View Full Version : Why does light and gravity travel at the same speed?
Abidal Sala
Feb6-12, 10:40 AM
Why does gravity effect objects as fast as light. For instance, if the sun suddenly disappeared, earth would continue orbiting the place the sun left for 8 minutes, which is the same time it takes light from the sun to reach us.. i think this might be some sort of standard speed in the universe in which information can travel.. but also why when exceeding that speed would you go back in time, why specifically THAT speed (299m/s).. it has to be a result of something else, doesn't it?
HallsofIvy
Feb6-12, 11:34 AM
Essentially, that is the speed of waves in the "fabric" of space. And your statement that "when exceeding that speed would you go back in time" is not correct- you cannot go faster than the speed of light. It happens that, in the formula for time dilation, if you simply put in a speed greater than the speed of light, you get an imaginary number solution. Some people interpret that as "going back in time" but it really just means you have done a meaningless operation.
Abidal Sala
Feb6-12, 11:42 AM
Some people interpret that as "going back in time" but it really just means you have done a meaningless operation.
but see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.html
also see the video there.. they tried everything, and their calculations insist to show that the particle exceeded the speed of light
Ryan_m_b
Feb6-12, 12:18 PM
but see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.html
also see the video there.. they tried everything, and their calculations insist to show that the particle exceeded the speed of light
Actually the jury is still out on that one. See discussions here: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=532620
salvestrom
Feb6-12, 01:45 PM
Why does gravity effect objects as fast as light. For instance, if the sun suddenly disappeared, earth would continue orbiting the place the sun left for 8 minutes, which is the same time it takes light from the sun to reach us.. i think this might be some sort of standard speed in the universe in which information can travel.. but also why when exceeding that speed would you go back in time, why specifically THAT speed (299m/s).. it has to be a result of something else, doesn't it?
The most direct answer to your question from a quantum mechanics viewpoint is that the force carrier for gravity, the as yet undiscovered 'graviton', would be massless and is therefore able to travel at the maximum possible speed for a massless object. I'm not sure what the explanation is in terms of General Relativity because gravity isn't a force in that model, and I've no idea by what maths and reasoning its propagation are constrained to c.
The notion of exceeding the speed of light and travelling back in time is derived from the idea that any object at the speed of light experiences no movement in time, therefore going beyond that speed implies time reversing. As has been pointed out, exceeding that speed is currently considered impossible - particularly if the object has any actual mass.
As for "why 299m/s?"... Well, I'd like to see what others say. The speed can be derived from (I think) Maxwell's equations using the eletric and magnetic constant, but when I checked into that it seemed at least one of them was itself defined using c, which struck me as circular.
I'm not sure what the explanation is in terms of General Relativity because gravity isn't a force in that model, and I've no idea by what maths and reasoning its propagation are constrained to c.
Isn't it just by considering small deviations away from a flat spacetime, so your metric takes the form g_{ab}=\eta_{ab}+h_{ab}. Then, in a vacuum, the field equations imply that the perturbations propagate according to a wave equation,
\Bigg(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+c^2\nabla^2\Bigg)h_{ab}=0
with speed of propagation, c.
In my view anything which propagates through spacetime does so at the speed of light. Gravitational waves propagate like radiation but with zero frequency. That is only the amplitude of the wave propagates, leaving spacetime in a state of curvature.
Irishwake
Feb10-12, 01:10 PM
That is only the amplitude of the wave propagates, leaving spacetime in a state of curvature.
Would you mind going into a little more detail here on what causes a lack of frequency?
I guess I've just never imagined gravity to "propagate in waves" since it doesn't display any of the classical properties like EM radiation does.
Would you mind going into a little more detail here on what causes a lack of frequency?
I guess I've just never imagined gravity to "propagate in waves" since it doesn't display any of the classical properties like EM radiation does.Yes I certainly wouldn't say propagates in waves. More like a disturbance (Einstein would say curvature) which spreads out throughout spacetime. My take on it is that particles are forms of compressed spacetime causing a stretching effect on neighboring elements of spacetime, like a quantum theory of gravity. The stretching effect of course diminishes farther from objects as the effect is shared by more elements of spacetime. I like to think spacetime has memory: it tries to restore itself to its original configuration. This memory might also be the source of other forces. From this viewpoint the universe is really a re-configuration of spacetime. The internal energy of matter is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. Of course eventually spacetime overcomes this imbalance as quark matter decays or evaporates through black holes. The leptons, however, seem to be subject only to annihilation, as I understand.
