41 Comments on “arxiv Find: Universal Quantum Mechanics”   rss feed

1. Kea on Nov 13th, 2007 at 6:13 pm

   I was so excited by this abstract, after hearing Gidding’s excellent talks at GRG18, but I simply couldn’t get past Postulate 1.

2. Kea on Nov 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

   Oops, sorry about the misplaced apostrophe.

3. Miss Volare on Nov 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pm

   Serendipitously, i just finished reading some Laszlo and wanted some science to go along with it…thanks for the link.

4. Raphael Jolly on Nov 14th, 2007 at 9:47 am

   Hi Sean, I advise that you look at the paper below, with a much more promising-looking theory than the one you cite.

   Gravity, Gauge Theories and Geometric Algebra Anthony Lasenby, Chris Doran, Stephen Gull

   A new gauge theory of gravity is presented. The theory is constructed in a flat background spacetime and employs gauge fields to ensure that all relations between physical quantities are independent of the positions and orientations of the matter fields. In this manner all properties of the background spacetime are removed from physics, and what remains are a set of `intrinsic’ relations between physical fields. The properties of the gravitational gauge fields are derived from both classical and quantum viewpoints. Field equations are then derived from an action principle, and consistency with the minimal coupling procedure selects an action that is unique up to the possible inclusion of a cosmological constant. This in turn singles out a unique form of spin-torsion interaction. A new method for solving the field equations is outlined and applied to the case of a time-dependent, spherically-symmetric perfect fluid. A gauge is found which reduces the physics to a set of essentially Newtonian equations. These equations are then applied to the study of cosmology, and to the formation and properties of black holes. The existence of global solutions enables one to discuss the properties of field lines inside the horizon due to a point charge held outside it. The Dirac equation is studied in a black hole background and provides a quick derivation of the Hawking temperature.

5. Belizean on Nov 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

   Such a construct likely requires elimination or modification of some of the “standard” postulates of quantum mechanics, in particular those involving time and measurement.

   I haven’t read Giddings paper yet, but I’m skeptical of what seems to be an approach that requires quantum theory to accommodate gravitation (rather than the other way around).

   As you correctly point out, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation does not require an explicit spacetime background, which would seem to weaken an approach that assumes that such a background exists quantum mechanically and thereby poses problems for measurement.

   [One could make the case the WD equation is a quantum theory of gravity in the same sense that the Schroedinger equation is a quantum theory of kangaroos. It's just that in both cases the equations are far, far too difficult to solve.]

6. Sean on Nov 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

   Well, it’s not just that the Wheeler-deWitt equation is too difficult to solve. It’s also that we don’t know what the right Hamiltonian is, so we don’t even know what equation we are solving. Thus string theory or whatever.

7. tyler on Nov 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pm

   fascinating, and the subject meshes perfectly with all the Smolin in my current reading list. a much appreciated post, I hope for a strong discussion.

8. mark on Nov 14th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

   tyler: “the subject meshes perfectly with all the Smolin in my current reading list”

   Giddings is a well known string theorist. The paper hasn’t got a single LQG reference so I don’t see how Smolin is relevant here.

9. Kea on Nov 15th, 2007 at 12:22 am

   Actually, Giddings and Smolin are colleagues and not everything Giddings does is purely string theoretic.

10. John R Ramsden on Nov 15th, 2007 at 8:38 am

    The latest issue of Gnu Scientist (2007-11-17 #2630) has quite a complimentary two page article on Giddings’ work:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626303.900-is-mathematical-pattern-the-theory-of-everything.html

11. John R Ramsden on Nov 15th, 2007 at 8:40 am

    Oops, my apologies. When checking the link I realized the article was about a different guy entirely!

12. Abelian on Nov 15th, 2007 at 11:15 am

    A bit off topic, but what do you think of Garret Lisi’s work

13. Neil B. on Nov 15th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    We can’t incorporate quantum mechanics into gravity (or vice versa!) very well unless we have any kinks ironed out of gravitational theory itself. Consider the following issue, which I just posted to sci.physics etc. for quick input:

    Gravitomagnetic field does not obey superposition, what are the implications?

    Moving streams of matter should produce a “Gravitomagnetic field” analogous to the magnetic field from moving charges. This is orthodox GR, even if some details are in contention. (See for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism.)

    I played around with equivalent matter streams moving in opposite directions. That should cancel out their gravitomagnetic fields B* (usually just called “B” after context given), but I found an inconsistency. The problem was, superposition of B* from two sources as if a vector field did not work. (Sure, gravity is more complicated, but that part should approximate vector fields and emulate EM at low mass levels - ? - and I expect even non-linear superpositions to cancel out opposite fields.) For example, let’s have adjacent streams going 0.5c in opposite directions, very low mass density to provide high expected linearity (albeit at relativistic speeds.) The proper value of g seen in our frame K is gamma squared times the value g_s at rest relative to either single stream (hence g = 2gamma^2(0.5c)g_s = (2*4/3)g_s = (8/3)g_s), due to the multiplied effects of Lorentz contraction and greater relativistic mass-energy density (thus field-producing power) per proper length unit in the mass flow.

