Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By Howard Roark
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Question on GR : How is gravity maintained in a box ?

  1. #1 Question on GR : How is gravity maintained in a box ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Say i had a concrete closed container moving around randomly under a gravitational influence,
    then within the box all the aspects of the surrounding gravity characteristics will be identically maintained,
    for instance when going to or coming back from a less gravitational condition.

    (Not concerned here about 'the man in the elevator accelarating' issue,
    the box could hang still in one place and then later hang still in another place and all the gravity conditions would be contiouously and instantaniously maintained)

    How does the fabric of spacetime, spacetime curvage make this happen ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Not sure I understand the question. Are you concerned about the effect of the mass of the concrete box? Or are you thinking that it would somehow "shield" the external gravitational effects? Or ...?


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    the box could hang still in one place and then later hang still in another place and all the gravity conditions would be contiouously and instantaniously maintained)
    ...unless of course you are moving the box closer or further to/from the source of gravity. Also, if the gravitational source is very strong and the box very large, you may have tidal forces to consider.

    How does the fabric of spacetime, spacetime curvage make this happen ?
    Birkhoff's theorem - the gravitational field of a stationary, spherically symmetric body has Schwarzschild geometry. First and foremost that means the field is static, and static fields act instantaneously ( as opposed to changing fields ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not sure I understand the question. Are you concerned about the effect of the mass of the concrete box? Or are you thinking that it would somehow "shield" the external gravitational effects? Or ...?
    Indeed about shielding, how does the gravity inside the box 'keep track of' gravity outside the box, which it should mimic at all times ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    the box could hang still in one place and then later hang still in another place and all the gravity conditions would be contiouously and instantaniously maintained)
    ...unless of course you are moving the box closer or further to/from the source of gravity. Also, if the gravitational source is very strong and the box very large, you may have tidal forces to consider.

    How does the fabric of spacetime, spacetime curvage make this happen ?
    Birkhoff's theorem - the gravitational field of a stationary, spherically symmetric body has Schwarzschild geometry. First and foremost that means the field is static, and static fields act instantaneously ( as opposed to changing fields ).

    When i say 'maintain' gravity conditions, i actually mean the ability to maintain the change happening outside the box, in the box.

    Say if a certain change of curvage of spacetime etc is happening outside the box as it moves around, according to changing gravitational conditions the bow would encounter on the random path, how does this get transferred to or maintained within the box ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    When i say 'maintain' gravity conditions, i actually mean the ability to maintain the change happening outside the box, in the box.
    Say if a certain change of curvage of spacetime etc is happening outside the box as it moves around, according to changing gravitational conditions the bow would encounter on the random path, how does this get transferred to or maintained within the box ?
    Space-time is everywhere, both in vacuum and in the interior of masses, hence so is gravity, since it is just a geometric property of space-time. You cannot "shield" gravity by putting yourself in a box. Note that the geometry of space-time in the interior of mass-energy is different from the exterior ( vacuum ) - it is described by different solutions to the field equations. However, the equations themselves are valid in both cases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    So am i to interprete that as this :

    > Going from vacuum to mass to vacuum (say left to right) :

    -in Vacuum : spacetime is curved a certain way (producing the gravitational condition there)
    -in Mass : spacetime is curved identically , or is it distorted differently, but still 'connected' to vacuum ?
    -in Vacuum : spacetime is curved again as in the leftside vacuum, also still 'connected' to the spacetime in the matter.

    ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    -in Vacuum : spacetime is curved a certain way (producing the gravitational condition there)
    Correct.

    -in Mass : spacetime is curved identically , or is it distorted differently, but still 'connected' to vacuum ?
    It is curved differently in the interior of a mass, but smoothly connected to the metric outside. Note that this difference is very small, unless the mass is substantial.

