re ected and refracted waves) while D B i j = 0 already delivers six equations. In addition there will be extra equations imposed by the continuity condit ions on E . T his expectation will be con rmed below. However, let us rst derive these further condit ions on E before tackling t he di culty. Applying Gausss and Stokes theorems to (25) and (27), we obt ain

D f ( 1 4pG x )E 3 k g = 0 , D E 3k = 0 and
7

(42a) (42b)

D f E a b + 4pG x (n E n ) a b g = 0

respectively. Here the ( unprimed) components refer to t he interface fram e with positive z axis along n and x and y axes in the int erface plane. In (42b) the two vector products act on the two suppressed indices. In this section a, b, c, . . . = 1, 2 in the interface frame. 5.1. The Fresnel problem In t he int erface frame de ned above, the int erface is the plane z = 0. Incident , refracted, and re ected wave quant ities will be denoted as in k, k 9 , and k 9 9 for the wave numbers following J ackson. T he wave is incident
7

St okes t heorem does not apply t o t he right hand side of (27), so this integrat ion had t o b e done directly for each pair j k; t his accounts for t he peculiar form of ( 42b) as compared t o t he other t hree continuity equat ions.

132

In g r a h a m

F ig u r e 2 . Show ing t he interface coordinat e system x, y, z an d m edium 1 an d 2 of index of refraction n an d n 9 respectively. T he vect ors k , k 9 , and k 9 9 are incident , t ransmitt ed, and re ect ed wave numbers; c c 9 are angles of incidence and t ransm ission.

from medium 1 (index of refraction n ) at an angle of incidence c ; the transmitted wave is in medium 2 (index of refraction n 9 ) with angle of refraction c 9 ( see Figure 2) . Snell s Law, sin c 9 / sin c = r- 1 , where r n9 / n, (43)

and angle of incidence = angle of re ection hold, since these are kinematical results valid for plane waves of any type. T he connection of the component s of an y symmetrical dyad (say E ) in the interface frame E j k (unprimed) to it s component s E j k in the wave s proper frame (there are three such proper frames here, of course) is as follows. Let e 1 , e 2 , and e 3 denote the basis vectors for the interface frame;

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

133

they are connected to the basis vectors for the prop er frames as determined by Fig. 2. A little work yields E =

E j k e j e k = e 1 e 1 ( E 1 1 c2 + E 3 3 s 2
j ,k

2 E 13 s c) E 23 s )

+ (e 1 e 2 + e 2 e 1 ) ( E 1 2 c + e2 e2 E 2 2

+ (e 2 e 3 + e 3 e 2 ) ( E 1 2 s + E 2 3 c) + (e 1 e 3 + e 3 e 1 ) ( E 1 1 s c E 3 3 s c + E 1 3 (c2 1 1 s 2 + E 33 c2 + 2 E 13 s c), + e3 e3 ( E s

s2 ) ) (44a)

sin c , c

cos c ,

(incident wave).

For re ected and t ransmitted waves make the following changes in (44a): s s

s, c s9 , c

c, component s E j9 9 k c9 , component s E j9 k

(re ected wave), (transmitted wave),

(44b) (44b)

where s 9 sin c 9 , c9 cos c 9 . Equat ions ( 44) are true for any symmetric dyad. For the t ransverse and traceless E -force elds, with t he not ation (28), they simplify as follows: E = e 1 e 1 ac2 + (e 1 e 2 + e 2 e 1 ) b c + e 2 e 2 ( a) + (e 2 e 3 + e 3 e 2 ) b s + (e 1 e 3 + e 3 e 1 ) as c + e 3 e 3 as 2 ( incident E -wave), (45a)

with t he changes (44b, c) for re ected and transmitted E -waves, denoted as eqs. ( 45b, c). For the corresponding B -waves make the change a b , b a in the ab ove formulas. Now we are ready to return to the Fresnel problem. T he continuity condit ions (40a, b) yielded the equations D B j k = 0, as not ed below (41). However, we can now see that these equations are incompatible. In particular

D B 11 = 0 ) D B 22 = 0 )

( b + b 9 9 ) c2 = b 9 c9 2 , b + b 9 9 = b9 ,

a contradiction. As a further problem not e that t he continuity condit ions (42a) and the rst condit ion of (42b) are incompatible, since if n 9 = n , then /

