# Curved Space-time and Relative Velocity

by Anamitra
Tags: curved, relative, spacetime, velocity
 Mentor P: 5,905 I'm not sure I follow you, so let's consider a simple example. Consider two static observers in Schwarzschild spacetime who both have the $\theta$ and $\phi$ values, but who hover at different values of $r$. Using the method of parallel transport, what is their relative velocity? I think that this is fairly straightforward to compute, at least for geodesic radial paths.
 PF Patron Sci Advisor Emeritus P: 5,311 The thread referred to in #1 is http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=408994 Post #25 by DaleSpam is here http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...0&postcount=25
PF Patron
Emeritus
P: 5,311

## Curved Space-time and Relative Velocity

 Quote by George Jones I'm not sure I follow you, so let's consider a simple example. Consider two static observers in Schwarzschild spacetime who both have the $\theta$ and $\phi$ values, but who hover at different values of $r$. Using the method of parallel transport, what is their relative velocity? I think that this is fairly straightforward to compute, at least for geodesic radial paths.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that this is an example that confirms, as claimed in DaleSpam's #25, that relative velocities of distant objects are not well defined. A free-falling observer moving along a radial geodesic passes static object A and records its velocity relative to him. He parallel-transports that velocity vector along with him as he continues on his geodesic, and when he passes static object B, he sees that B's velocity relative to him differs from A's velocity relative to him. This is different from the equality of velocities that most people would expect when initially presented with this example, and it's also different from the result you get with parallel transport along other paths. For example, if we go from A to B along an (approximately) elliptical orbit, we'll pick up a difference in direction due to the geodetic effect.
PF Patron
Emeritus
P: 5,311
 Quote by Anamitra If the arguments in point (2) are correct I may conclude that 1)The concept of relative velocity is mathematically consistent in relation to the notion of curved space time. 2)The ideas portrayed in the thread "Curved Space-time and the Speed of Light" are correct.
Right, the presence of kinks in the curves doesn't affect the argument.
 P: 621 I have been ,for quite some time, trying to explore the possibility of breaking the speed barrier within the "confines of relativity"? Locally we cannot do it. The laws are very strong in this context.The only option would be to explore the matter in a "non-local" consideration. If I am standing at some point in curved space-time and a ray of light is coming from a distant point (close to some dense object)it would be my normal interest to know the speed of light at each and every point as it comes towards me[Of course I continue to stand at the same point]. With this idea in mind I wrote "Curved Space-time and the Speed of Light". I am repeating the basic aspects of my considerations in the following calculations: Let us consider two points A and B separated by a large distance with different values of the metric coefficients.Observers at A and B consider a light ray flashing past B. Speed of light at B as observed from A= {Spatial separation at B}/{sqrt{g(00)} at A.dt} Speed of light at B as observed from B ie, c ={Spatial separation at B}/{sqrt{g(00)} at B.dt} [Noting that the speed of light is locally "c"] Speed of light at B as observed from A= c sqrt{(g(00) at B)/(g(00) at A)} The left side of the above relation exceeds the speed of light if g(0,0) at B>g(0,0) at A [spatial separation is the same for both the observers while the temporal separations[physical] are different---the clocks have different rates at the two points] It is important to note that general relativity seems to avoid "non-local considerations" [Please do correct me if I am mistaken] and we can always take advantage of this fact to investigate the speed of light at one point as it is observed from another in case, we can find some interesting result. This exercise does not contradict any law in Special or General Relativity.
 P: 621 George's reply seems to favor me if I am not incorrect.And I have liked his signature very much. A relevant point: If I am standing still at one point V=0. What do I get if I transport a null vector? The nature of the curve will not be a big factor.
P: 621
 Quote by bcrowell For example, if we go from A to B along an (approximately) elliptical orbit, we'll pick up a difference in direction due to the geodetic effect.
Geodetic effect is a physical effect . It should not be confused with the concept of parallel transport which is an imaginary procedure related to the geometry of the transport.
PF Patron
Emeritus
P: 5,311
 Quote by Anamitra Geodetic effect is a physical effect . It should not be confused with the concept of parallel transport which is an imaginary procedure related to the geometry of the transport.
The way you calculate the geodetic effect is by using parallel transport. See
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...tml#Section6.2 , subsection 6.2.5.
Mentor
P: 5,905
 Quote by Anamitra If I am standing still at one point V=0. What do I get if I transport a null vector?
P: 621
 Quote by bcrowell The way you calculate the geodetic effect is by using parallel transport. See http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...tml#Section6.2 , subsection 6.2.5.
An interesting line to quote from the above site:

"The definition of a geodesic is that it parallel-transports its own tangent vector, so the
velocity vector has to stay constant."

If a particle moves solely under the influence of gravity it should follow a geodesic and the above definition(which is common to all texts) settles the issue.

