Why two mass attracts each other?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are no 'apparent' empirical measurements in relativity theory. Measurements are valid in all frames. Direct measurements made in local proper frames are invariant. Measurements made from remote coordinate frames are frame dependent not apparent. When physical measurement isn't technically possible or practical then we can substitute the theoretical prediction to fill the role of the remote measurement. We've confirmed this empirical relationship in many experiments. For example: The Hubble Space Telescope made this remote measurement which confirms the theoretical prediction that an object emitting a electromagnetic signal, while falling into a black hole, will exhibit a 'dying pulse train'.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/exotic/black-hole/2001/03/text/

Lets choose the HST again. Observing a black hole candidate to determine it's mass based on an object orbiting the black hole candidate. Lets model this using invariant tick rates in both the local proper frame of the HST and the local proper frame of the orbit.

dTau_remote orbit = (1-3M/r_remote orbit)^1/2 dt_remote bookkeeper / dTau_HST orbit = (1-3M/r_HST orbit)^1/2 dt_remote bookkeeper

The ratio

dTau_remote orbit/dTau_HST orbit = (1-3M/r_remote orbit)^1/2 / (1-3M/r_HST orbit)^1/2

We can also designate the HST orbit as a remote coordinate frame and find the ratio

dTau_remote orbit/dt_ remote bookkeeper = (1-3M/r_remote orbit)^1/2

The difference in tick rate between dTau_HST orbit and dt_bookkeeper is a nanosecond. So for this experiment we can use the clock in the local proper frame, of the HST, to time observations associated with events occurring in the local proper frame of r_remote orbit.

All empirical measurements are valid. None are apparent. The reason for the huge delta between local proper frame measurements [theoretical prediction] at the event horizon and the theoretical predictions associated with the remote bookkeeper coordinates is the local proper frame measurement are conducted in the tangent space that approximates a flat manifold while the global bookkeeper prediction takes into account the entire spacetime curvature over the natural path of the object falling from remote coordinates far away into the black hole. I think I know what you meant but introducing non scientific terms tend to confuse the uninitiated and 'gives nonsense fodder' to cranks.

Peace

Reading back over this, I agree with you that "apparent" was an unfortunate choice of words, brucep. My apologies. You are right to stress that all frames are equally valid, it is just that they don't necessarily agree; that is fine though, because in GR there is no requirement for them to do so.
 
Thanks Marcus Hanke for reply. I already naively understood all about what a infalling body just about to pass into bh event horizon would "appear" like to an observer remotely. That was not my question focus. I focused on speed of light at that same location which tries to escape and also is being gravitationally accelerated towards bh horizon simultaneously. That photon would just smear out and go nowhere. Hence 'c' for that photon is effectively "zero" in both proper frame at that location and at emote frame of remote observer (because observer would never see that photon since it does not get away from event horizon position but fades away into quantum fluctuations background in situ?). No need to explain about coordinate frames being "virtual constructions". I already knew that too. What I was focusing on was the actual motion, or lack of it, of that photon away from horizon location where its outwards and inwards speed/motion is effectively zero no matter what coordinate frame you create to make a "virtual" fantasy out of it so you can say the photon has some speed 'c' when it doesn't according to the description of what happens in fact as per professional literature. Also, if a photon "frozen" there just above the horizon and fading away to nothing is not actually moving, then there is no "null geodesic" to describe via the photon motion. Anything else you claim by "choosing suitable coordinate frames" doesn't change the fact that something not moving in a gravity well is no longer "following null geodesic motion path" as the jargon says. For example, something sitting on the ground on Earth and no longer "free falling" towards center of Earth is no longer "following null geodesic" because it is stationary in the Earth gravity well frame (ignoring motion shared with Earth rotation and motion through solar system, galaxy, universe and such). If photon cannot escape and does not keep falling into horizon, then it is effectively "zero" lightspeed no matter what else we arbitrarily or abstractly (like you said) coordinate graphing you use to describe it? That is why I want naive understandings not just sophist jargon and constructs which explain nothing in fact at that position for the photon energy and motionless state? My naive understandings don't let me just ignore the physical fact that the photon is "stuck there" in fact and no switching frames of references or other theoretical ploys can change that physical fact of effective zero speed either way?

Edit/ Please take notice that I do not speak of photons directed inwards to begin with, or going around horizon; only a photon directed upwards away from horizon and trying to escape but is trapped there by gravity.

