Light, gravity, and red shift.

mrspeedybob
Messages
869
Reaction score
65
Light responds to gravitation. Light has momentum.

Given these two postulates it follows that if a photon passes a massive body both the photon and the body will be effected, though admittedly the effect on the massive body will be extremely slight.

Put another way, a photon has its own gravitational field.

Now a photon traveling through the universe is not going to travel in a straight line, it's course will be constantly altered by the gravitational fields it goes through. Since it is constantly changing directions it seems that some of its energy would be radiated away as gravitational waves. Since its velocity is fixed this would mean that it would shift to a lower energy frequency. The longer the photon traveled through the universe the more energy it would lose and the more red shifted it would become. How do we know that the red shift in light from distant stars is shifted due to the star moving away and not due to losing energy in the form of gravity waves?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mrspeedybob said:
Now a photon traveling through the universe is not going to travel in a straight line, it's course will be constantly altered by the gravitational fields it goes through.

The world-line of a test particle, such as a photon, is essentially the definition of a "straight" line in general relativity. A good introduction to this kind of thing is Relativity Simply Explained, by Martin Gardner.
 
How do we know that the red shift in light from distant stars is shifted due to the star moving away and not due to losing energy in the form of gravity waves?
By doing calculations.
The lighter a particle is, the more does it resemble a massless "test particle", i.e. a hypothetical particle which doesn't affect spacetime at all. bcrowell is talking about such a test particle.

Photons are already very light. The worst thing - in terms of acceleration - that can happen to a photon is to orbit around a small (~sun-sized) black hole. It's at the very least some 20 orders of magnitude worse than what happens to a photon in interstellar space.
Even then, if the usual Quadrupole approximations still hold for a photon, they lose a significant amount of energy at a timescale of 10^60 s (for optical photons), which is ridiculously longer than the age of the universe.
IOW: they behave like test particles and don't radiate gravitational waves.
 
Ich said:
By doing calculations.
The lighter a particle is, the more does it resemble a massless "test particle", i.e. a hypothetical particle which doesn't affect spacetime at all. bcrowell is talking about such a test particle.

Photons are already very light. The worst thing - in terms of acceleration - that can happen to a photon is to orbit around a small (~sun-sized) black hole. It's at the very least some 20 orders of magnitude worse than what happens to a photon in interstellar space.
Even then, if the usual Quadrupole approximations still hold for a photon, they lose a significant amount of energy at a timescale of 10^60 s (for optical photons), which is ridiculously longer than the age of the universe.
IOW: they behave like test particles and don't radiate gravitational waves.

Thank you for the reply. That makes sense.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top