Login | Register

Relativity and Cosmology

This is a Blog on relativity and cosmology for engineers and the like. You are welcome to comment upon or question anything said on my website (http://www.relativity-4-engineers.com), in the eBook or in the snippets I post here.

Comments/questions of a general nature should preferably be posted to the FAQ section of this Blog (http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/316/Relativity-Cosmology-FAQ).

A complete index to the Relativity and Cosmology Blog can be viewed here: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/browse/22/Relativity-and-Cosmology"

Regards, Jorrie

Previous in Blog: Gravity and the Speed of Light   Next in Blog: Angular Momentum Challenge
Close

Comments Format:






Close

Subscribe to Discussion:

CR4 allows you to "subscribe" to a discussion
so that you can be notified of new comments to
the discussion via email.

Close

Rating Vote:







15 comments

Gravity and the Speed of Light II

Posted September 30, 2007 11:00 PM by Jorrie

In the previous article, we have seen that the Schwarzschild coordinate speed of light (as measured by a distant observer) is dictated by the gravitational time dilation factor:

Eq. 1:

If the distant observer is not at 'infinity', but at a radial distance ro from the central mass, the observer's coordinate time compared to the Schwarzschild time is given by:

Eq. 4-5:

If we now express the time rate at radial distance r as a fraction of the observer's time rate (at ro), it gives:

Eq. 5:

In analogy to the way the Schwarzschild speed of light has been calculated, one can use this ratio to calculate the effective radial and transverse components of the speed of light at radial distance r, as perceived in the coordinates of the observer located at ro, giving a radial velocity = c g'tt and a transverse velocity = c (g'tt) respectively.

To get a graphical feeling for the values, it is best to place the observer not too far from a black hole, say at three times the event horizon radius and then plot the radial and transverse velocities of light at a range of radial distances, like shown below in the coordinate system of the local observer.

Fig. 4:

At the observer's location (ro = 6GM/c2), both coordinate velocities of light must be equal to c, of course. At distances rc2 < 6GM, both coordinate velocities are smaller than c, with the transverse velocity of light larger than the radial velocity. At distances rc2 > 6GM, both coordinate velocities of light exceed c, with the radial velocity of light larger than the transverse velocity.

If the observer makes radar distance measurement to the red target, the return signal will be delayed, apparently giving a larger distance than what is expected. If the same radar distance measurement is made to the blue target, the return signal will arrive earlier than expected, giving the impression that the target is closer than it actually is.

I have calculated the delay and advance of the radar signal for the two targets respectively, assuming the following values: M~105 solar masses (~2x1035 kg), ro=109 m, yielding rc2~6GM as in the diagram. The red target is then at r=0.5x109 m and the blue target at r=1.5x109 m.[1]

The normal travel time of the radar echo from either target would be 2x0.5x109/(3x108) = 3.33 seconds in the observer's coordinates, if it was not for the delays and advances due to gravity. The actual radar signal time to the red target works out (by numerical integration) to be 4.26 seconds, meaning a delay of 0.93 seconds. Likewise, the return from the blue target arrives after 3.06 seconds, early by 0.27 seconds.

The average speed of the radar signal to the red target is 3.33c/4.26=0.78c and to the blue target it is 3.33c/3.06=1.09c, both correlating well with the dark blue curve in fig. 4 above.

Jorrie

[1] In black hole physics, radial distances are called 'circumferential radii' because one cannot measure distances from the center of a black hole. The observer can set up experiments in her own coordinate system to measure the circumference (C) of a concentric circle around the hole at her own or any other location. The Schwarzschild radial distance coordinate is then taken as r=C/2Π.


Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Guest
#1

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

10/02/2007 8:12 PM

Jorrie, what you said here makes it appear as if the observer can send information to the blue target at faster than the speed of light in his environment. Is this not forbidden in physics by special relativity?

I assume that your observer is static, so he/she is not a free-falling, inertial observer, right? If so, they experience the forces of gravity, correct? Does this not invalidate all your calculations?

Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: 25.9S, 28.1E
Posts: 2623
Good Answers: 12
#3
In reply to #1

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

10/03/2007 1:32 AM

Hi Guest.

Firstly, special relativity does hold over the distances and gravitational field worked with here. More importantly, the clocks at the observer and at the targets are not ticking at the same rate due to gravitational redshift, so there is no way an observer at the blue target can know how fast the signal got there. Lastly, the information actually flowed at a speed of less than c in free space, so there is no violation of the principles of relativity.