I think there is a misunderstanding here somewhere. Light always traces out null geodesics; it cannot do anything else. Therefore the local measurement of its speed will always yield exactly c. In the vicinity of a black hole these null geodesics are not straight lines pointing outwards from the event horizon at right angles.
 
You explained nothing, ignorant troll. And Markus Hanke hasn't respond yet to my answer to his attempt at explanation using imaginary changes in reference frames and coordinate systems which did not explain what was happening to the photon there in fact.

I have given you a very detailed explanation about how light traces out null geodesics in space-time. In the vicinity of black holes these null geodesics are curved trajectories in curved space-time, and locally you will always measure exactly c.
If you decide not to acknowledge answers given to you, then that is your own problem. Don't try to blame those who make the effort to explain things.
 
Oh shut up Markus. You know f*ck all physics, you flake.

Nice try, but no.
You aren't going to get rid of me simply by throwing around profanities. I am aware that constantly having your misconceptions exposed for what they are isn't comfortable; I suggest you get used to it though, because there is plenty more where that came from :)
 
Calculate what? A theoretical interpretation of what you think should happen? Maybe if you can explain what is actually happening to that trapped photon it would be a better use of your maths and time? Come back to me when you have something worth anything.

Can I suggest this : http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/gravitation.swf.
These aren't null geodesics ( so not light ), but it does illustrate what happens to trajectories in the vicinity of massive bodies.

I should point out to you also that photons/light do not undergo acceleration - not surprising, since their speed is always constant.
 
So it is a pissing contest, but those who know GR don't necessarily believe it is reality? nah, you beileve it is reality as does Markus, I bet. Not that there is anything wrong with that, lol.

What I believe is irrelevant. What I know is that GR produces numerical predictions which are in perfect accordance with experiment and observation, so the model works.
Or do you have evidence to the contrary ?
 
Nice try, but no.
You aren't going to get rid of me simply by throwing around profanities. I am aware that constantly having your misconceptions exposed for what they are isn't comfortable; I suggest you get used to it though, because there is plenty more where that came from :)
I think you managed to get Farsight to throw in the towel. :)

On a side note, it seems to have gotten to the point where there's no objective to the discussion but it just goes on anyway.
 
I think you managed to get Farsight to throw in the towel. :)

Somehow, unfortunately, I doubt that...

On a side note, it seems to have gotten to the point where there's no objective to the discussion but it just goes on anyway.

Yeah, this is one of those things - the doubters think "how can mainstream science ever have accepted such an obviously wrong model ? There is no mechanism ! There is no space-time ! You get it all wrong !", whereas the mainstream proponents keep wondering "how come they just don't get it ? GR is so simple and intuitive ! It gives the right numbers !".

But then, let's keep a perspective here - what is being discussed here, or on other forums, or anywhere on the Internet, is of no meaning or consequence whatsoever to the scientific world. Science is not made on public forums. GR has been accepted as a viable model simply because it works - it makes quantitive predictions, and these predictions can be tested against experiment and observation, and those turn out to be right time and again. The details of the model aren't found in personal opinions and interpretations, but in genuine textbooks on the subject matter; the mathematical foundations and physics of GR have long since been finalised and standardised, and are well understood. In fact GR is one of the most studied subjects in all of physics; if someone comes along and says : "All of you are getting it wrong ! I reject all textbooks, and substitute my own superior understanding !" then that is just laughable.
What the likes of Farsight and Sylwester and Motor Daddy etc state and claim here is of no consequence at all so far as real science is concerned. Participating on forums is a fun hobby, and you do get to learn things along the way sometimes, but that's it. It's much like participating in a debating club; you hone your rhetorical skills, but what is being discussed is ultimately of no importance. Confusing a hobby with genuine science is just foolishness; nobody in real physics circles pays any attention to what goes on on some public forum. This may seem harsh, but is the truth.
 
What I believe is irrelevant. What I know is that GR produces numerical predictions which are in perfect accordance with experiment and observation, so the model works.
Or do you have evidence to the contrary ?
The math works almost perfectly to predict the results of experiment, which does not tell us how the observables are managed by nature. As for evidence of results that are not perfectly predicted, the predictions of the motion of the planet Mercury, afaik, is still not perfect, and I think there are tiny differences between the predictions and the observed paths of satellites like Voyager, though these things are a layman's understanding.
 
