Are "flowing space" models compatible with GR?by harrylin Tags: flowing space model, general relativity, river model 

#109
Nov1012, 06:35 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,858

If I were describing the method I would call it a flow of preferred frames having certain properties: the motion of one of the frames in relation to SC coord r coordinate can be obtained by Newtonian laws; the relation of one frame to another can be described in galilean terms; anything moving in one of these preferred frames follows SR locally, and experiences boosts from frame to frame. It is especially the first two parts of this that amount to coincidences for this this geometry. 



#110
Nov1112, 01:19 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

So my statement should have been like this: "And we have semiinvariants that are invariant only within certain class of coordinate systems (spacetime metric is semiinvariant under Lorentz tranformation)." Is this right? 



#111
Nov1112, 03:27 AM

P: 3,178

It is the discussed disagreement between such Schwarzschild models (incl. Einstein's) with Hamilton's "flowing space" model (and others) that led to this thread about Hamilton's model. This thread is already too long, and those other models are not the topic here; please start a new thread on other models if you like to discuss them more in depth. 



#112
Nov1112, 04:09 AM

P: 3,178





#113
Nov1112, 10:36 AM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500





#114
Nov1112, 03:11 PM

P: 3,178

And once more, their model is not the topic here. If you want to discuss it, please start it as a topic. I will not reply again about that other model here. *"Freefall coordinates reveal that the Schwarzschild geometry looks like ordinary flat space, with the distinctive feature that space itself is flowing radially inwards at the Newtonian escape velocity " [..] "Answer to the quiz question 9: The star does in fact collapse inside the horizon, even though an outside observer sees the star freeze at the horizon. The freezing can be regarded as a light travel time effect. As described here, space can be regarded as falling into the black hole, reaching the speed of light at the horizon, and exceeding the speed of light inside the horizon. [..] it just takes an infinite time for the information that [the star] has collapsed to get to the outside world. "  http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html; http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/collapse.html#collapsed 



#115
Nov1112, 03:46 PM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500

Here's a quote from the abstract of the 1939 OS paper (referenced by George Jones in this thread): http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=651362 



#116
Nov1112, 03:55 PM

P: 3,178





#117
Nov1112, 04:10 PM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500





#118
Nov1112, 10:47 PM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

what would be your answer to the question I asked PAllen? When we flip the sign in GP metric it does not change anything about infalling test mass as seen by outside observer, right? So mass is still attracted (speaking in Newton terms) toward WH, right? 



#119
Nov1112, 10:52 PM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500





#120
Nov1112, 11:50 PM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

Now I am very interested about object moving toward WH. It is going against the accelerating river and yet as it seems to me it is still accelerated toward WH as seen by outside observer so it double accelerates against the river flow. What do you say? 



#121
Nov1212, 01:00 AM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500

Also bear in mind that the portion of both river models (BH and WH) that is outside the horizon is the *same* region of spacetime, just described by two different coordinate charts (ingoing Painleve for the BH river model, outgoing Painleve for the WH river model) which are adapted to two different families of observers. The observers who are "flowing with the river" in one model are not the same as the ones who are "flowing with the river" in the other model; another way of putting this is that the region of spacetime outside the horizon can be described by two *different* "rivers", the outgoing one and the ingoing one. But you have to pick one; you can't incorporate both into the same description, since that would be "double counting" the gravity of the hole(s). The above may not be a very good description of what's going on; feel free to ask further questions if it's not clear. 



#122
Nov1212, 01:41 PM

PF Gold
P: 1,376

It's not hard to start believing that it's deliberate misinterpretation of my words. You certainly noticed that I was talking about going inwards as you are describing that situation in first part of your response with: "There can be objects moving toward the WH ..." But in second part of your response you are giving argument concerned with going outwards: "... the slowing down of the outward river flow as you get further from the hole ...". PeterDonis are you trolling? 