    -in Vacuum : spacetime is curved again as in the leftside vacuum, also still 'connected' to the spacetime in the matter.
    Yes. Having said that, the curvature in the interior cavity of the box will very slightly differ from the outside, due to the presence of the mass in the walls. But I think you have understood the basic notion - being that gravity cannot be "shielded", unlike EM radiation.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Suppose one has a hollow spherical shell near some other gravitational source. Without considering the complications arising from the fully general relativistic theory, inside the shell, the gravitation is that of the nearby external gravitational source, while outside the shell, the gravitation is that from the shell itself in addition to the nearby external gravitational source. As Markus Hanke points out, there is no shielding of the external gravitational source by the shell, although inside the spherical shell, there is no contribution from the shell itself (although strictly speaking, Birkhoff's theorem only applies when the entire spacetime is spherically symmetric).
    Howard Roark likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Suppose one has a hollow spherical shell near some other gravitational source. Without considering the complications arising from the fully general relativistic theory, inside the shell, the gravitation is that of the nearby external gravitational source, while outside the shell, the gravitation is that from the shell itself in addition to the nearby external gravitational source. As Markus Hanke points out, there is no shielding of the external gravitational source by the shell, although inside the spherical shell, there is no contribution from the shell itself (although strictly speaking, Birkhoff's theorem only applies when the entire spacetime is spherically symmetric).
    Gravitational shielding is a controversial subject. To date, no such effect has been detected. It is interesting to see that very reputable physicists, like Majorana, have been experimenting with the concept. Others, like Maurice Allais, pursued the subject despite the ridicule of the mainstream physics .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Gravitational shielding is a controversial subject. To date, no such effect has been detected. It is interesting to see that very reputable physicists, like Majorana, have been experimenting with the concept. Others, like Maurice Allais, pursued the subject despite the ridicule of the mainstream physics .
    That's fair enough. Physicists are still testing general relativity (whenever the opportunity arises), and this provides justification for testing ideas that would conflict with GR. I don't know if the full theory of GR would allow some shielding of an external gravitational source, but if it does, it would certainly be a higher-order effect (no shielding in the Newtonian limit).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Gravitational shielding is a controversial subject. To date, no such effect has been detected. It is interesting to see that very reputable physicists, like Majorana, have been experimenting with the concept. Others, like Maurice Allais, pursued the subject despite the ridicule of the mainstream physics .
    That's fair enough. Physicists are still testing general relativity (whenever the opportunity arises), and this provides justification for testing ideas that would conflict with GR. I don't know if the full theory of GR would allow some shielding of an external gravitational source, but if it does, it would certainly be a higher-order effect (no shielding in the Newtonian limit).
    The limits are set to 1 part in !
    KJW likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Not about shielding per say, but this link has to do with an observational test of the strong equivalence principle; Pulsar and companions will put general relativity to the test - physicsworld.com

    The article mentions "self gravity", do they just mean mass in this context or something more complex?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Not about shielding per say, but this link has to do with an observational test of the strong equivalence principle; Pulsar and companions will put general relativity to the test - physicsworld.com

    The article mentions "self gravity", do they just mean mass in this context or something more complex?
    It is said that the motion of a test mass in a gravitational field follows a geodesic trajectory in spacetime. A test mass, by definition, is a mass that is small enough to have negligible effect on the spacetime. But for a mass that does significantly distort the spacetime, what does it mean to say that the mass follows a geodesic trajectory? The geodesic trajectories of spacetime depend on the mass itself, and one can't exactly consider the geodesic trajectories in the absence of this mass.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Not about shielding per say, but this link has to do with an observational test of the strong equivalence principle; Pulsar and companions will put general relativity to the test - physicsworld.com