This has always been something that bothers me that I have never fully understood.
If gravity is bound by the same rules as light and cannot travel faster then light, that suggests that gravity should be effected by the curvature of space. If that is so, then how can gravity escape a black hole? The two seem contradictory to me.
This has always been something that bothers me that I have never fully understood.
If gravity is bound by the same rules as light and cannot travel faster then light, that suggests that gravity should be effected by the curvature of space. If that is so, then how can gravity escape a black hole? The two seem contradictory to me.Except for Hawing radiation I don't believe gravity does escape from a black hole. Note if too much gravity escapes the black hole it seems it wouldn't be a black hole anymore.
DaveC426913
Feb11-12, 12:17 AM
Except for Hawing radiation I don't believe gravity does escape from a black hole. Note if too much gravity escapes the black hole it seems it wouldn't be a black hole anymore.
Gravity does not have to "escape" a black hole. Gravity is a field. That means it has a value everywhere at all times. Before the black hole formed, the mass that curved space was there. After the black hole formed, the value of the field does not change.
Gravity does not have to "escape" a black hole. Gravity is a field. That means it has a value everywhere at all times. Before the black hole formed, the mass that curved space was there. After the black hole formed, the value of the field does not change.
Yeap I'm still confused. I'm afraid you may not be able to dumb this down enough for me. Lets try this example in reverse and maybe then you can point out where my thinking goes wrong.
If a black hole losses mass, you would expect that it would have less gravitational effect on a star orbiting outside of its event horizon. This effect should travel at the speed of light to the areas surrounding the black hole. I still just don't see how it can relay the information out of the black hole. Maybe my confusion is because I think of it as a wave or particle (graviton), and I don't see how a graviton can escape when other particles cannot.
DaveC426913
Feb11-12, 01:15 AM
Maybe my confusion is because I think of it as a wave or particle (graviton), and I don't see how a graviton can escape when other particles cannot.
Yep. That's the problem. We do not yet have a quantum mechanical description of gravity. Currently, relativity is the going theory. And it describes gravity as a field.
lukesfn
Feb11-12, 07:00 AM
This has always been something that bothers me that I have never fully understood.
If gravity is bound by the same rules as light and cannot travel faster then light, that suggests that gravity should be effected by the curvature of space. If that is so, then how can gravity escape a black hole? The two seem contradictory to me.
This one confuses me too, but I was wondering if the answer has something to do with things that fall into a black hole appearing as frozen on the horizon, and redshifted so far they are invisible, but maybe a hypothetical graviton particle or similar could still be observed.
Same for the event horizon of the universe.
I don't know if this makes any sense or not though, but maybe it is one way to look at it.
Gravity does not have to "escape" a black hole. Gravity is a field. That means it has a value everywhere at all times. Before the black hole formed, the mass that curved space was there. After the black hole formed, the value of the field does not change.Good points.
Tanelorn
Feb11-12, 08:11 AM
Originally Posted by JonDE
Maybe my confusion is because I think of it as a wave or particle (graviton), and I don't see how a graviton can escape when other particles cannot.
Yep. That's the problem. We do not yet have a quantum mechanical description of gravity. Currently, relativity is the going theory. And it describes gravity as a field.
__________________
.
These statements are very profound. Seems we need new Physics? Electromagnetic waves / particles cannot escape an extremely high gravitational field, yet hypothetical gravitons can?
Originally Posted by JonDE
Maybe my confusion is because I think of it as a wave or particle (graviton), and I don't see how a graviton can escape when other particles cannot.
Yep. That's the problem. We do not yet have a quantum mechanical description of gravity. Currently, relativity is the going theory. And it describes gravity as a field.
__________________
.
These statements are very profound. Seems we need new Physics? Electromagnetic waves / particles cannot escape an extremely high gravitational field, yet hypothetical gravitons can?Gravitons are the gravitational equivalent to photons for the electromagnetic fields. Gravitons spread the gravitational field of a particle at its creation. The gravitational field of the particle then becomes attached to the particle as long as it's not acceerated. If that happens then the gravitons come into play again to update the gravitational field. But gravitons play no part in a static gravitational field for a particle moving with no acceleration.