#123
Nov1212, 02:14 PM

Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500

The maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime has a total of *four* regions. The best way to globally visualize this spacetime and its four regions is using a Kruskal diagram, as seen for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal...es_coordinates Region I is the "normal" part of spacetime we're used to, the exterior region that's outside any horizons. Region II is the interior of the black hole. Region III is a *second* exterior region; and region IV is the interior of the white hole. The standard "river model" covers regions I and II; that is, it views space as flowing inwards towards the black hole. However, note that in this model, there is *no* white hole. More precisely, the white hole portion of the maximally extended spacetime, region IV, is not covered by the standard river model; so it makes no sense within that model to talk about objects falling towards the white hole. Anything that falls inward will eventually fall into the *black* hole, region II. There is also a second possible "river model", which is obtained by using outgoing Painleve coordinates instead of ingoing Painleve coordinates. This second "river model" covers regions IV and I; that is, it views space as flowing outwards from the white hole. In this model, we can talk about objects moving towards the white hole; but they can't possibly reach the white hole because its horizon is moving inwards at the speed of light. Now if we look at the full extended spacetime, as shown on the Kruskal diagram, we can see that an observer in region I can move inward, at speeds approaching the speed of light; this corresponds to moving on a worldline that is tilted to the left at an angle approaching 45 degrees. Such an observer, if he were way down in the lower right corner of the diagram, might want to think of himself as moving towards the white hole. However, he will never reach the white hole; he will never reach region IV. Instead, he will eventually cross the black hole horizon and enter region II. Also, if we look at the full extended spacetime, we can see that there are timelike worldlines that leave region IV, enter region I, and then leave region I and enter region II. Some of these worldlines will be geodesics, i.e., the worldlines of freely falling objects. (The Wikipedia page doesn't show any of these worldlines, but some of the figures in MTW do.) We can use either one of the two "river models" to describe what happens to objects that follow these worldlines:  The standard river model will view the object as rising away from the black hole (like a ball thrown upwards), coming to rest, then falling back in and entering the black hole; but this model can't show where the object ultimately came from, because it ultimately came from the white hole, and the white hole isn't covered by the standard river model.  The second river model will view the object as coming out of the white hole, rising upwards, coming to rest, then falling back down; but this model can't show where the object ultimately goes to, because it ultimately goes into the black hole, and the black hole isn't covered by the second river model. But note that in *both* cases, the object starts by moving upward, then comes to rest, then falls back down; this shows that gravity is attractive throughout the spacetime. There is no region where anything is "repelled" by either the white hole or the black hole. Furthermore, the change in the object's motion, since it is freely falling, is entirely due to the change in river velocity along its trajectory; this is true regardless of which river model you use to describe its motion. This is why I said there is no "additional" acceleration, over and above that produced by the river. (Remember that even though the second river model has the river flowing outwards, its velocity decreases as you go outwards. An object that comes to rest at a finite height is moving at *less* than the Newtonian "escape velocity", so it is moving *inward* relative to the river.) Does this help any? [Edit: I should probably also add that there are other worldlines in the maximally extended spacetime that are also relevant:  There is a set of worldlines that starts from spatial infinity in the infinite past, and falls inward at exactly the Newtonian "escape velocity". This set of worldlines covers regions I and II, and these worldlines are used to construct the frame field of ingoing Painleve observers, which underlies the standard river model.  There is a set of worldlines that starts at the white hole singularity and moves outward at exactly the Newtonian "escape velocity", eventually reaching spatial infinity in the infinite future. This set of worldlines covers regions IV and I, and these worldlines are used to construct the frame field of outgoing Painleve observers, which underlies the second river model. It's a good exercise to work through how observers following these worldlines would describe the objects following the worldlines I described above, the ones that rise upward, come to rest, and then fall back in. This may help to reduce some of the confusion.] 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
In binary can we have a value with "deci" "centi" "mili" or more lower valued prefix?  Computers  14  
What is meant by "Early atomic models predicted...noble gas....stable"  General Physics  5  
How accurate are "simple" models of the solar system?  General Astronomy  13  
What does it mean to be "mutually compatible"?  Advanced Physics Homework  0  
Comment: "When a metal is heated, there is current (ie flow of e) flowing too"  General Physics  3 