You also asked: "I assume that your observer is static, so he/she is not a free-falling, inertial observer, right? If so, they experience the forces of gravity, correct? Does this not invalidate all your calculations?"

Yes, the observer needs to be static relative to the black hole for the radar measurements to work. The 'g-force' that the observer will suffer is severe in this example, but 'g's per say do not affect atomic clocks, so the radar, if it could stand the 1.8 million 'g's should be able to measure the time delay accurately.

One could have contrived to let the observer be in orbit and the distances so chosen that the return signal would come exactly when the observer's radar is in the same relative position again. In such a case, the radar would be in free-fall and suffer no g-force. However, then the orbital velocity would have affected the rate of the observer's clock and the results would have been different. There are ways to factor this out, but let's keep it simple...

Jorrie

__________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
Guest
#5
In reply to #3

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

10/04/2007 5:29 AM

Jorrie, this is confusing: "Firstly, special relativity does hold over the distances and gravitational field worked with here."

Reading your other posts, I would have thought that it does not hold. And how can 1.8 million g not influence a clock???

Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: 25.9S, 28.1E
Posts: 2623
Good Answers: 12
#6
In reply to #5

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

10/04/2007 7:29 AM

Hi Guest, yep, you're right! Should have read: "special relativity does not hold over the distances and gravitational field worked with here."

About clocks and acceleration: as far as we can test, good atomic clocks are not directly affected by acceleration or g-forces. Relativity theory also does not predict any effects, apart from velocity effects that may accrue in the case of normal linear or centripetal acceleration. In a gravity field, those effects are avoided.

Can any clock withstand millions of g's? Probably not, but it may be mechanical failure rather than a fundamental effect - we simply do not know, because we cannot test that.

Jorrie

__________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
Guest
#2

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

10/02/2007 8:46 PM

Jorrie,

One more thing that really bothers me. You said "If the same radar distance measurement is made to the blue target, the return signal will arrive earlier than expected, giving the impression that the target is closer than it actually is."

Isn't the observer entitled to just say: the radar signal to the blue target took 3.06 seconds at 3e8 m/s, so the distance to the blue target is 3.06x3e8/2=4.59e8 meter, instead of your coordinate distance of 5.0e8 meter. Assuming that your calcs are right, why can't the observer just use his radar measurement of 4.59e8 meter as the correct distance?

Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: 25.9S, 28.1E
Posts: 2623
Good Answers: 12
#4
In reply to #2

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

10/03/2007 1:49 AM

Hi Guest, your "Assuming that your calcs are right, why can't the observer just use his radar measurement of 4.59e8 meter as the correct distance?" actually has no short answer!

The long answer is that there are more than one way to measure distance in curved spacetime. One is the 'circumferential radius' (or rather distances based on the circumferential radii) that I explained in the footnote of the OP. This is also known as the Schwarzschild radial parameter. Another one is proper distance as measured by an observer in his/her own coordinate system. This is the 'radar distance' for a particular observer.

Static observers at different circumferential radii from the black hole will get different radar distances between the same two points or events - a real mess! That's why distances based on the circumferential radius are mainly used. They are at least the same for all static observers. Observers in relative movement to each other will still get different distances for the same two events, despite being at the same circumferential radial distance from the hole, but we have to live with that.

Jorrie

__________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
Guest
#7

Why does time seem to exist only in a forward direction?

11/13/2007 10:03 AM

Rob MacRiner rmacriner@sympatico.ca , robmacriner@hotmail.com

Answer to Question: Why does time seem to exist only in a forward direction?

Time seems to only exist in a forward direction because the universe is expanding. If the Universe reaches Critical Velocity and starts to contract ....then time, as we measure time will reverse according to the Big Bang / Big Crunch Theory. The reason for this is that time does not exist without change or movement..... (change or movement of particle matter or energy as we know it). If matter has no movement either expanding or contracting then time does not exit for that matter. However Time can exist around non moving particle matter if something is either expanding or contracting around it.