    We will send a unit mass M moving at 0.5c, frame K’, along the streams’ path, in either direction. We, expecting to see only “g” since the B* has ostensibly been canceled, expect M to experience gamma squared the value of proper acceleration towards the stream that we find in K (lateral acceleration transformation, from shorter proper time to fall.) Since effective mass-energy of M is gamma*M_0 (one of the cases where “relativistic mass” is still relevant), that is equivalent to a force in K increased to gamma times rest value and thus in K’, gamma squared times the force in K (due to force transformation.) Hence by that consistent-seeming reckoning, the acceleration of M in K’ should be gamma^2(0.5c)g = 2gamma^4(0.5c)g_s = (32/9)g_s.

    However, in M’s frame, one stream is at rest and the other one goes at 0.8c. The combined effect is therefore [1 + gamma^2(0.8c)]g_s = (34/9)g_s =(17/16)*(32/9)g_s. It is easy to verify (using the additive gamma factor being gamma(v1 + v2) = gamma1*gamma2*(1 + v1*v2/c^2)) that the ratio in general of the second prediction to the first is (1 + v^4/c^4).

    That is an odd contradiction, and I just don’t know what to make of it. Sure, gravitation is not like EM and with curved space etc., but would anyone expect low-gravity fields of any kind not to cancel out if apparently of opposite sign? Has anyone found good rules for B*? Has this issue been talked about before, and where? Thanks.

14. Neil B. on Nov 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    …It is easy to verify (using the additive gamma factor being gamma(v1 + v2) = gamma1*gamma2*(1 + v1*v2/c^2)) that the ratio in general of the second prediction to the first is (1 + v^4/c^4).

    I mean, relativistic velocity addition for gamma(v1 + v2), but don’t have a good symbol to use (the oft-used dot on top of plus is real hard to find in fonts.

15. mark on Nov 15th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    “A bit off topic, but what do you think of Garret Lisi’s work”

    Complete crackpotism! The dude doesn’t even know the difference between a ghost field and a fermion, not to mention the other bizarre statements.

16. Greg Egan on Nov 15th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    Neil (#13)

    At the top of the Wikipedia article you cite, it notes that:

    [T]he most common version of GEM is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles.

    If you want a formula describing the weak-field effect of relativistic transverse velocity, starting with the Schwarzschild solution it’s pretty easy to show that a test particle with radial velocity zero and transverse velocity v is seen to accelerate in a frame stationary wrt the source mass at:

    a = -M (1+2v^2)/r^2

    (in units where G=1, c=1) and in the test particle’s frame this becomes:

    a’ = -M (1+2v^2)/[(1-v^2)r^2]

    to take account of time dilation.

    Note that these are not what you’d get by substituting M/sqrt(1-v^2) in place of M.

17. Neil B. on Nov 16th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Greg:

    Thanks, I will think about that. I find your formula odd, since consider the accelerating elevator in the equivalence principle (a along y.) Just like a bullet fired along x from a gun, the moving mass must hit the floor at the same time as the dropped test body. I can’t see how the resulting transverse acceleration of the bullet in our elevator frame K’ could be anything other than *the same* in simple terms as for the dropped body. The transformation to the bullet frame is given by SRT, by time dilation as you note (but applied to your lab frame formula, not mine here.) I suspect there is an issue with how red shift (time standards in effect) affect the definition of rate of acceleration, or that when you refer to “a mass”, the field around the concentrated mass involves enough curvature to not be equivalent to the parallel field of the elevator? Remember that I was considering “streams” of matter, and we could use moving sheets as well - not point-like masses.

    In any case, since you said, “…is seen to accelerate in a frame stationary wrt the source mass…” I presume you are not referring to gravitomagnetism proper (where we use a frame where both sources and test bodies are moving.) My main interest here is what happens when there are two streams that should (?) cancel out each other’s gravitomagnetic effect. So do you still think that would happen (or should it?) What are the formulas for the most general case, still with weak masses at long separations but arbitrary speeds? Most important, do the fields from different sources obey superposition (in the basic sense, not counting slight adjustments due to curvature etc.)

18. Count Iblis on Nov 16th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    Complete crackpotism! The dude doesn’t even know the difference between a ghost field and a fermion, not to mention the other bizarre statements.

    That’s not true, he does know about these very elementary concepts. He just has an unconventional point of view.