Now we may think of forced motions where forces other than gravity are operating and the bodies are constrained to move along lines that are not geodesics. [We may think of an aircraft following a line of latitude instead of a great circle and another one which moves along a path which is neither a line of latitude or longitude or a great circle]In such cases one may follow the logic suggested in thread#1 ,Point 2, to make relative velocity unique.
 P: 621 It is important to note that the space-time around the earth is approximately flat and the nature of this space-time should not be confused with the example of the two aircraft I have given or with the spherical shape of the earth. The aircraft example have been given to emphasize that we may have motion along a geodesic (when gravity is the only agent) and we may have a non-geodesic motion if some other force,I mean some inertial force, is operating. If the effect of the inertial force is taken to be similar/equivalent to gravity we may think of adjusting the original metric to take care of the inertial force. At this point I may refer to Thread #8 of the posting "On the Speed of Light Again!" where the equivalence/similarity of gravity and acceleration has been highlighted with reference to papers in the archives of the "Scientific American" and the "Physical Review" as cited by Robert Resnick. [If the original metric is altered/adjusted the lines of geodesic should change ]
Mentor
P: 15,617
 Quote by Anamitra We may think of an aircraft following a line of latitude instead of a great circle and another one which moves along a path which is neither a line of latitude or longitude or a great circle]In such cases one may follow the logic suggested in thread#1 ,Point 2, to make relative velocity unique.
Even if you restrict parallel transport to only be defined along geodesics it is still not unique. Consider parallel transporting a vector from the north pole to the south pole. Each longitude line is a geodesic and each one will result in a different vector.

Many issues in curved geometry can be worked around or defined away, but the non-uniqueness of parallel transport is something we just have to live with. Distant vectors are in different tangent spaces and cannot be compared.

 P: 621 Let us consider the definition of parallel transport as we know in general relativity: A vector is parallely propagated along a curve if its covariant derivative along the curve vanishes at each point. So if the velocity vector is parallely propagated along a curve --"IT CANNOT CHANGE". Simple as that. Conclusions: 1) The notion of Relative velocity is consistent with the mathematics of curved spacetime. 2)My assertions in the posting "Curved Space-time and the Speed of Light" are correct.
 P: 621 Can a space-time surface be exactly spherical? Let us see. A particle at the south pole sees several geodesics connecting it to the north pole. Which direction is to follow? It will be in a state of indecision.[We are assuming the presence of gravity only] We may have several geodesics emerging from the same point.But they should not terminate on the same and the identical point on the other side.
P: 3,790
 Quote by Anamitra Can a space-time surface be exactly spherical? Let us see. A particle at the south pole sees several geodesics connecting it to the north pole. Which direction is to follow? It will be in a state of indecision.[We are assuming the presence of gravity only] We may have several geodesics emerging from the same point.But they should not terminate on the same and the identical point on the other side.
I guess it makes some sort of sense if we define two particles on opposite sides of the "ball" to be infinitely far apart. When two particles are opposite each other like this, there is no preferred direction to move in, so they do not move. This is what we would intuitively expect if the consider the "force of gravity" loosely speaking to be proportional to the inverse of the distance squared, so that the "force" tends to zero when the particles are infinitely far apart. I might well be wrong. I am only just starting to "study" non Euclidean geometry and embedded surfaces.
 P: 621 Well, the space-time structure referred to in thread #15 was never created by the particles themselves,I mean the particles between whom the relative velocity is to be calculated. The mechanism of creation of the spacetime surface has not been described[and possibly cannot be described] . I have simply assumed its existence to prove that it cannot exist. The particles have been used as "test particles" whose fields are of negligible strength.They should not disrupt the existing field or interact between themselves but they should respond to the existing gravitational field created by some "other means". Now let us consider a pair of gravitating particles separated by a large distance. The lines of force between them are basically parallel lines and the spacetime structure is "not a sphere". The particles if released from a large distance will move along a straight line. The geodesic is simply a straight line and the space you have described is flat space-time .[the shortest distance being a straight line]. If you kept the two initial particles fixed and released smaller particles midway between them ,they should be moving along straight lines.Of course, the "smaller particles" must be "small enough" not to disrupt the existing field.This in fact would be a better interpretation of the situation. Now in the first paragraph I have used the term "test particles". It is important that you understand them in relation to the study of gravitational fields/spacetime structure. I would refer to the book "Gravity" by James B. Hartley , Chapter 8,"Geodesics" in understanding the concept of "Test Particles"
Mentor
P: 15,617
 Quote by Anamitra A vector is parallely propagated along a curve if its covariant derivative along the curve vanishes at each point. So if the velocity vector is parallely propagated along a curve --"IT CANNOT CHANGE". Simple as that.
Correct. The parallel transport of a vector along a curve is unique, but there is not a single unique curve connecting two events.

 Quote by Anamitra Conclusions: 1) The notion of Relative velocity is consistent with the mathematics of curved spacetime. 2)My assertions in the posting "Curved Space-time and the Speed of Light" are correct.
Neither of these conclusions is correct.

 Related Discussions Cosmology 7 Special & General Relativity 20 General Astronomy 7 Cosmology 13 Special & General Relativity 4