Radiation escapes black holes when its wavelength is greater than the diameter of the event horizon. I don't think gravitons are part of a black hole. They only update the gravitational field, as when the black holes lose mass by Hawing radiation.
This has always been something that bothers me that I have never fully understood.
If gravity is bound by the same rules as light and cannot travel faster then light, that suggests that gravity should be effected by the curvature of space. If that is so, then how can gravity escape a black hole? The two seem contradictory to me.Per Einstein gravity is curvature of spacetime. The gravitational field of the black hole is the sum of the individual contributions from each particle in the black hole. If I understand Hawking radiation it annihilates particles in the black hole, and so the contribution of their gravitational field to that of the black hole will be lost, reducing the gravitational field of the black hole itself and reducing the curvature of spacetime.
Chronos
Feb12-12, 11:05 PM
You don't need 'gravitons' if gravity is a scalar field. See also http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980601a.html
universe21!
Feb17-12, 06:48 PM
Gravitons don't exist because a theory out there says space time effects everything even where it doesn't exist. This means space-time doesn't exist where a planet is but does effect it. the effect is space-time pushes towards the (physical) Centre of the planet, as gravity.
and we know space doesn't have force carriers to meditate its range so the same applies to gravity. Since it (gravity) is Space time pushing against a Object it doesn't need the Graviton Boson hence why we have never found one. but this doesn't violate QM.
I find this a very interesting and simple theory because we know space-time and gravity is around. and we have never seen a graviton during an experiment. sounds like a very plausible theory.
What i can say about your question is gravity requires 0 mass to operate and light operates at 0 mass. so the laws of physics consern their speed should be identical.
Drakkith
Feb17-12, 07:50 PM
Universe21, spacetime most certainly exists everywhere in the universe. And we don't know that gravity DOESN'T have a force carrier, we simply haven't been able to find one yet.
Universe21, spacetime most certainly exists everywhere in the universe. And we don't know that gravity DOESN'T have a force carrier, we simply haven't been able to find one yet.looks like whatever force carrier gravity has would be the same as that for light if they both propagate at the same speed.
What i can say about your question is gravity requires 0 mass to operate and light operates at 0 mass. so the laws of physics consern their speed should be identical.So the propagator (for both), i guess, has no mass, so must be spacetime, unless there is something strange going on.
alphachapmtl
Feb17-12, 10:10 PM
Why does gravity effect objects as fast as light. For instance, if the sun suddenly disappeared, earth would continue orbiting the place the sun left for 8 minutes, which is the same time it takes light from the sun to reach us.. i think this might be some sort of standard speed in the universe in which information can travel.. but also why when exceeding that speed would you go back in time, why specifically THAT speed (299m/s).. it has to be a result of something else, doesn't it?
The photon are massless, so (it is believe) are the gravitons (which have never been observed). So they both travel at the speed of light.
I have a question, and it seems this is the most apropriate place and time to ask it.
From what i remember, black holes are created when a very massive star shrinks itself to a radius smaller than the so-called Schwarzschild radius. But, from a observer far away from it (like us, for example), as closer the radius of the star gets to the Schwarzschild radius, slower the shrinking gets, so from a observer far away, it takes an infinite time to a star became a black hole, and so, from a observer far away (like us), there are still no actual black holes in the universe, but only stars in the process of becoming one.
It is right?
as closer the radius of the star gets to the Schwarzschild radius, slower the shrinking getsIt seems as long as there is gravity the mass falling in will accelerate until the compressive force of matter inside the black hole balances the force of gravity. Of course the force of impact of infalling matter with matter inside the black hole is going to create heat and of turbulence depending on the compressibility and rebound effects of the mixture of matter inside. The spin of the star also effects the dynamics inside the black hole. For example if the radius of the star collapses by a factor of 1000 the spin of the black hole would increase by about 1000. So stars with spin will be spinning off all kinds of matter as it collapses. If we had data on the high pressure impacts we could do some very interesting theory about what's really going on inside for various spin rates.
I have a question, and it seems this is the most apropriate place and time to ask it.