134

In g r a h a m

x 9 = x . (By eqs. (45) the component s 3k of all E -waves are non-vanishing / for general oblique incidence.) T his is puzzling because no such problems arise in the Fresnel problem in the Maxwell theory. T here, for each polarizat ion there are six equations 9 9 for the two unknown amplit udes E 0 and E 09 . However, one is identically satis ed and the remaining ve reduce to two independent equations (cf. Ref. 5, p.280-1) . Of course, in the Maxwell theory the elds are vectors while our elds are dyads, which roughly multiplies the number of continuity condit ions by 3 because of the free index k in eqs. (40) and (42). T hese continuity condit ions were derived by formally applying Gausss and Stokes theorems. However, these t heorems do have smoot hness hypotheses [11] (which are generally ignored with impunity in t he physical literature), that is, they can break down and give false results if the elds in question do not have the requisit e smoot hness across the interface. A further hint is supplied by the fact that for normal incidence, the int erface frame and prop er frames coincide, 8 and hence the number of surviving component s in the int erface frame reduces t o just the right number to satisfy the continuity condit ions, as we shall see below. Mot ivat ed by these considerations, we make t he following hypot hesis. S m oot h n e s s P r in c ip le (a) Component s of the dyad elds normal to t he int erface are discont inuous across the interface. (b) Only the traceless part of t he tangential component s of the dyad elds are smoot h across t he int erface. (46) It is implied that Gauss s or Stokes t heorems cannot be used for such discont inuous component s. T his hypot hesis will be further discussed in the concluding remarks. Now let us reduce the continuity condit ions derived before to the valid subset permitted by this principle. In the int erface frame this means rst discarding all condit ions involving an index 3. T hus condit ions (40a) and (42a) fall away. Also component k = 3 of (40b) and the rst equation D E 3k = 0 of (42b) fall away. Using the not ation ETT

traceless part of f E projected ont o the int erface g ,

(47)

we can now apply part (b) of t he principle to the remaining continuity condit ions. T he result is

DB TT = 0,

D f (1 + 4pG x )E T T g = 0 , ( nal continuity condit ion on g-waves.)

(48)

For the re ect ed wave t here is a rot ation by 180 around t he y-axis.

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

135

We used t he simple lemma, traceless part of n T n = t raceless part of the projection of T ont o the interface, which is proved below. Conditions (48) are supposed to be t he analogues of the em continuity condit ions for a dielectric [Ref. 5, eqs. (7.37) ]. From (45a) and the de nition (47) the interface frame component s of E T T t urn out to be E T T = (e 1 e 1 e 2 e 2 )(1 s 2 / 2) a + (e 1 e 2 + e 2 e 1 )cb , (49)

(incident E -wave),

with the changes for the re ected and transmitted E -waves and the three B -waves given ab ove. Proof . P rojection means drop all parts of (45a) involving an e 3 . T hen taking the traceless part of the remaining terms amount s to replacing the sum of the e 1 e 1 and e 2 e 2 terms by (e 1 e 1 e 2 e 2 ) 1 (E 1 1 E 2 2 ). T his gives 2 (49) since (1 + c2 ) / 2 = 1 s 2 / 2, q.e.d. Further, consider the component s of n T n , which are 11 : T2 2 , 22 : T11 , 12, 21 : + T12 .

T hen taking the traceless part of n T n by t his algorit hm gives just the traceless part of the projection of T itself, proving the simple lemma quot ed just above. Solution of the Fresn el problem . From D B T T = 0 we get (1 s 2 / 2) ( b + b 9 9 ) (1 s 2 / 2) b 9 = 0 , a9 9 ) c9 a9 = 0 ,
9

c( a while D f (1 + 4pG x )E T T g = 0 gives (1 s 2 / 2) n - 1 ( a + a9 9 ) (1

(50)

s 9 2 / 2)n 9 - 1 a9 = 0 ,

cn - 1 ( b

b 9 9 ) c9 n 9 - 1 b 9 = 0 ,

(51)

where we used 1 + 4pG x = n - 1 , 1 + 4p G x 9 = n 9 - 1 from (39). To simplify these, use Snell s Law s 9 / s = r- 1 = n / n 9 and de ne G 2 (r) F (r)

(r2 [ (r2

s 2 / 2) / (1 s 2 ) / (1

s 2 / 2), s 2 ) ]1 / 2 ,

136

In g r a h a m

whence c9 / c = F (r) / r. T hen the Fresnel equations for the simple model in nal form can be written a9 9 + G2 a9 = a, r3 F a9 9 + a9 = a, r b9 9 + G2 b9 = b , r2 F b9 9 + 2 b9 = b. r

(52)

