B Are planetary orbits elliptical because of a space–time conic section?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vectronix
  • Start date Start date
Vectronix
Messages
64
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Planetary orbits look like they're part of a conic section where the cone is some kind of higher-dimensional part of space–time. I'm wondering about world lines and time lines, and if this is true or not.
Hi. I saw a 2D graph of two triangles, or maybe cones, one standing straight up, the other one "resting" on top of the other one but upside down with the two pointy ends touching others. The horizontal axis was labeled "space," the vertical axis was labeled "time." I'm sorry for my ignorance of this graph. So since the ellipse is a conic section, does that mean the world line that the planet traces out won't be centered on a vertical axis? Is this a timeline that isn't centered? To me, at least, it seems like the timeline of a planet orbiting a star is moving away from something. Perhaps away from another timeline? Can anyone explain this, especially about the timeline and about the helical world line not being centered vertically?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are confusing several things. What I think you are describing with two cones is the past and future lightcone of an event. This is the surface that separates the parts of spacetime that can influence or be influenced by that event from the rest of spacetime that is too far away for causal influences to propagate in the time available.

This has nothing to do with the conic sections of orbits. In fact, orbits are only conic sections in Newtonian gravity. When you switch to a full relativistic model of gravity (and lightcones are only relevant in relativity), not even idealised orbits are perfect conic sections. In fact, the failure of Mercury to be exactly where Newtonian gravity said it would be was one of the earliest tests of relativity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, FactChecker, PeterDonis and 1 other person
The elliptical shape of orbits was discovered from data by Kepler (Kepler's first law) in the early 1600's and was mathematically proven by Newton (and Liebnitz?) in the late 1600's. It is unrelated to relativity.
 
Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
Back
Top