    The article mentions "self gravity", do they just mean mass in this context or something more complex?
    It is said that the motion of a test mass in a gravitational field follows a geodesic trajectory in spacetime. A test mass, by definition, is a mass that is small enough to have negligible effect on the spacetime. But for a mass that does significantly distort the spacetime, what does it mean to say that the mass follows a geodesic trajectory? The geodesic trajectories of spacetime depend on the mass itself, and one can't exactly consider the geodesic trajectories in the absence of this mass.
    And the strong equivalence principle states that these greater than test masses will still have identical velocities and trajectories to a test mass in an identical gravity field?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    And the strong equivalence principle states that these greater than test masses will still have identical velocities and trajectories to a test mass in an identical gravity field?
    That's my understanding.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    And the strong equivalence principle states that these greater than test masses will still have identical velocities and trajectories to a test mass in an identical gravity field?
    That's my understanding.
    The larger bodies are subject to tidal forces, the test probes are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    And the strong equivalence principle states that these greater than test masses will still have identical velocities and trajectories to a test mass in an identical gravity field?
    That's my understanding.
    The larger bodies are subject to tidal forces, the test probes are not.
    That's true.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt
    The larger bodies are subject to tidal forces, the test probes are not.
    I do understand about spaghettification. The sauce comes in a bag.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    And the strong equivalence principle states that these greater than test masses will still have identical velocities and trajectories to a test mass in an identical gravity field?
    That's my understanding.
    Actually, I answered too hastily. This is actually not correct. A test mass in orbit about a massive object will have a stable orbit (though elliptical orbits undergo perihelion precession), whereas a massive object in orbit about another massive object will have a decaying orbit due to the emission of gravitational radiation.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Actually, I answered too hastily. This is actually not correct. A test mass in orbit about a massive object will have a stable orbit (though elliptical orbits undergo perihelion precession), whereas a massive object in orbit about another massive object will have a decaying orbit due to the emission of gravitational radiation.
    Indeed. Now, if you add a third massive body to the mix ( as in the article referenced earlier ), you get a holy mess that can only be treated numerically with the aid of supercomputers...isn't GR fun
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Indeed. Now, if you add a third massive body to the mix ( as in the article referenced earlier ), you get a holy mess that can only be treated numerically with the aid of supercomputers...isn't GR fun
    I read somewhere (I don't recall where) that the general three-body problem has no closed-form solutions in Newtonian theory, the general two-body problem has no closed form solutions in general relativity, and the general one-body problem has no closed form solutions in quantum field theory.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,965
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Indeed. Now, if you add a third massive body to the mix ( as in the article referenced earlier ), you get a holy mess that can only be treated numerically with the aid of supercomputers...isn't GR fun
    I read somewhere (I don't recall where) that the general three-body problem has no closed-form solutions in Newtonian theory, the general two-body problem has no closed form solutions in general relativity, and the general one-body problem has no closed form solutions in quantum field theory.
    And the general zero-body problem has no closed-form solutions in string theory.
    KJW likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Markus

    So spacetime curves differently inside the mass.
    Does it pervade the atoms ? I would suspect not.
    So it distorts ,while staying smoothly connected,around atoms, in an interatomic area ?
    Or..?

    Could we say then that if density were to increase of the mass, radius staying the same thus,
    that the atoms come more closely together? And thus spacetime needs to distort more inside the mass ?


    Or is it density of atoms increasing, resulting in another type of matter with more density, so that less spacetime will be present in the matter, hence increasing the strenght of the gravitational field around it ?
    Last edited by Noa Drake; January 10th, 2014 at 04:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Does it pervade the atoms ? I would suspect not.
    Space-time doesn't have any boundaries, it pervades everything.

    So it distorts ,while staying smoothly connected,around atoms, in an interatomic area ?
    Same as macroscopic objects - there is vacuum geometry on the outside, and the geometry in the interior of the nucleus. They will slightly differ.

    And thus spacetime needs to distort more inside the mass ?
    If the mass is stationary and spherically symmetric, there will be no difference on the outside if you increase density while keeping total mass constant. However, space-time geometry in the interior of the mass will change. Same if you induce stresses and strains in the mass.