Solving, we get

a9 = a9 9 =

2r3 a , (G 2 + r2 F ) G 2 r2 F G 2 + r2 F

b9 =
,

)a

b9 9 =

2r2 b , (G 2 + F ) G2 F G2 + F

)b

(53)

In the special case of normal incidence, t he traceless projected elds E T T and B T T are just E and B themselves. ( T hus the cont inuity condit ions (48) are those directly obt ained by applying Gauss s and Stokes t heorems, namely (40a, b) and (42a, b).) T he Fresnel equat ions are obt ained by setting s = s 9 = 0 and c = c9 = 1 in (50) and (51). T he solutions are 2ra , 1+ r 1 r a9 9 = a, 1+ r

a9 =

2rb , 1+ r r 1 b9 9 = b, r+ 1

b9 =

(normal incidence).

(54)

T hese do agree with t he general oblique incidence solutions (53) since G (r) = F (r) = r for s = 0. T his concludes the solut ion of the Fresnel problem: refraction and re ection of harmonic plane g-waves at a plane interface between two different semi-in nite media, at least for the simple model of the constitutive relation. 6. CONCLUDING R EMAR K S a) T he most remarkable result is t hat there are only two polarizat ions of a harmonic plane g-wave in matter, even though ve are a priori possible. T he proof depended on the presence of a lin ear constitutive relation, though it seemed to be independent of the det ailed form of t he susceptibility tensor x i j ,k F . Note that this is not as trivial a conclusion as it is in the em case (cf. Ref. 5, Sec. 7.1) as the derivation of the transverseness in Section 4 shows.

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

137

b) T he case of a gas or liquid m edium . T he t heory of the time behavior of the quadrupole tensor q L ( t) of a cluster developed here for a solid also serves as a crude model of molecular vibrat ions driven by a g-wave in a gas or liquid. T he latter case is actually simpler in that an atom is coupled only to t he atoms in t he same cluster ( molecule), not to all the atoms throughout the whole medium [cf. (13)]. T hen we get a linear constitutive relation of the form (18) also for a uid. Such a crude classical model seems to work well in the em case for a solid, liquid, or gas [see say Ref. 5, eq. (7.51) ]. Som e di erences with the solid case are evident. First, the susceptibility tensor x i j ,k F for the gas will be much smaller t han for a solid, owing to t he gas s much smaller density. Second, for a molecular gas will be real (no absorption) since the molecular natural vibrat ion frequencies will be vastly greater than t he g-wave frequency [cf . (A .8)]. F c) T here is also a free part Tm u to the averaged matter tensor, analogous to the free charge and current in the macroscopic Maxwell equations. From (8b), (10), and (11) it is seen that T F (r ) 0 0 =

S {
L

m L h d (r

RL) i +

1 2

m A L bA L i bA L j
A

2 ij

h d (r

RL) i

F with similar expressions for the other Tm u . Since T0F0 does not vanish, there is no gravit ational analogy t o the em dielectric. However, this makes no di erence to the plane g-wave propagat ion and Fresnel problems solved above. T he eld equations and continuity condit ions are linear. We have ( b) solved the (homogeneous) equations de ned by the bound part Tm u . T he F solution of the equat ions with source Tm u will give solutions E and B of Newtonian type gravit ation, and are ignored here. d) Further remarks on the smoothn ess prin ciple (46). Note three point s: (i) T he nal set of continuity condit ions (48) is in fact a subset of the full set of condit ions (40) and (42) derived by t he naive applicat ion of Gausss and Stokes theorems. (ii) T he reduced condit ions (48) are in fact the full set for t he case of normal incidence. (iii) T he reduced set impose four independent condit ions, just enough to avoid overdetermination and to enforce a unique solution to the Fresnel problem for g-waves. It seems quite certain therefore t hat something is impeding the naive applicat ion of these integral theorems to the divergence and curl eld equations, and that that something can only be a violat ion of their hyp ot heses.