    I guess that ‘t Hooft would have been called a crackpot too if he had published his ideas about deterministic models without first becoming famous for his work on the Standard Model.

19. Neil B. on Nov 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    OK, now I am rather sure Greg is considering the curved space around a concentrated mass - this is the same as the deflection of light around a body being twice the Newtonian result (as per the famous eclipse experiments, etc.) But even then, why is it “a = -M (1+2v^2)/r^2″ instead of a = -M (1+v^2)/r^2, since the former makes for three times the standard acceleration when v –> c instead of twice (but I may be using a wrong intuitive assessment.) Either way, I am supposing that we don’t travel around a ST dimple, but along parallel field lines as along mass currents, or better; sliding planes. Then I can hardly imagine that the simple EP does not apply, and my paradox seems to be real then.

    Iblis: Can you or someone explain “ghost field” in a good way? I heard of ghost particles, but it seemed like a clunky and unreal conceit.

20. Count Iblis on Nov 16th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Neil, in QM the superposition principle applies to the state vectors (probability amplitudes), not to the fields as the field equations may be nonlinear. Even in electromagnetism, if you take into account the effect of virtual electron loops, you get nonlinear corrections.

21. Count Iblis on Nov 16th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    You can do without ghost fields, it is just a mathematical trick. What happens is that you want to do the computations using the gauge fields instead of physical fields. Since the same physical field configuration corresponds to many different guage field configurations, a path integral over the gauge fields would not lead to the correct result. It is possible to fix this problem by introducing ghost fields.

22. tyler on Nov 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    “Giddings is a well known string theorist. The paper hasn’t got a single LQG reference so I don’t see how Smolin is relevant here.”

    From the abstract:
    “These include the statement that space and time may only emerge approximately and relationally.”

    This is a primary concern of Smolin’s; from my reading it appears that his conviction that spacetime emerges relationally predates the development of LQG and was one of his main motivations for that effort.

    from Sean’s post:
    “GR is not renormalizable, by the lights of ordinary quantum field theory. But part is “conceptual” — ordinary QM takes a spacetime background as given, not as part of the wavefunction.”

    the non-renormalizability of GR, the (as he calls it) “background dependence” of QM and string theory, and how to reconcile all of these things in a theory of quantum gravity, are also fundamental topics of his writing, as should be fairly obvious to anyone who has read him.

    If you think LCQ in and of itself is the only topic on which Lee Smolin is relevant you are pretty far afield from reality. I have yet to read his most recent book, which I know has irked a lot of people…it’s next on my list though…but I’m not saying “he’s right, you all are wrong about XX,” I hold no such opinion.

    But at least thematically it’s certainly relevant, and mostly I was just interested in the synchronicity of the post with my reading of the moment.

23. Greg Egan on Nov 16th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Neil

    The equivalence principle implies that all kinds of matter with the same initial position and velocity will free-fall side by side. It does not imply that a relativistic bullet racing past a falling stone will hit the ground at the same time as the stone — not even if the experiment is being conducted above an infinite sheet of mass, removing tidal effects.

    The effect of transverse velocity on acceleration is related to the fact that geodesics at different velocities slice through spacetime differently and “see” different curvature.

    The formula I gave for an instantaneous acceleration when the velocity is purely transverse is not going to give you an immediate comparison between Newtonian and relativistic formulas for the deflection of light, which comes from an integral over an entire trajectory.

    The version of linearised gravity that is directly analogous to electromagnetism involves sources and test particles moving at non-relativistic speeds. In that approximation, a test particle mid-way between two parallel counter-flowing mass streams ought to experience an acceleration (of zero) that is independent of its velocity to first order.

    I don’t know what happens if you go to the next order and use fully relativistic weak-field linearised gravity; it’s conceivable to me that a moving test particle could swerve away from the midline with an acceleration that’s second order in v, but I’m really not sure. In any case, a proper treatment will not lead to anything paradoxical.

    Linearised gravity is a subtle business; even deriving Newtonian gravity from GR (as Wald notes in section 4.4 of his General Relativity), involves a careful use of terms of different order. The bottom line is that if you come up with a thought experiment that gives paradoxical results, you’re using the wrong approach. Certainly, thought experiments that mix special relativity with the idea that gravity resembles electromagnetism will be useless.

24. Neil B. on Nov 16th, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Greg, I am surprised at your take on the equivalence principle. I was always rather sure, as I gathered, that a “uniform” (well, have to adjust to the Rindler coordinates of g = -c^2/X) parallel gravitational field was indeed just like a vast accelerating elevator. Isn’t that the equivalent change to the space time? That means equal fall time for transverse bullet and dropped test body. Maybe you’re right, but isn’t it so that the particular transverse acceleration you got is for the radial field around a small compact mass, and not necessarily for the field from a sheet? (”geodesics at different velocities slice through spacetime differently and “see” different curvature.” - isn’t “curvature” proper only around dimples in the space-time, not sheets? Rem. that a cylinder for example isn’t “really” curved according to the Gaussian definition IIUC.) Have you seen or calculated that per se? Just wondering.