The math works almost perfectly to predict the results of experiment, which does not tell us how the observables are managed by nature. As for evidence of results that are not perfectly predicted, the predictions of the motion of the planet Mercury, afaik, is still not perfect, and I think there are tiny differences between the predictions and the observed paths of satellites like Voyager, though these things are a layman's understanding.

I am not aware of any differences with regards to Mercury's orbit - do you have a reference for us to look at ?
Secondly, you are probably referring to the Pioneer anomaly - this has been explained by the presence of a thermal recoil force from the ( ageing ) probe itself. See here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
 
I am not aware of any differences with regards to Mercury's orbit - do you have a reference for us to look at ?
Secondly, you are probably referring to the Pioneer anomaly - this has been explained by the presence of a thermal recoil force from the ( ageing ) probe itself. See here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Maybe I should have said those examples were just poor recollections of a layman's understanding, lol. I stand corrected :(.
 
Maybe I should have said those examples were just poor recollections of a layman's understanding, lol. I stand corrected :(.

It's alright. I think what you were thinking of was the failure of Newton's theory to predict the Mercury perihelion precession. That was, in fact, one of the reasons GR was developed in the first place.
 
It's alright. I think what you were thinking of was the failure of Newton's theory to predict the Mercury perihelion precession. That was, in fact, one of the reasons GR was developed in the first place.
Thanks for pointing that out. Now my poor recollections of my layman's misconceptions is comming back :shrug:. As I now recall, the GR calculations cut the error in half, but there was still something as yet not explained. If no one else knows, I may try to find a reference, maybe, lol.
 
Thanks for pointing that out. Now my poor recollections of my layman's misconceptions is comming back :shrug:. As I now recall, the GR calculations cut the error in half, but there was still something as yet not explained. If no one else knows, I may try to find a reference, maybe, lol.

It's rather the other way around. Newton's theory got it wrong by a factor of 2 - that, however, was the light deflection in the vicinity of masses like the sun. GR gets it spot on, both the light deflection and the perihelion precession of Mercury. There are no discrepancies between GR and observation in the local neighbourhood, i.e. the solar system that I am aware of. The only thing that is even remotely unexplained is this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

which is a very interesting phenomenon that is yet to be satisfactorily accounted for. This is a subject of ongoing research.
 
Hence 'c' for that photon is effectively "zero" in both proper frame at that location and at emote frame of remote observer
Can you map the surface of the Earth on a flat two-dimensional map without distortion? No.
Can you map a curved universe with a single instance of four coordinates, which you can think of as a map between a four-dimensional manifold $$\mathcal{M}$$ and a flat four-dimensional image in coordinate space, $$\mathbb{R}^{\tiny 4}$$, without distortion? No.
The Schwarzschild geometry is static and spherically symmetric, and hard to work with because we can't put our hands on it, mark it, cut it up, etc.
The conventional Schwarzschild coordinates look like spherical coordinates + t but they describe the world of coordinate space.
The Schwarzschild metric describes the space-time of the Schwarzschild geometry in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinates so that we can use the tools of algebra and analysis in coordinate space and say something about the Schwarzschild space-time geometry.

Using the Schwarzschild coordinates the coordinate speed of light can be practically read off the metric since for any beam of light ds = 0.
Thus we have $$\left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right)^2 c^2 = \left( \frac{dr}{dt} \right)^2 + \left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right) \left(r \frac{d \theta}{d t} \right)^2 + \left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right) \left( r \sin \theta \frac{d \phi}{dt} \right)^2$$

So for radial light we see that the coordinate speed is a function of position $$\left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right) c$$ and for orthogonal light (dr =0) we see that the coordinate speed is $$\sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r} } c$$ where $$r_s = \frac{2 GM}{c^2}$$. This anisotropy is a consequence of the distortion caused by using a mapping to flat coordinate space. Another example of that is that the coordinate speed of light goes to zero at $$r = r_s$$, but we know by general covariance that the speed of light is physically c at all points in space-time.

But just like the Mercator projection is not the only way to make a map of the so the Schwarzschild coordinates are not the only choice for the Schwarzschild space-time geometry. Generally, one is free to pick any point in the manifold and any standard of rest allowed by physics (i.e. time-like), and construct the Dirac normal coordinates where locally all geodesics look like straight lines. This roughly corresponds to an airport's polar map so that distances and angles near the airport are well-preserved.

Photons are not "accelerated towards bh horizon". They travel at c=constant.
Clearly this is nitpicking, since light curves under gravity and stationary observers closer to the black hole see falling light as blue shifted relative to observers far from the black hole. There is even a radius exterior to the Schwarzschild black hole where light could orbit in a circular path.