From what i remember, black holes are created when a very massive star shrinks itself to a radius smaller than the so-called Schwarzschild radius.True. But note this depends not only on the mass of the star but also its spin. That is, the higher the spin, the more heavy matter will be thrown off the star before it completely collapses, reducing the probability of the star forming a black hole.
zhermes
Feb21-12, 10:06 AM
But, from a observer far away from it (like us, for example), as closer the radius of the star gets to the Schwarzschild radius, slower the shrinking gets, so from a observer far away, it takes an infinite time to a star became a black hole
I think that that is correct. An observer will never see an infalling shell cross an event horizon.
At the same time, however, infalling material becomes increasingly redshifted (quite rapidly), and thus an observer will stop 'seeing' any of that outside material. I guess the infalling matter would appear to dim/fade as it asymptotically approaches the event horizon (which also grows as additional matter falls in).
See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhLB..707..233P
I have a question, and it seems this is the most apropriate place and time to ask it.
From what i remember, black holes are created when a very massive star shrinks itself to a radius smaller than the so-called Schwarzschild radius.
I think that that is correct. An observer will never see an infalling shell cross an event horizon.
At the same time, however, infalling material becomes increasingly redshifted (quite rapidly), and thus an observer will stop 'seeing' any of that outside material. I guess the infalling matter would appear to dim/fade as it asymptotically approaches the event horizon (which also grows as additional matter falls in).
See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhLB..707..233PThis reference applies to a pre-existing black hole but the question is creation of a black hole from a massive star, not collapse of a shell onto a pre-existing black hole.
zhermes
Feb21-12, 12:49 PM
This reference applies to a pre-existing black hole but the question is creation of a black hole from a massive star, not collapse of a shell onto a pre-existing black hole.
It seems like it should apply as soon as an event horizon forms---i.e. as soon as you pass critical density.
The gravitational field of the black hole is the sum of the individual contributions from each particle in the black hole. If I understand Hawking radiation it annihilates particles in the black hole, and so the contribution of their gravitational field to that of the black hole will be lost, reducing the gravitational field of the black hole itself and reducing the curvature of spacetime.
This seems preposterous....but then, again, some things are so!
For example, there are few if any 'particles' within a black hole.
Except for recent infalls, all are destroyed at the singularity.
Hawking radiation is formed outside the horizon; Perhaps you mean infalling particles with negative energy combine with recent particles of positive energy...even that doesn't seem
likely ....how would one catch up with the other, or slow down, to affect annihilation...?
Have you any references that describe black holes as you posted??
But, from a observer far away from it (like us, for example), as closer the radius of the star gets to the Schwarzschild radius, slower the shrinking gets, so from a observer far away, it takes an infinite time to a star became a black hole
I think that that is correct. An observer will never see an infalling shell cross an event horizon.
This has been discussed before and I am not positive, but what I concluded from conflicting posts is that such an 'infinite' time is an 'ideal' perspective from infinity in flat spacetime....in our real universe, such a frame does not exist...so dilation IS extended but not infinite.
If it were, how could we observe ANY black hole??
ok I found the source which I have on the preceding issue:
From Kip Thorne in BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS
when the star forms a black hole:
....Finkelstein's reference frame was large enough to describe the star's implosion ...simultaneously from the viewpoint of far away static observers and from the viewpoint of observers who ride inward with the imploding star. The resulting description reconciled...the freezing of the implosion as observed from far away with (in contrast to) the continued implosion as observed from the stars surface....an imploding star really does shrink through the critical circumference without hesitation....That it appears to freeze as seen from far away is an illusion....General relativity insists that the star's matter will be crunched out of existence in the singularity at the center of the black...
I think the guy who 'accidently' discovered this is David Finkelstein...
I just checked Wikipedia...looks like THIS is what he discovered with Misner:
The simplest kink exhibited an easily understood event horizon that led him to recognize the one in the Schwarzschild metric and eliminate its coordinate singularity. This work influenced the decisions of Roger Penrose and John Archibald Wheeler to accept the physical existence of event horizons and black holes.
But what does it mean??
I think that that is correct. An observer will never see an infalling shell cross an event horizon.
At the same time, however, infalling material becomes increasingly redshifted (quite rapidly), and thus an observer will stop 'seeing' any of that outside material. I guess the infalling matter would appear to dim/fade as it asymptotically approaches the event horizon (which also grows as additional matter falls in).
See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhLB..707..233P
This reference applies to a pre-existing black hole but the question is creation of a black hole from a massive star, not collapse of a shell onto a pre-existing black hole.