    Finally, I am wary of the sentiment that paradoxical results must mean a wrong approach. It may be wrong in the real world, but we shouldn’t assume that our theories won’t yield such paradoxes.

25. Greg Egan on Nov 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm

    Neil

    The specific formula I gave was for the weak-field approximation to the Schwarzschild solution, so it only applies to a spherically symmetrical source, but there certainly would be velocity effects (at some order in v) even for an infinite planar mass.

    isn’t “curvature” proper only around dimples in the space-time, not sheets?

    If spacetime isn’t curved, there is no gravity. If you want to use the notion of an acceleration due to a “gravitational field”, rather than spacetime curvature, then you are limited to either a purely Newtonian approach, or the first-order approximation of gravitomagnetism. Neither of those models are valid for relativistic test particles.

    If you are serious about wanting to know what happens to relativistic test particles in the vicinity of linear or planar mass flows, you need to learn about the weak-field approximation. This is linear in the perturbation to the metric, so you can add the fields from different sources, but what you are adding is not an acceleration, it’s a tensor field. You can then compute geodesics (or the proper accelerations along non-geodesic world lines, which is sometimes easier) for the metric you get from superimposing all the perturbations from all the sources. Any good textbook (e.g. Wald, Misner Thorne & Wheeler, and no doubt that of our host Sean Carroll — though I’m too ancient to have read that one myself) will get you started.

26. Greg Egan on Nov 17th, 2007 at 5:58 am

    I’ve just done weak-field calculations for point, linear and planar sources following MTW’s Chapter 18, and they all yield accelerations dependent on the velocity of the test particle. It looks like I was wrong about the factor of (1+2v^2), though; the linearised equations give a factor of (1+v^2) for all three cases. (In my previous calculation I started with orbits in the full Schwarzschild solution, but I might have done something naive when partitioning the second derivative of the radial coordinate between gravitational and centrifugal parts.)

27. Neil B. on Nov 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    Greg (and hoping for comment from anyone knowledgeable):

    I suppose you would know how to apply the equations to the case of the parallel field above the planar mass (PM for short), but I am still concerned about the relation of your results to the commonly understood (as I thought, at least, and have seen) implications of strong interpretations of the equivalence principle. It is clear that a transverse bullet fired inside a real extended accelerating elevator (frame K’) would hit the floor the same moment (floor time) as a dropped body. So if you are right about the other formula (now I gather, a = -M (1+v^2)/r^2 as I expected but even then only in the radial field), then the field inside the elevator is different from that around a planar mass. So, how do we describe that difference? It isn’t tidal, it isn’t gravitomagnetic since we are standing at rest on the plane or floor, so what is it? Can you produce an AE metric and a PM metric for comparison and contrast? Uniform gravity is supposed to proceed from the basic “tilt” of space-time standards, so the very idea of it being different from “real acceleration” looks weird, doesn’t it?

    The whole idea of GR was, “acceleration” and “gravity” are inherently the same thing, albeit tidal forces can’t be made by acceleration, and caution re of course the Rindler field not being “uniform” intensity by local standards. Now, you expect me to believe there is some peculiar difference between the two simplest cases of each, and not even with a specific “justification” in terms of second-order effects we ever hear about (like tidal, g-magnetism.) I also do remember seeing discussions of the bending of light, showing a light beam moving across an elevator floor, and then talk of how the deflection around the radial source is twice the ordinary s = (1/2)at^2 due to Gauss-type real space curvature (as per diff-geom. definition of “curvature”, not to be confused with the rough usage of “curvature”) and aside from whether you consider it as only being that when the whole path is considered. I will post anything I find.

    Finally, your formula leads to dynamical problems in real gravity. Let’s have constrained matter flowing rapidly in a circular path on the floor. Let’s assume, from f = ma in the proper frame of the mass particles (there should be a consistent relation between what free acceleration is seen, with force in the constrained case), that the lab force is now increased to gamma(1+v^2)* m_0*g instead of the gamma* m_0*g that we expect from increased effective mass-energy. Now lets lower a shelf holding this ring, extracting work according to W = - f dot delta h. Then we slow down the ring current, leaving the same mass energy as before (but now same as rest mass.) Then we could raise the ring using only gamma* m_0*g delta h, giving us “free energy” of gamma * v^2 * m_0*g delta h. In short, if the acceleration of all transverse-moving bodies isn’t the same, the weight they have on a floor is not the same either even after taking relativistic mass increase into account. I suppose you don’t want to be responsible for stimlating a perpetual motion proposal.