    Or is it density of atoms increasing, resulting in another type of matter with more density, so that less spacetime will be present in the matter, hence increasing the strenght of the gravitational field around it ?
    Like I said, space-time is everywhere, so I can't really make much sense of the above comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I am referring to this :If mass increases and radius stays the same, then the strenght of the grav field ouside the objekt increases.What is happening then with the spacetime present in the matter/atoms ?I know this more related to my other questiontopic, but one things brings on another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I am referring to this :If mass increases and radius stays the same, then the strenght of the grav field ouside the objekt increases.What is happening then with the spacetime present in the matter/atoms ?I know this more related to my other questiontopic, but one things brings on another.
    The time dilation becomes more pronounced.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I am referring to this :If mass increases and radius stays the same, then the strenght of the grav field ouside the objekt increases.What is happening then with the spacetime present in the matter/atoms ?I know this more related to my other questiontopic, but one things brings on another.
    The time dilation becomes more pronounced.
    Actually, there will be increased curvature of the three-dimensional space as well, but it's the time dilation (gravitational redshift) that is responsible for the gravity we experience.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I am referring to this :If mass increases and radius stays the same, then the strenght of the grav field ouside the objekt increases
    As KJW said. If the object is spherically symmetric and stationary, then the exterior geometry is that of Schwarzschild, so that "gravity" as we experience it some distance away from the object depends only on total mass and distance from that mass, but not on internal composition of same. It is then the "time component" of the metric which gives the gravity we experience, whereas the "space components" are responsible for tidal forces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Ok,that is usefull info on what would happen ouside the mass, but what behaviour or change does the spacetime inside the atom show ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Ok,that is usefull info on what would happen ouside the mass, but what behaviour or change does the spacetime inside the atom show ?
    It should be remarked that the magnitude of the curvature is very small. That's why we don't observe it directly in everyday life. Also, curvature manifests itself as tidal effects whose magnitude increases with separation distance. Thus, over the size of an atom, the curvature due to external gravitation (the gravitation from the mass as a whole) has virtually no effect on the atom.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Ok,that is usefull info on what would happen ouside the mass, but what behaviour or change does the spacetime inside the atom show ?
    Also consider that an atom is largely "empty", in the sense that the probability density of finding an electron is close to zero in large regions of space-time around the nucleus. What happens in the small region of the nucleus itself is really quite complicated due to the quantum nature of the processes there, but what we can say without doubt is that gravity would play a vanishingly small role on such small scales, as compared to the other fundamental interactions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    And the strong equivalence principle states that these greater than test masses will still have identical velocities and trajectories to a test mass in an identical gravity field?
    That's my understanding.
    Actually, I answered too hastily. This is actually not correct. A test mass in orbit about a massive object will have a stable orbit (though elliptical orbits undergo perihelion precession), whereas a massive object in orbit about another massive object will have a decaying orbit due to the emission of gravitational radiation.
    Yes, this correct
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    ^So the article I linked is presenting a simplified and/or incomplete explanation?
    My impression is that data is to be gathered to compare the equivalence principle to any potential Nordtvedt effect.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    ^So the article I linked is presenting a simplified and/or incomplete explanation?
    My impression is that data is to be gathered to compare the equivalence principle to any potential Nordtvedt effect.
    Yes, it is a test of the strong equivalence principle ( as opposed to just the weak one ). Note that the Nordtvedt effect is something which is predicted by a certain class of theories other than GR - if such an effect is found, that would mean that GR isn't the correct theory of gravitation. Hence the significance of this test.
    GiantEvil likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Vacuum box test for: gravity, acceleration or centrifugal force?
    By rrw4rusty in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 30th, 2013, 01:01 AM
  2. Out of the box question
    By Excuses in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 16th, 2010, 11:45 AM
  3. Gravity Question
    By SteveC in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 9th, 2010, 05:44 AM
  4. Question about gravity
    By m1cojakle in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 5th, 2009, 08:26 PM
  5. A question on Gravity
    By Taychon in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 17th, 2007, 09:19 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •