Jump to content

Talk:Weak-field approximation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Debresser (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 5 June 2009 (replace article namespace template by its talkpage namespace equivalent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconPhysics Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Far-field versus Weak-field

Actually, far-field theory treats gravitation far from massive objects. In such regions, the field is indeed weak, but weak-field theory is more general. In particular, it also treats the production of gravitational radiation by say a binary star system.

The rest of the current article actually discusses the Newtonian limit, another special case of weak-field theory, where we also assume that test particles are moving slowly with respect to the speed of light.

I propose to rewrite the article to clarify these points. CH

Hi Hillman. As you can tell, my knowledge of this area is pretty dire. In the rewrite, can you at least keep the chunk of text and equations already present - maybe put them in another article ('Newtonian limit' perhaps) if that's better - as I spent a bit of time working through the equations to check they were correct. --- Mpatel 10:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merger

The proposed merger should be done by expert as part of program of greatly improving articles on weak-field theory, which will require writing many new articles as well as merging the two existing ones. See the todo list at the top of Talk:Linearized gravity. ---CH 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]