Gravitational field inside a void

In summary, the Sci Am August 2016 article discusses a supervoid detected in the direction of the CMB cold spot, which has a lower matter density than its surroundings. The gravitational potential is less in the center of the void than near its edges due to the presence of surrounding galaxies. However, the gravitational field inside a spherical shell of matter is constant zero everywhere. This is because the void is not spherical and not empty, so it does not follow the same rules as a spherical shell of matter. Additionally, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect causes photons to be slightly redshifted as they pass through a void, but they do not regain all the lost energy upon exiting due to expansion. This effect is a direct evidence of dark energy
  • #1
Bill McKeeman
13
3
Sci Am August 2016 discusses a supervoid detected in the direction of the CMB cold spot. The analysis assumes the gravitational potential is less in the center of the void than near its edges (thus near its surrounding galaxies). On the other hand the gravitational field inside a spherical shell of matter is constant zero everywhere (e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html). Why isn't the field inside a void also constant zero? What am I missing here?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bill McKeeman said:
Sci Am August 2016 discusses a supervoid detected in the direction of the CMB cold spot. The analysis assumes the gravitational potential is less in the center of the void than near its edges (thus near its surrounding galaxies). On the other hand the gravitational field inside a spherical shell of matter is constant zero everywhere (e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html). Why isn't the field inside a void also constant zero? What am I missing here?
The void isn't spherical and it isn't empty. It just has lower matter density than its surroundings.
 
  • #3
Chalnoth said:
The void isn't spherical and it isn't empty. It just has lower matter density than its surroundings.
Just for my understanding. Would a photon loose energy after entering a void, in contrast to a photon which "falls" into a supercluster and gains energy thereby?
 
  • #4
timmdeeg said:
Just for my understanding. Would a photon loose energy after entering a void, in contrast to a photon which "falls" into a supercluster and gains energy thereby?
Correct. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect causes photons to be slightly blue shifted upon passing through a large overdense region of the universe and slightly red shifted upon passing through a large underdense region. This is due to expansion of the universe. A photon gains energy [blueshifts] as it approaches an overdense region, but, it does not have to pay back all the energy gained when it exits the overdense region because the gravitational well is slightly shallower by the time a photon exits an overdens region. The opposite effect occurs when a photon passes through a large void. The density of mass behind a photon entering a void is slightly greater than the desity of mass in the direction opposite the void which causes a slight energy loss [redshift], but, the photon does not recover all the lost energy when it exits because the mass in the direction opposite the void is slightly diluted by expansion by the time the photon exits.
 
  • Like
Likes Fervent Freyja
  • #5
Chronos said:
Correct. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect causes photons to be slightly blue shifted upon passing through a large overdense region of the universe and slightly red shifted upon passing through a large underdense region. This is due to expansion of the universe. A photon gains energy [blueshifts] as it approaches an overdense region, but, it does not have to pay back all the energy gained when it exits the overdense region because the gravitational well is slightly shallower by the time a photon exits an overdens region. The opposite effect occurs when a photon passes through a large void. The density of mass behind a photon entering a void is slightly greater than the desity of mass in the direction opposite the void which causes a slight energy loss [redshift], but, the photon does not recover all the lost energy when it exits because the mass in the direction opposite the void is slightly diluted by expansion by the time the photon exits.
This explanation isn't quite correct.

If there were no dark energy, there'd be no ISW effect. Dark energy causes gravitational potentials to decay slowly over time, so that a large potential (whether an overdensity or void) will be a little bit more shallow by the time the photon exits. Thus it keeps some of the energy it gained or lost as it entered the region. If we had a matter-dominated universe with no dark energy, then the potentials would be essentially constant (at least in linear theory, meaning on very large scales), so that the photon would revert to its exact energy before entering the region.
 
  • Like
Likes Fervent Freyja
  • #7
Chronos said:
The explanation I offered is essentially the same as the one given here, https://briankoberlein.com/2015/04/22/stoking-the-fire/
Yeah, it's not correct that it's just the expansion. In a flat, matter-dominated universe, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect cancels entirely (because at least in linear theory, gravitational potentials do not change over time in such a universe). I'm sure that non-linear effects change this on smaller scales, but the ISW effect largely cancels on smaller scales anyway (the effect is most significant at large scales).

The Wikipedia write-up goes into a little bit of detail on this point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs–Wolfe_effect#Late-time_integrated_Sachs.E2.80.93Wolfe_effect

If you want a more technical write-up:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5102v1.pdf

Apparently the ISW effect is also apparent in a universe with significant spatial curvature. But given that our universe is quite flat, the ISW effect is currently the most direct evidence we have of dark energy.
 
  • #8
Chronos said:
The opposite effect occurs when a photon passes through a large void.
Ok, thanks.
 
  • #9
Chalnoth said:
But given that our universe is quite flat, the ISW effect is currently the most direct evidence we have of dark energy.
Without dark energy the universe would still expand, albeit decelerated. Would large structures not participate because of ##\ddot{a}=0## in this case?
 
  • #10
timmdeeg said:
Without dark energy the universe would still expand, albeit decelerated. Would large structures not participate because of ##\ddot{a}=0## in this case?
This effect is a feature of dealing with the inhomogeneities, so FRW doesn't really apply.

When you use linear perturbation theory to estimate how the underdense and overdense regions evolve over time, you find that the gravitational potential is constant in the flat, matter-dominated universe.

I'm not completely sure of the physical interpretation of this fact, but it might be related to the fact that once gravitationally-bound systems form, they are quite stable. I think that this means that in such a universe, overdense regions don't collapse so much as they just stop expanding once the expansion slows to the point that they can remain gravitationally-bound. It's been a number of years since I studied this subject in detail, unfortunately.

There are certainly some non-linear effects that can also cause gravitational potentials to change over time, but those effects are very small as they're only really significant at small scales and the ISW effect cancels more efficiently at small scales (because if you're looking at smaller scales, chances are that there are so many voids/overdensities of those scales between us and the CMB that they average out to zero).
 
  • #11
Thanks for your answer.
Chalnoth said:
This effect is a feature of dealing with the inhomogeneities, so FRW doesn't really apply.
So it seems it isn't as simple as I thought. My reasoning was that large structures like superclusters are just enough loosely bound gravitationally in order to "feel" tidal forces. Hopefully it is at least correct that tidal forces require ##\ddot{a}<>0##.
 

Related to Gravitational field inside a void

1. What is a gravitational field inside a void?

A gravitational field inside a void refers to the area within a void or empty space where there is no matter or mass present. It is the region where the force of gravity is essentially zero.

2. Does a void have a gravitational field?

Yes, a void does have a gravitational field. Even though there is no matter or mass present, the concept of gravitational fields is based on the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy. Therefore, even in a void, there is still a gravitational field present.

3. How is the gravitational field inside a void measured?

The gravitational field inside a void can be measured using a variety of methods, including gravitational potential mapping, gravitational lensing, and the study of the motion of objects within the void. However, since the field is essentially zero, it may be challenging to detect and measure accurately.

4. Is the gravitational field inside a void constant?

No, the gravitational field inside a void is not constant. It can vary depending on the curvature of space-time and the presence of nearby masses. In some cases, the field may be close to zero, while in others, it may be slightly stronger due to the influence of neighboring objects.

5. How does the gravitational field inside a void affect the motion of objects?

Since the gravitational field inside a void is essentially zero, it does not have a significant impact on the motion of objects. However, it may still have a slight influence on the trajectory of objects passing through the void, depending on the strength of the field and the mass of the objects.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
16
Views
875
Replies
1
Views
337
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
683
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top