If the expansion of matter increases as in the case of our universe, or an expanding object, or even light...then time increases relative to the rate of expansion. Example: if carbon A is heated and expands faster than carbon B (which is not heated) then time increases in carbon A relative to carbon B...However as Einstein pointed out...time is relative to the observer...and you need something of contrast to make that comparison....fortunately our universe offers lots of contrast ...otherwise we would have a very difficult time figuring this out. Time being relative to the observer can exist at different speeds based on the rate of expanding matter. If you are on riding on a beam of light than time is much different than your friend riding on a sound wave.Of course time is relative to the observer, therefore your time is much faster only to him, or any body else who is not on a beam of light.

If matter contracts or condenses then time actually reverses…as in the case of a contracting universe…so Planks Quantum would be measured as zero time for the entire Universe…and time starts at the point of the Big Bang (once matter is on the move again)… In the case of a black hole, relative to our expanding universe)... there is also no time. (except for matter being sucked into a black hole….this matter would be reversing in time, until at which point it becomes part of the black hole mass, then time (in a Black Hole) as in Planks Quantum is zero….which is odd because the Universe is still expanding around the black hole…but it is consistent with the theory that. Time can exist around "non moving matter" if something is either expanding or contracting

Time as we know it is measured in a forward direction and will continue until the point of critical velocity…at which point time starts to reverse…and for a brief moment…the point where the Universe changes from expanding to contracting…time will again be zero…as in Planks Quantum. However…during the forward direction of time…(while the Universe is expanding)…black holes are continuing to suck up matter…and should in theory at some point converge with other black holes….Therefore…as the universe is expanding from the big bang…there is multitude of matter which is not expanding (black holes)…which might well be unexploded Planks Quantum matter from the big bang…and the black holes with their massive gravitational force are sucking up matter which was attempting to expand but was not able to overcome the stronger force of the black hole…like mini-Plank Quantum's converging within the universe …When the Universe reaches Critical Velocity and then all matter in our Universe starts to contract…heading towards the Big Crunch….the multitude of black holes converging (up to that point) should in theory rapidly increase the speed of reverse time …acting as an accelerant force of a contracting Universe with there collective gravitational force …so the reverse of time.(the journey the contracting Universe is taking towards the Big Crunch)...should happen much quicker than the time it took for the Universe to go from the Big Bang to Critical Velocity…That is of course Time relative from the Big Bang to Critical Velocity ……in contrast to …….Time Relative from Critical Velocity to the Big Crunch..… Rob MacRiner rmacriner@sympatico.ca Nov 2007

Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: 25.9S, 28.1E
Posts: 2623
Good Answers: 12
#8
In reply to #7

Re: Why does time seem to exist only in a forward direction?

11/13/2007 1:29 PM

Hi Guest.

Apart form the fact that "critical velocity" actually means that the universe will never collapse back to the singularity, do you really believe that, should it happen, time will reverse? Do you believe that the glass of milk that fell off the table and shattered into a fairly random collection of glass chips and milk splashes, will after the reversal, gather itself from all this mess and reassemble itself into a glass full of milk.

Jorrie

__________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
Guest
#9
In reply to #8

Re: Why does time seem to exist only in a forward direction?

11/20/2007 11:07 PM

Well I guess once we start using the words do I believe, I guess anything is possible. At that point we are just free to image whatever we can justify.....to me it's a journey of asking questions and thinking about the probablities..It seems the more I read the more confusing the whole thing becomes, because of the diverse opinions from experts....who seem fairly certain they are on the right track....I guess none of us should rush to judgements, but along the way we hope to piece together bits of common information. When I say "time can not exist without change" it seems from what I've read...to fit...Do I beleive it to be true? can time reverse.?..I think so!...will a split glass of milk...reform to its orginal shape...I think not....!

Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: 25.9S, 28.1E
Posts: 2623
Good Answers: 12
#10
In reply to #9

Re: Why does time seem to exist only in a forward direction?

11/21/2007 12:10 AM

Hi Guest, I'm glad it makes us think...

Jorrie

__________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
Guest
#11
In reply to #8

Re: Why does time seem to exist only in a forward direction?

12/26/2007 1:13 PM

Jorrie...my understanding of "critical velocity" is that the velocity of the universe will reach an end point....whereas...the universe will expand to a point that : either that it no longer has the energy to continue to expand, or the forces of contraction (black holes) will overcome the expansive the forces.. Like a bundgy jump...you hurl towards the earth once you jump of the platform at a great speed until the bundgy cord pulls you back.....the point of your return is "critical velocity"..