28. Greg Egan on Nov 17th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Neil

    Can you produce an AE metric and a PM metric for comparison and contrast?

    What you call the “accelerating elevator” metric is the Rindler metric. This is given by:

    ds^2 = -Z^2 dq^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dZ^2

    where Z is in the direction of acceleration, and measures proper distance along lines of constant x, y and q, while the proper time that elapses for an observer at fixed x, y and Z is given by tau = qZ. The acceleration measured by an observer at fixed x, y and Z is a=1/Z.

    It’s a straightforward change of coordinates to show that this is really flat Minkowski space-time with coordinates t,x,y,z:

    t = Z sinh(q)
    z = Z cosh(q)

    which are just the hyperbolas of constantly accelerating bodies in SR, with proper acceleration 1/Z.

    The metric I get from the weak-field approximation described in Misner, Thorne & Wheeler’s Chapter 18, applied to a planar mass distribution of area mass density sigma, for a square mass of half-side-length H, is:

    ds^2 = (-1+h) dt^2 + (1+h) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

    where h =2*sigma*(z*(ArcTan[((-H + x)*(H - y))/(z*Sqrt[(H - x)^2 + (H - y)^2 + z^2])] +
    ArcTan[((-H + x)*(H + y))/(z*Sqrt[(H - x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2])]) -
    z*(ArcTan[((H + x)*(H - y))/(z*Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H - y)^2 + z^2])] +
    ArcTan[((H + x)*(H + y))/(z*Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2])]) +
    (-H + y)*Log[-H + x + Sqrt[(H - x)^2 + (H - y)^2 + z^2]] +
    (H - y)*Log[H + x + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H - y)^2 + z^2]] -
    (H + y)*Log[-H + x + Sqrt[(H - x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]] +
    (-H + x)*(Log[-H + y + Sqrt[(H - x)^2 + (H - y)^2 + z^2]] -
    Log[H + y + Sqrt[(H - x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]]) +
    (H + y)*Log[H + x + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]] -
    (H + x)*(Log[-H + y + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H - y)^2 + z^2]] -
    Log[H + y + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]]))

    This ugly thing can be safely approximated for x, y in contexts where we’re not taking derivatives of the metric, by:

    h = -8*sigma*(z*ArcTan[H^2/(z*Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2])] +
    H*(Log[-H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]] - Log[H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]]))

    There are some tricky aspects to this; for fixed sigma, h diverges as H goes to infinity, so h is only going to be small (the assumption of the weak-field model) if H is finite and sigma is small. The reason for this is identical to the reason that in the Newtonian treatment, the gravitational potential diverges as H goes to infinity (but the acceleration is nonetheless finite).

    This space-time is not flat. It has a Riemann curvature tensor with components that are first-order in sigma (as opposed to the Einstein and Ricci tensors, which are second-order in sigma, i.e. zero in the linearised approximation — as they must be in order to be vacuum solutions).

    For the world line of a test particle moving with an ordinary velocity v in the x direction, remaining at a fixed z coordinate (e.g. being prevented from falling by a rocket engine firing vertically), instantaneously passing through x=y=0, the connection coefficients for this metric yield a proper acceleration (i.e. the acceleration measured by the test particle itself) of:

    a_p = 4 sigma (1+v^2)/(1-v^2) ArcCot[z Sqrt(2H^2+z^2)/H^2]

    Note that the dependence on (1+v^2) is not a function of H, i.e. it is not some kind of “edge effect” that only arises because H is finite.

    Now although we can’t let H literally go to infinity and keep using the weak-field approximation, we can still exploit the fact that this expression has a finite limit to obtain an approximation that will be good whenever H >> z > 0 and sigma is small:

    a_p = 2 pi sigma (1+v^2)/(1-v^2)

    If we switch to a frame in which the planar mass is stationary, we get:

    a = 2 pi sigma (1+v^2)

    Apart from the factor (1+v^2), this agrees with the Newtonian result.

    In the Rindler “elevator”, transverse motion is just an extra degree of freedom that has no effect whatsoever in the Z direction. In the curved space-time near a planar mass, the geometry is sliced differently by world lines with different transverse velocities.

    The equivalence principle applies to infinitesimal regions of spacetime, and allows one to get the laws of physics in GR by taking those that apply in SR and converting all the ordinary derivatives to covariant derivatives. That’s it. Neither Einstein nor anyone else who knew what they were talking about made any promise about large elevators. (If you don’t believe me, read Misner, Thorne and Wheeler’s Chapter 16.)

    I’ll do a full analysis of energy considerations for a falling test mass with a transverse velocity, using Killing’s theorem, but it might be a day or so before I get around to that.