It seems like it should apply as soon as an event horizon forms---i.e. as soon as you pass critical density.The critical density has already been passed for pre-existing black holes.
there are few if any 'particles' within a black hole.
Except for recent infalls, all are destroyed at the singularity.Really? Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/29/lhc_lead_results/
Hawking radiation is formed outside the horizon; Perhaps you mean infalling particles with negative energy combine with recent particles of positive energy...even that doesn't seem
likely ....how would one catch up with the other, or slow down, to affect annihilation...?Incoming particles would collide with the quark-gluon plasma.
The simplest kink exhibited an easily understood event horizon that led him to recognize the one in the Schwarzschild metric and...
Delete.
The simplest kink exhibited an easily understood event horizon that led him to recognize the one in the Schwarzschild metric and eliminate its coordinate singularity. This work influenced the decisions of Roger Penrose and John Archibald Wheeler to accept the physical existence of event horizons and black holes.
But what does it mean??
That answer would probably be speculative.
Originally Posted by JonDE
Maybe my confusion is because I think of it as a wave or particle (graviton), and I don't see how a graviton can escape when other particles cannot. Radiation escapes black holes and gravitons radiate.
I think I already commented on this post.
Originally Posted by Naty1
there are few if any 'particles' within a black hole.
Except for recent infalls, all are destroyed at the singularity.
Really? Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11..._lead_results/
Originally Posted by Naty1
Hawking radiation is formed outside the horizon; Perhaps you mean infalling particles with negative energy combine with recent particles of positive energy...even that doesn't seem
likely ....how would one catch up with the other, or slow down, to affect annihilation...?
Incoming particles would collide with the quark-gluon plasma
Where does that reference say ANYTHING about plasmas within black holes????
Please provide a peer reviewed source that discusses plasnmas within a black hole.
ynot
Originally Posted by Naty1
The simplest kink exhibited an easily understood event horizon that led him to recognize the one in the Schwarzschild metric and eliminate its coordinate singularity. This work influenced the decisions of Roger Penrose and John Archibald Wheeler to accept the physical existence of event horizons and black holes.
But what does it mean??
That answer would probably be speculative.
So you consider Finkelstein's work and subsequent years of acceptance by physicsts
'speculative'???.....Can you provide a peer reviewed source
drawing such a radical conclusion.
ynot
Originally Posted by Drakkith
Universe21, spacetime most certainly exists everywhere in the universe. And we don't know that gravity DOESN'T have a force carrier, we simply haven't been able to find one yet.
looks like whatever force carrier gravity has would be the same as that for light if they both propagate at the same speed.
Looks like WHAT????? You mean that the quanta of the gravitational force and electromagnetic force are identical???
Are you implying that all massless particles are identical??
If so, please provide a peer reviewed source. (PS: there is none)
Where does that reference say ANYTHING about plasmas within black holes????Sorry page not found. Try http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-black-hole-plasma-lab.htmlPlease provide a peer reviewed source that discusses plasnmas within a black hole.Lots of sources on google but I'm not sure about peer review. Sorry.
looks like whatever force carrier gravity has would be the same as that for light if they both propagate at the same speed.
ynot
Looks like WHAT????? You mean that the quanta of the gravitational force and electromagnetic force are identical???)I'd say there is a difference. Gravitons would have infinite wavelength.
Are you implying that all massless particles are identical??No, there are 4 gauge bosons. Since gravitons and photons both travel at the speed of light, I'd say a graviton would be a special form of a photon.
If so, please provide a peer reviewed source. (PS: there is none)Seems silly if there is none.
zhermes
Feb22-12, 10:53 AM
This has been discussed before and I am not positive, but what I concluded from conflicting posts is that such an 'infinite' time is an 'ideal' perspective from infinity in flat spacetime....in our real universe, such a frame does not exist...so dilation IS extended but not infinite.
If it were, how could we observe ANY black hole??
The same would be true for an observer a finite distance away from the event horizon (i.e. not in an 'ideal' position).
As I mentioned before, an observer would see material rapidly fading as it approaches the event horizon. It would never be observed to cross, and you can never see anything from inside the EH anyway. There is no inconsistency in being able to observe a BH.
I'd say there is a difference. Gravitons would have infinite wavelength.
No, there are 4 gauge bosons. Since gravitons and photons both travel at the speed of light, I'd say a graviton would be a special form of a photon.