Regarding reverse time: ....I'm not suggesting that Time will reverse itself as one would rewind a movie. The point is that time as we know it can not exit without particle matter either expanding or contracting. Imagine a container of colored sand 5" high ..packed in a 50 'glass tube on a space shuttle. The color images of sand particles seen from outside the glass, might look like some kind of landscape. Now the sand explodes in the 50' glass tube ....while the shuttle is docked ..and those sand particles hurl in a forward or expansive direction...up the 50' glass tube...after the explosion. But all of a sudden the space shuttle takes off, and the G forces are very intense, at the same time the particles of sand reach their maximum expulsion. The G forces would bring the sand back down to the base of that glass tube, in a hurry, but when they arrived packed back at the base, now once again 5" high they would not represent the color image of the landscape that was seen before the explosion....The image would be much different. Forward time would be the expansion of the sand after the explosion. Reversed time for the sand would be as the G forces drive the sand back to the based of the glass tube, and pack those colored sand particles back to it's original 5 ". That is the image of reverse time that I see. Rob MacRiner robmacriner@hotmail.com

Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: 25.9S, 28.1E
Posts: 2623
Good Answers: 12
#12
In reply to #11

Re: Why does time seem to exist only in a forward direction?

12/26/2007 1:26 PM

Hi Rob.

No, the "critical velocity" of expansion means that it will almost come to a "standstill", but never contract...

You wrote: "The point is that time as we know it can not exit without particle matter either expanding or contracting."

No again - time should merrily go on ticking if the expansion would be zero. In fact, Einstein's original cosmological model was a static universe (neither expanding, nor contracting), but he did not reckon that we would have no time!

Jorrie

PS: it is best not to put you email address in a post, because sp@m-bots are looking everywhere to find targets. If you sign up to CR4, you will have the benefit of a CR4 private mail (PM) address that cannot be 'harvested' by the bots...

__________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
Participant

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2
#13

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

05/26/2008 2:37 PM

Jorrie:

I have made many trajectories simulation with the Maple software for mathematics, in a Schwarzschild field, by numerically solving the differential equations of a free particle movement. The results are the usual relativistic trajectories shown in most of General Relativity books and papers. Nonetheless the simulation model I used also returned an unexpected result, specially with low angular momentum, which exhibits closed orbits whenever the particle energy is positive. Also, for negative particle energy some trajectories are not closed orbits. Instead they show a path that comes from infinity, passes around the center of attraction and and moves out to infinity again. I'm suspecting that Maple may have a flaw for extreme initial conditions because the am results clearly contradict physical principles. Have you met this problem before? Any clue?

Thanks and regards

Ernesto

Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: 25.9S, 28.1E
Posts: 2623
Good Answers: 12
#14
In reply to #13

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

05/26/2008 8:08 PM

Hi Ernesto and welcome as a registered member of CR4!

You wrote: "... the simulation model I used also returned an unexpected result, specially with low angular momentum, which exhibits closed orbits whenever the particle energy is positive. Also, for negative particle energy some trajectories are not closed orbits."

There are three possible issues: 1) When you talk of positive and negative energy, it must be Newtonian energy and not the relativistic variant, which is always positive. 2) Your integration loop may not be 'tight' enough when working in the strong curvature regime. 3) Orbit being 'trapped' by the black hole. Let's discuss each.

1) Relativistic orbital energy is given by (from Relativity-4-Engineers chapter 6):

It is always positive and goes to infinity at large distances, with v approaching c. It is unity at escape velocity from any distance.

2) Numerical integration does not conserve energy and it gets worse the tighter the spatial curvature of the orbit. Reducing your time step size normally helps. I use an adaptive time step that tightens up when nearer to point source of gravity.

3) Finally, irrespective of the energy, if the periapsis of any orbit comes within 1.5 times the event horizon radius, the particle will spiral into the black hole.

Hope this helps!

Jorrie

__________________
"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein
Participant

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2
#15
In reply to #14

Re: Gravity and the Speed of Light II

05/27/2008 12:20 AM

Thank you Jorrie for your clear explanation. I'll revert after reviewing my model.

Ernesto

15 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Ernesto (2), Guest (6), Jorrie (7)

Previous in Blog: Gravity and the Speed of Light   Next in Blog: Angular Momentum Challenge
You might be interested in: Thin-section Bearings, Videoscopes, Flip-flops