29. Greg Egan on Nov 17th, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    I forgot to escape some inequalities:

    This ugly thing can be safely approximated for x, y << H, in contexts where we’re not taking derivatives of the metric, by:

30. Neil B. on Nov 18th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    Greg, I appreciate the effort you put into this. I am still rather flabbergasted, since I was sure the Rindler field and planar mass field would be the same (you confirmed what I implied about the Rindler field, that it is really “flat,” using acceleration along Z instead of X.)
    If you’re right (and I still wonder why I haven’t heard about this oddity before), then we have a weird situation with a real elevator falling in the field of the planar mass. The acceleration would cancel for a test body not moving relative to the plane, but a transversely-moving body would accelerate towards the plane (the difference being (v^2/g). Since there is no (?) actual tidal field therein, it seems odd to me for some masses to fall and not others (and when at the same spot, and independently of which direction moving parallel to the plane). The field in that elevator would be rather weird, having neither tidal nor any gravitomagnetic field I can imagine (in my non-adept middle-brow way.)

    Finally, remember that “infinitesimal” versus “extended” doesn’t directly translate into whether the EP can handle rapid motions (and local *instantaneous* acceleration)through the small region, does it?

    One last question: do weak gravitational fields (i.e., their effects in every way, including the peculiar velocity-dependent acceleration) obey superposition, basically? (Like, an effect of magnitude 3 and one of magnitude 5 might add to 7.99 or 8.02 etc., but not way off like adding to two or 16 etc.)
    tx

31. Neil B. on Nov 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Clarification: When I said that I expected the field around the planar mass to be like the Rindler field of real acceleration, I didn’t mean to include the 1/r nature of the Rindler field. I just meant, that basic phenomenae would be the same at a given place - such as, the lab acceleration of bodies not being dependent on their velocity. I still regard difference in that regard between real acceleration and planar mass field to be amazing.

    Note: Here are some interesting references about all that, no time to linkify:

    http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0503092
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.2906v1.pdf

32. Greg Egan on Nov 18th, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    The metric I’ve been looking at for a weak-field analysis of a square planar mass is:

    ds^2 = (-1+h) dt^2 + (1+h) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

    where h is small. In reality, for a finite planar mass h will be a function of x, y, and z, but for x, y << H, we can (when we’re not computing its x and y derivatives) approximate it as a function of z alone:

    h[z] = -8*sigma*(z*ArcTan[H^2/(z*Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2])] +
    H*(Log[-H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]] - Log[H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]]))

    Here sigma is the area mass density of the planar mass, and H is half the side length of the square.

    The function h[z] is well-behaved at 0 and monotonically decreasing, tending to zero as z goes to infinity.

    Globally, the metric has no dependence on t, so it has a perfect time-translation symmetry. Additionally, to the extent that the independence from x and y are reasonable approximations, there will also be approximate symmetries for translations in the x-y plane.

    This leads to an exactly conserved energy, E_inf, and two (approximately) conserved linear momenta, P_x,inf and P_y,inf. Killing’s theorem tells us that along any geodesic for a test particle in this spacetime, the dot products of the 4-momentum p with the coordinate derivatives d/dt, d/dx and d/dy will equal these constants:

    g(p,d/dt) = E_inf
    g(p,d/dx) = P_x,inf
    g(p,d/dy) = P_y,inf

    We’ll confine ourselves to motion in the x-z plane (i.e. test particles falling towards the mass plane z=0, possibly with some transverse velocity in the x direction), and we’ll shorten P_x,inf to P_inf. The locally measured values of energy and (x-)momentum for particle will be:

    E = E_inf / sqrt(1-h[z])
    P = P_inf / sqrt(1+h[z])

    and for a particle with energy and momentum E_1 and P_1 at z=z_1, which then falls to z=z_2, we have:

    E_2/E_1 = sqrt(1-h[z_1]) / sqrt(1-h[z_2])
    P_2/P_1 = sqrt(1+h[z_1]) / sqrt(1+h[z_2])

    If z_2 < z_1, h[z_2] > h[z_1], and we have E_2 > E_1 while P_2 < P_1. So the “gravitational blue shift” for a falling particle’s energy is accompanied by a decrease in its measured transverse momentum.

    Energy will be conserved, of course, so if a particle with transverse motion falls from z_1 to z_2, and its total energy at z_2 is used to create a particle without transverse motion travelling back up to z_1, it will arrive there with exactly the same total energy as the initial falling particle.

    This might seem to contradict the statement I made in my earlier post, that a particle with transverse motion will be accelerated more than one without, but it doesn’t; with the change in transverse momentum, everything balances out. What’s more, we can use these results to demonstrate explicitly that a particle that falls from z_1 to z_2 will arrive at z_2 with a z-component of its velocity (i.e. its locally measured rate of descent) dependent on its transverse velocity at z_1.