Gravitons would not have infinite wavelength; and they are not a special form of photon (for example, photons are spin 1, where-as gravitons would need-be spin 2). Avoid overly speculative posts in accordance with the PF guidelines (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380).
Originally Posted by Naty1
The simplest kink exhibited an easily understood event horizon that led him to recognize the one in the Schwarzschild metric and eliminate its coordinate singularity. This work influenced the decisions of Roger Penrose and John Archibald Wheeler to accept the physical existence of event horizons and black holes.
But what does it mean??That answer would probably be speculative.ynot
So you consider Finkelstein's work and subsequent years of acceptance by physicsts
'speculative'???.....Can you provide a peer reviewed source
drawing such a radical conclusion.I notice you included your question inside of your quote. I was referring to the meaning, not the work. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
johnnymacinta
Feb22-12, 11:26 AM
WHat an awesome question. This subject fascinates me but hurts my brain at the same time. It is really a lot to process.
Gravitons would not have infinite wavelength; and they are not a special form of photon (for example, photons are spin 1, where-as gravitons would need-be spin 2). Avoid overly speculative posts in accordance with the PF guidelines (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380).So would a graviton have a wavelength? Or would that just be speculation.
Drakkith
Feb22-12, 04:18 PM
So would a graviton have a wavelength? Or would that just be speculation.
I'm assuming you are referring to the fact that a photon is an EM wave and has a particular wavelength, and comparing a graviton to it? I am unsure about whether or not a graviton is a gravitational wave like how a photon is an EM wave.
Gravitons would not have infinite wavelength; and they are not a special form of photon (for example, photons are spin 1, where-as gravitons would need-be spin 2). Avoid overly speculative posts in accordance with the PF guidelines (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380).
I'm assuming you are referring to the fact that a photon is an EM wave and has a particular wavelength, and comparing a graviton to it? I am unsure about whether or not a graviton is a gravitational wave like how a photon is an EM wave.I don't think a graviton has a finite wavelength, I was referring to the quote about gravitons would not have an infinite wavelenth. So I I'm wondering how you might go about finding the wavelength of a graviton, if there is such a thing. I'd think if there was a way we would have found one by now.
Drakkith
Feb22-12, 06:07 PM
I don't think a graviton has a finite wavelength, I was referring to the quote about gravitons would not have an infinite wavelenth. So I I'm wondering how you might go about finding the wavelength of a graviton, if there is such a thing. I'd think if there was a way we would have found one by now.
We haven't even found evidence of a graviton yet, so I have my doubts. But I don't know the math, so maybe someone else here knows.
So I'm wondering how you might go about finding the wavelength of a graviton, if there is such a thing. I'd think if there was a way we would have found one by now.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Experimental_observation
Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector.[12] The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. .......
However, experiments to detect gravitational waves, which may be viewed as coherent states of many gravitons, are underway (e.g., LIGO and VIRGO). Although these experiments cannot detect individual gravitons, they might provide information about certain properties of the graviton.......
No results that I have seen; some discussions here in the forums.
I am unsure about whether or not a graviton is a gravitational wave like how a photon is an EM wave.
I think that's a really tough one to answer....some clues....
There are some basic issues which are unresolved:
One thing we think we know is that gravity and EM have some [mathematical] differences: This is because the source of gravitation is the Einstein stress-energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, the source of electromagnetism is the four-current, a first-rank tensor.
Can gravitons be polarized like photons? is dependent on helicity...
Isn't the photon it's own antiparticle; how about the graviton?
How much more do we know about the mass of a photon than graviton? [We know the photon is massless down to some tiny,tiny figure; we haven't even found a graviton yet.]
As I understand things, there is not even wide agreement among QM people about exactly how a photon derives from or creates EM waves...apparently the latter is current thinking....
edit: found this in PHOTONarticle:
", the photon is not a point-like particle whose trajectory is shaped probabilistically by the electromagnetic field, as conceived by Einstein and others; that hypothesis was also refuted ...... According to our present understanding, the electromagnetic field itself is produced by photons, which in turn result from a local gauge symmetry and the laws of quantum field theory...."
