Why does light and gravity travel at the same speed?

In summary: This is also why light cannot escape from a black hole- the curvature of space is so great that it is essentially a bottomless pit from which nothing, not even light, can escape. In summary, the speed of gravity is constrained to be the same as the speed of light due to the nature of the force carrier, and the idea of exceeding this speed and going back in time is not currently possible. Theories on the propagation of gravity have been proposed, but the exact mechanism is still not fully understood. The escape of gravity from a black hole is explained by the extreme curvature of spacetime around the black hole.
  • #1
Abidal Sala
30
0
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?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
HallsofIvy said:
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/...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
 
  • #5
Abidal Sala said:
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 traveling 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.
 
  • #6
salvestrom said:
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 [itex]g_{ab}=\eta_{ab}+h_{ab}[/itex]. Then, in a vacuum, the field equations imply that the perturbations propagate according to a wave equation,

[tex]
\Bigg(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+c^2\nabla^2\Bigg)h_{ab}=0
[/tex]

with speed of propagation, c.
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
ynot1 said:
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.
 
  • #9
Irishwake said:
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.
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
JonDE said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
ynot1 said:
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.
 
  • #13
DaveC426913 said:
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. Let's 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.
 
  • #14
JonDE said:
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.
 
  • #15
JonDE said:
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.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
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?
 
  • #18
Tanelorn said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
JonDE said:
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.
 
  • #21
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.
 
  • #22
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.
 
  • #23
Drakkith said:
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.
 
  • #24
universe21! said:
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.
 
  • #25
Abidal Sala said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
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?
 
  • #27
coelho said:
as closer the radius of the star gets to the Schwarzschild radius, slower the shrinking gets
It 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
coelho said:
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.
 
  • #29
coelho said:
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
 
  • #30
coelho said:
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.
zhermes said:
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.
 
  • #31
ynot1 said:
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.
 
  • #32
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??
 
  • #33
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??
 
  • #34
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??
 
  • #35
zhermes said:
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

ynot1 said:
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.

zhermes said:
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.

Naty1 said:
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/

Naty1 said:
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.
 
<h2>1. Why does light and gravity travel at the same speed?</h2><p>Light and gravity travel at the same speed because they are both governed by the same fundamental force of nature, known as the speed of light, or c. This speed is a fundamental constant and is the maximum speed at which any form of energy or information can travel through space.</p><h2>2. How was it determined that light and gravity travel at the same speed?</h2><p>The speed of light, c, was first measured by the Danish astronomer Ole Rømer in the late 17th century. Later, in the early 20th century, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted that the speed of gravity would also be equal to the speed of light. This has been confirmed through numerous experiments and observations.</p><h2>3. Why is it important that light and gravity travel at the same speed?</h2><p>The fact that light and gravity travel at the same speed is crucial for understanding the fabric of our universe and how it functions. It also helps us to accurately measure distances and make predictions about the behavior of objects in space.</p><h2>4. Does this mean that light and gravity are the same thing?</h2><p>No, light and gravity are not the same thing. Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation, while gravity is a fundamental force of nature. The fact that they travel at the same speed is a result of their interactions with the fabric of space-time.</p><h2>5. Could there be other forces or particles that also travel at the speed of light?</h2><p>It is possible that there could be other forces or particles that travel at the speed of light, but currently, there is no evidence to support this. The speed of light is a fundamental constant and any new discoveries would need to be consistent with this speed.</p>

1. Why does light and gravity travel at the same speed?

Light and gravity travel at the same speed because they are both governed by the same fundamental force of nature, known as the speed of light, or c. This speed is a fundamental constant and is the maximum speed at which any form of energy or information can travel through space.

2. How was it determined that light and gravity travel at the same speed?

The speed of light, c, was first measured by the Danish astronomer Ole Rømer in the late 17th century. Later, in the early 20th century, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted that the speed of gravity would also be equal to the speed of light. This has been confirmed through numerous experiments and observations.

3. Why is it important that light and gravity travel at the same speed?

The fact that light and gravity travel at the same speed is crucial for understanding the fabric of our universe and how it functions. It also helps us to accurately measure distances and make predictions about the behavior of objects in space.

4. Does this mean that light and gravity are the same thing?

No, light and gravity are not the same thing. Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation, while gravity is a fundamental force of nature. The fact that they travel at the same speed is a result of their interactions with the fabric of space-time.

5. Could there be other forces or particles that also travel at the speed of light?

It is possible that there could be other forces or particles that travel at the speed of light, but currently, there is no evidence to support this. The speed of light is a fundamental constant and any new discoveries would need to be consistent with this speed.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
368
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
534
  • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
57
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
312
Back
Top