    We have:

    v_x = P / E (recalling that P is momentum in the x direction)
    = (P_inf / E_inf) sqrt(1-h[z]) / sqrt(1+h[z])

    (v_z)^2 = 1 - (m_0 / E)^2 - v_x^2
    = 1 - (1-h[z]) (m_0 / E_inf)^2 - v_x^2

    For a particle falling from z_1, starting with transverse velocity v_{x,1} = v and no vertical velocity (v_{z,1} = 0), we can find its constants of motion:

    E_inf = m_0 sqrt(1-h[z_1]) / sqrt(1-v^2)
    P_inf = m_0 v sqrt(1+h[z_1] / sqrt(1-v^2)

    and then get the components of its velocity at z_2:

    v_{x,2} = (P_inf / E_inf) sqrt(1-h[z_2]) / sqrt(1+h[z_2])
    = v sqrt(1+h[z_1]) sqrt(1-h[z_2]) / [sqrt(1+h[z_2]) sqrt(1-h[z_1])]

    (v_{z,2})^2 = 1 - (1-h[z_2]) (m_0 / E_inf)^2 - v_x^2
    = 1 - (1-v^2) (1-h[z_2]) / (1-h[z_1]) - v^2 (1+h[z_1])(1-h[z_2]) / [(1+h[z_2]) (1-h[z_1])]
    = (h[z_2]-h[z_1])[(1-h[z_2])(1+v^2) + 2h[z_2]] / [(1+h[z_2])(1-h[z_1])]

33. Greg Egan on Nov 19th, 2007 at 12:09 am

    Neil,

    I’ve pretty much exhausted the amount of time I want to spend looking at this, but I’ll mention the tidal components of the Riemann curvature tensor I’ve already computed.

    At x=y=0, and to first order in sigma, the tidal stretching along the z-axis is:

    (8*H^2*sigma)/((H^2 + z^2)*Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2])

    while this is accompanied (as it must be, for any vacuum solution) by tidal squeezing in the other directions, which from symmetry must be half as much in each of the x- and y-directions.

    These terms do go to zero as H goes to infinity, but of course the weak-field approximation is not appropriate at all as H goes to infinity. And as I think the mathpage site you referenced seems to be saying, there really is no satisfactory solution in GR for an infinite plane.

    There are various results that can be obtained by using the Rindler coordinates on flat spacetime to create partially useful analogies, but these need to be employed with great care, and they’re never going to be perfect. But I don’t pretend to have the kind of detailed experience with this subject that would be needed to spell out an exhaustive list of what is and isn’t safe.

    If you want to learn more about this, FWIW my suggestion is to get a thorough grounding in basic GR first: spend six months reading Carroll, or Wald, or MTW. Although weak-field approximations and comparisons with flat spacetime seem to offer a lure of a kind of intuitive short-cut to GR, my experience is that they’re potentially very misleading unless you really grasp the full theory first.

34. Neil B. on Nov 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Greg,

    Thanks for all your help. I can see your point about the reduction in lateral velocity comp’ing for the higher downward acceleration of a side-moving body - when in free fall. The one thing that I still feel uneasy about is the case where high-speed circulating masses are on a platform that is raised and lowered - is the correction for free fall equivalent to an effective “weight” of just gamma*m_0? If not, I don’t see how an effective mass of (1 + v^2) could square with conservation during raising and lowering.

    Wow, losing the “elevator” as game for whatever I wanted to think about is really disappointing (and low to middle-brow science education doesn’t warns about this much - I just didn’t get into gravity at top level.)

    A simple answer is fine, and if you could also: regarding “superposition” of weak-field effects.
    tx

35. Greg Egan on Nov 19th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    With a circulating mass (such as a horizontal rotating barbell) you could do a similar analysis on the basis of approximate rotational symmetry of the spacetime it moves through, presumably leading to a slower rate of spin when the barbell reaches z_2. Whether it free-falls or is lowered more slowly under a vertical force shouldn’t make any difference.

    In the full weak-field approximation, what adds linearly is the metric perturbation, the difference between the metric and a flat metric. There is no guarantee that anything else will be linear. Newtonian gravity and the gravitomagnetic approximation (for slow-moving sources and test masses) are linear in accelerations relative to the flat reference spacetime. But I’m afraid I have no idea of the degree to which that simpler condition will be violated when there’s relativistic motion.

36. Greg Egan on Nov 20th, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    Neil

    One of the arXiv papers you mentioned, “The general relativistic infinite plane”, gives two exact solutions for infinite planes. There are some exotic aspects to these solutions that make them qualitatively different from the weak-field solution for a finite plane, but it’s worth noting that both have non-zero tidal forces, and velocity-dependent accelerations.