Here is one description of uncertainties (unknowns):
Gravitons and renormalization
When describing graviton interactions, the classical theory (i.e., the tree diagrams) and semiclassical corrections (one-loop diagrams) behave normally, but Feynman diagrams with two (or more) loops lead to ultraviolet divergences; that is, infinite results that cannot be removed because the quantized general relativity is not renormalizable, unlike quantum electrodynamics. That is, the usual ways physicists calculate the probability that a particle will emit or absorb a graviton give nonsensical answers and the theory loses its predictive power. These problems, together with some conceptual puzzles, led many physicists to believe that a theory more complete than just general relativity must regulate the behavior near the Planck scale.
Anyway,if interested, check Wikipedia here for a LOT on photons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
zhermes
Feb23-12, 10:28 AM
So would a graviton have a wavelength? Or would that just be speculation.
Presumably a graviton would have a wavelength just like a photon does. It would be more appropriate to talk about the wavelength of the gravitational wave, and the energy of the graviton.
There was another thread that discussed these issues......I can't find it... I did copy one post that I thought interesting...draw your own conclusions:
Phyzguy:
We really use the word photon to describe two things. On the one hand, we refer to a photon as being an elementary excitation of the EM field, which has a definite: energy, wavelength, and frequency. These photons are the eigenstates of the EM field, and extend to +/- infinity.
On the other hand, we also use the word photon to refer to the wave packet emitted by an atom when it drops from one energy level to another. But this latter photon is not an energy eigenstate. It does not have a definite frequency, because the atom is not in the upper and lower energy states for an infinite time, so there is a time uncertainty which leads to an energy uncertainty. So the wave packet contains a range of frequencies, and multiple measurements of its energy would lead to a distribution of probable values. Because there is a range of frequencies and wavelengths, the wave packet is also bounded in space and time. The "size" of the wave packet (let's say the duration in time) depends on how long the atom is undisturbed. If the atom is in a very undisturbed environment, with a long time between collisions, then the wave packet is very sharp, with a long duration (Delta-t), and a small distribution of energies (Delta-E). If the atom is in an environment where collisions are frequent, then the wave packet is more spread out, with a short duration (Delta-t), and a broad distribution of energies (Delta-E).
Any interpretations of the above comparison would be appreciated.
I just noticed:
Originally Posted by Naty1
Where does that reference say ANYTHING about plasmas within black holes????
Sorry page not found. Try http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-...lasma-lab.html
Once again, that source says NOTHING about plasmas within black holes.
What the described experiments are doing is reproducing the high energies [used to create plasmas] OUTSIDE black holes as matter is accelerated towards the horizon of a black hole.
[Any jets of matter and radiation 'emitted' from a black hole are accelerated out from the external accretion disk, not the interior of the black hole.]
What the described experiments are doing is reproducing the high energies [used to create plasmas] OUTSIDE black holes as matter is accelerated towards the horizon of a black hole.]Interesting. So plasmas are created outside the event horizon.[Any jets of matter and radiation 'emitted' from a black hole are accelerated out from the external accretion disk, not the interior of the black hole.]So black holes would never evaporate. I see.
Presumably a graviton would have a wavelength just like a photon does. It would be more appropriate to talk about the wavelength of the gravitational wave, and the energy of the graviton.I recall something about the frequency of the gravitational radiation from a binary star would be twice its rotational frequency. So I guess we could go from there to calculate its wavelength.
EdLorentz
Feb23-12, 05:54 PM
Except for Hawing radiation I don't believe gravity does escape from a black hole. Note if too much gravity escapes the black hole it seems it wouldn't be a black hole anymore.
A minor point, but isn't Hawking Radiation (which Hawking was originally against, original proposed by Jacob Bekenstein when his discussed black holes having a well defined entropy in 1972) just merely emitted near the Event Horizon? It is not necessarily "escaping" anything, it is a quantum-level effect that can become a macroscopic event, theoretically.
zhermes
Feb23-12, 07:31 PM
Interesting. So plasmas are created outside the event horizon.So black holes would never evaporate. I see.
Particles are created outside of the event horizon. Not necessarily plasmas---which do often exist outside black-holes.
Black holes still evaporate, as the particles created extract energy from the black hole (according to theory).
I recall something about the frequency of the gravitational radiation from a binary star would be twice its rotational frequency. So I guess we could go from there to calculate its wavelength.
That is exactly correct.
As none of the current topics/discussions/points have anything to do with the original post; I suggest this thread be left. Any ongoing subjects should be brought up in new threads.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.