Acceleration means more in physics than just "goes faster."
 
It's rather the other way around. Newton's theory got it wrong by a factor of 2 - that, however, was the light deflection in the vicinity of masses like the sun. GR gets it spot on, both the light deflection and the perihelion precession of Mercury. There are no discrepancies between GR and observation in the local neighbourhood, i.e. the solar system that I am aware of. The only thing that is even remotely unexplained is this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

which is a very interesting phenomenon that is yet to be satisfactorily accounted for. This is a subject of ongoing research.
We probably both would believe expect that there will be an explanation and math to resolve that tiny as yet unexplained anomaly. [humor]A few years from now it will be part of GR[/humor].

Never-the-less, even when GR is perfect, it is still one of the strengths of science to consider it tentative, meaning we may discover some new technology that lets us examine particles and gravity waves at a deeper resolution, and some new capability like that could lead to new theory that superceeds current theory. My so called hobby depends on it, lol.
 
.

Using the Schwarzschild coordinates the coordinate speed of light can be practically read off the metric since for any beam of light ds = 0.
Thus we have $$\left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right)^2 c^2 = \left( \frac{dr}{dt} \right)^2 + \left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right) \left(r \frac{d \theta}{d t} \right)^2 + \left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right) \left( r \sin \theta \frac{d \phi}{dt} \right)^2$$

So for radial light we see that the coordinate speed is a function of position $$\left(1 - \frac{r_s}{r} \right) c$$


and for orthogonal light (dr =0) we see that the coordinate speed is $$\sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r} } c$$

You sure about the (dr=0) part? You are calculating the radial coordinate speed of light, so what is with the "orthogonal light" bit?
You sure you didn't really want $$d\theta=d\phi=0$$?


where $$r_s = \frac{2 GM}{c^2}$$. This anisotropy is a consequence of the distortion caused by using a mapping to flat coordinate space. Another example of that is that the coordinate speed of light goes to zero at $$r = r_s$$, but we know by general covariance that the speed of light is physically c at all points in space-time.

I explained all these to Undefined long ago, replete with the $$c_{rcoord}=c\sqrt{1-\frac{r_s}{r}}$$ formula derived from the Schwarzschild solution.




Clearly this is nitpicking, since light curves under gravity and stationary observers closer to the black hole see falling light as blue shifted relative to observers far from the black hole.

Blueshifting (the frequency) is not "accelerating". I am quite sure you knew that.

There is even a radius exterior to the Schwarzschild black hole where light could orbit in a circular path.

Sure, if you cared to read the thread, I offered to explain to him "photon trajectories".

Acceleration means more in physics than just "goes faster."

Did I say that?
 
Never-the-less, even when GR is perfect, it is still one of the strengths of science to consider it tentative, meaning we may discover some new technology that lets us examine particles and gravity waves at a deeper resolution, and some new capability like that could lead to new theory that superceeds current theory.

I agree. That is the essence of science. I would be the first one to be excited about a more powerful theory superseding GR; personally I have some hopes for Loop Quantum Gravity in that regard, but I do realize that it is too early to tell since we don't know yet whether or not it reduces to GR in the low energy limit. String theory is also a contender, so is Causal Dynamical Triangulations ( a beautiful idea ! ), amongst a few others.

The point in this is, however, that we always go forward, improving our models, not backwards by rejecting what we already know. When it comes to theoretical physics, thinking outside the box is not the goal - we need to stay within our box and think of ways to push its boundaries outward. There are people here and on other forums who just don't seem to get this simple truth.
 
I agree. That is the essence of science. I would be the first one to be excited about a more powerful theory superseding GR; personally I have some hopes for Loop Quantum Gravity in that regard, but I do realize that it is too early to tell since we don't know yet whether or not it reduces to GR in the low energy limit. String theory is also a contender, so is Causal Dynamical Triangulations ( a beautiful idea ! ), amongst a few others.

The point in this is, however, that we always go forward, improving our models, not backwards by rejecting what we already know. When it comes to theoretical physics, thinking outside the box is not the goal - we need to stay within our box and think of ways to push its boundaries outward. There are people here and on other forums who just don't seem to get this simple truth.
Certainly we must go forward. I think all new theory will evolve from the current theories. It is conceivable that the perfect math of GR and SR will lead to the next explanation for why the math is so perfect. So my hobby is likely to survive? ... I only need a few decades, lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top