37. Neil B. on Nov 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Greg, (or et al) there’s still a problem IMHO. It looks like we can solve my first problem about conservation of energy, but what if we modify it thus: let’s assume that g(moving transverse to g) = g(1 + v^2/c^2). But what if you accelerate a ring of vast radius R from rest to rapid rotation, using up its own mass-energy. The total mass-energy per unit ds of the ring, seen in the lab, stays the same (and we can use discrete points to avoid stretching.) In my original understanding, the close to 1/r gravity field near the ring current therefore stays the same value. That avoids free energy tricks like raising/lowering parallel static mass rings before/after acceleration of the first ring.

    But if you’re right, then we can speed up the first ring, get g(new) = g(rest)*(1 - v^2/c^2), lower in some sandwiching static rings, decelerate the first ring (keeping the energy there for same mass-energy per unit), then raise the other rings back out and keep the extra energy. It would be worth 0.36 g*delta h if the main ring got up to 0.6c, etc. The other rings or sets of masses go right towards the spinning ring, there’s no way for corrections to fix energy using transverse velocity. Play with it some, and maybe you’ll see that differential values of g cause problems.

    Comments, anyone?

38. Greg Egan on Nov 21st, 2007 at 10:21 pm

    Neil

    I don’t have time to do a detailed analysis of a scenario as complex as this, but one obvious impossibility here is accelerating a ring “using it own mass-energy”, which would violate conservation of angular momentum. If you want an initially static ring to remain a closed system while spinning up, the best you could do is split it into two counter-rotating rings.

    (Does the external spacetime geometry change, when a static ring splits into two counter-rotating ones, with no input of mass-energy? My hunch is it does, but I don’t know how much or in what way. And it would certainly not be reasonable to assume that you could “add accelerations” due to the individual rings.)

    It’s also far from obvious that if you lower a non-rotating ring into the plane of a rotating one that this will have no effect on the rotational speed of the rotating ring; my guess is it would be slowed down (and the initially non-rotating one would start rotating).

    A detailed accounting of energy flows in a complex relativistic scenario isn’t a trivial business, and treatments which are basically Newtonian gravity plus fudge factors are only going to muddy the waters. I think the source of some of your confusion here is that you’re (implicitly) trying to apply the concept of gravitational potential energy in a context where that ceases to be valid. If giving an object transverse motion changed its potential energy (or that of objects around it), then of course everything would go haywire, but in GR there is no such thing as potential energy.

    A better way to come to grips with this issue than thinking up complicated thought experiments which are extremely hard to analyse precisely would be to study

39. Greg Egan on Nov 21st, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    A better way to come to grips with this issue than thinking up complicated thought experiments which are extremely hard to analyse precisely would be to study simpler scenarios (like the Schwarzschild geometry) and see how the conservation laws work in that context.

40. Neil B. on Nov 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    OK Greg, thanks again and I hope you had/have a great Thanksgiving (well maybe you’re in Hawaii for all I know.) Briefly, you can accelerate one ring one-way by pushing on it from the floor, which exerts torque back on the floor (but you can still draw from the ring’s own mass to do that - or try pulling from just below it. In any case the point is to avoid pulling in stuff from outside, which affects the local mass-energy sourcing of gravity.)

    You might find this post of mine in sci.physics, talk.philosophy.cosmology etc. to be interesting:

    “What happens if contraction of a universe is impeded by body surfaces?”

41. Greg Egan on Nov 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm

    OK Greg, thanks again and I hope you had/have a great Thanksgiving (well maybe you’re in Hawaii for all I know.)

    Thanks, the same to you. Actually I’m Australian, but we’re having an election here tomorrow, the result of which I hope will be worth some mild celebration.

    BTW, one point I failed to stress sufficiently: whenever two free-falling test particles pass each other (infinitesimally closely), the instantaneous second rate of change of their separation (as measured by either one) will be zero, whatever their relative velocity. That’s what the equivalence principle demands, and that’s what happens. Maybe that will help convince you that the equivalence principle isn’t void.

    How does that square with the different vertical accelerations seen in the non-inertial frame fixed to the planar mass? The particle that’s moving horizontally in that frame has a greater vertical acceleration, but it’s also decelerating horizontally.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

You can use these HTML tags: <a href=""></a>, <em></em>, <strong></strong>, <blockquote></blockquote>. You cannot use  and , even if they appear in the preview. Use "&lt;" and "&gt;" for "<" and ">".

1. You are Saying:
   July 19th, 2008 at 23:22

Trackback URL for this post: http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/11/13/arxiv-find-universal-quantum-mechanics/trackback/