138

In g r a h a m

A deeper understanding of why t he indicat ed component s should be discontinuous is desirable. T his is an open problem. e) T here might be an applicat ion of this theory to g-wave propagat ion through molecular gas clouds of cosmic dimensions, where t he criterion L l gw would easily be satis ed. Due to their tenuous nature (very small ) and of course to the smallness of G the indices of refraction (32) or (39) would be negligibly di erent from unity. However, if the cloud were large enough and hence the t ransit time long enough or if t here were su cient density variat ion, the cumulative e of the medium might be ect observable. Another applicat ion is conceivable if g-wave detectors of a new type, on a much larger length scale than those at present, could be develop ed. ACKNOW LEDGEMENT I thank Roy J ones for suggesting the subject of this paper, for some work in the early phases of the research, and for alerting me t o the existence of the Campbell Morgan theory. APPENDIX We derive here the solution of the problem of the mot ion of an elastic solid driven by a gravit ational wave in the case of int erest that the size L of the medium is much greater than the g-wave lengt h l gw : L l g w . T his leads to the solution (13). T he mot ion equation of atom A in cluster L is m A L xA L i +

S S
B

VA L i ,B M j x B M j
M

+ dissipative term = m A L E (R L , t) i j bA L j , where we used (12) as the driving force. Here VA L i , B M j

(A .1)

V/ r A L i r B M j )

(A .2)

evaluat ed at r A L = b A L + R L , r B M = b B M + R M ; i.e., the leading term in t he potential energy expanded around these equilibrium posit ions of atoms A L and B M respectively. For the not ation consult Section 3 and Fig. 1. T he dissipative term will be speci ed later.

G r av it a t ion a l W a v e s i n M a t t e r

139

To facilit ate the transformation of ( A .1) and (A .2) to normal modes, rst de ne mass-weighted coordinat es, potential energy matrix, and driving force as follows: x9 A L i

m A L xA L i , V 9 A L i ,B M j

E 9 ALi

m A L E (R L , t) i j bA L j ,

VA L i , B M j m B M - 1 .

(A .3)

T he motion equation ( A .1, 2) then takes tensorial form with respect to the 3N cartesian coordinat es ALi and B M j , namely x 9 A L i + V 9 A L i , B M j x 9 B M j + dissipative t erm = E 9 A L i , (A .4)

with summation convent ion on t he 3N indices B M j . Now go to the 3N normal mode coordinat es f a , a, b etc. = 1, 2, . . . 3N : x 9 A L i = L A L i b fb , such that V ab inverse f a = L a B M j x 9 B M j
a 2 b x a

(A .5)

L a A L i V 9 A L i ,B M j L B M j b = d

0.

(A .6)

L A L i b is a rotation in t he 3N -dimensional euclidean con gurat ion space with the positive de nite metric gA L i ,B M j d A B d L M gi j . Transforming (A .4) to the normal mode coordinat e frame using ( A .5), we get fa + x
af
2

+ c a f a = E a (t)

(no summation convent ion) ,

(A .7)

where we have inserted the dissipative term (c a 0). Now let the driving term be a harmonic wave: E (R L , t) = E (R L ) e - i x t . T hen E a (t) = E a e - i x t , where E a is constant. T he steady solution of (A .7) is 2 f a (t) = x a E a e - i x t , x a (x a x 2 ix c a ) - 1 . (A .8) We go back to t he cartesian coordinat es ALi via (A .5). One obt ains x 9 A L i (t)

m A L x A L i (t) = M A L i , B M j E 9 B M j (t)
B ,M

M A L i , B M j m B M bB M k E (R M , t) j k

(A .9a)

where M A L i ,B M j

LA L i b x b Lb B M j .
b

(A .9b)

T his completes t he solution. T he 3N 3N mat rix M A L i ,B M j is symmetric, as can easily be proved from the fact that L A L i , b is a rotation in the 3N -dimensional euclidean con guration space.

140

In g r a h a m

R EFERENCES
1. Weinberg, S. (1972) . G rav itation a n d Cosm ology ( W iley, New York). 2. Misner, C . W ., T horne, K. S., and W heeler, J . A. ( 1973) . G rav itation (W . H. Freem an, San Fran cisco). 3. Ohanion, H. C ., and Ru ni, R. ( 1994). G rav itatio n a n d Spacetim e ( Nort on, New York). 4. Adler, R., B azin, M., and Schi M. ( 1975). In troduc tio n to G en e ral Relativ ity er, ( McGraw-Hill, New York). 5. J ackson, J . D. ( 1975) . C lassical E lectrodyn a m ics ( W iley, New York). 6. Cam pb ell, W . B ., an d Morgan, T . ( 1971). P hysica 5 3 , 264. 7. Cam pb ell, W . B ., an d Morgan, T . ( 1976). A m er. J . P h ys. 4 4 , 356. 8. Cam pb ell, W . B ., an d Morgan, T . ( 1976). A m er. J . P h ys. 4 4 , 1110. 9. Russako G. (1970) . A m er. J . P hys . 3 8 , 1188. , 10. Goldstein, H. ( 1980) . Classical Mechan ic s ( Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.).