B Can a Gravitational System be Treated as a Single Curved Spacetime?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter BeedS
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime System
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether a gravitational system, such as the Earth and Moon, can be treated as a single curved spacetime. At large distances, the combined gravitational field can be approximated as that of a point mass located at the system's barycenter. However, for practical applications like rocket travel between objects, this approximation fails due to the complexities involved. The conversation also touches on atomic systems, noting that atoms are not gravitationally bound and that their gravitational fields are too weak to measure accurately. Ultimately, while systems can appear as point sources at sufficient distances, the definition of "far enough" is contingent on the precision of measurements.
BeedS
Messages
47
Reaction score
2
Hey, if I take two objects for Example the Earth and Moon and treat them as a gravitational bound “system”. The Earth and Moon have their own local curves in spacetime. Can I use/treat the whole “system” as a curve in spacetime? For example, a curve that includes all objects of the “system” mass/gravity merged/added and is strongest at the “systems” Barycenter.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Depends what for. At a large enough distance the field will be pretty much identical to the field of a point mass at the barycentre, although that mass may or may not be well approximated by the sum of the independent masses (it would be ok for Earth and Moon). So in that case, yes you could. If you want to fly rockets from one object to the other, no, not even close.
 
Ibix said:
At a large enough distance the field will be pretty much identical to the field of a point mass at the barycentre
If I take objects for Example the particles of an atomic system and treat them as a gravitational bound “system”… ? ...is the atomic system far enough? :oops:

Ibix said:
If you want to fly rockets from one object to the other, no, not even close.
Yes, I was thinking for external objects located outside the system, interacting with the system.
 
BeedS said:
If I take objects for Example the particles of an atomic system and treat them as a gravitational bound “system”… ? ...
You mean the gravitational field of a single atom? It's too tiny for is to know if GR models it correctly. Assuming it does, though, you'd need such incredibly precise measurements to detect the field that it's impossible to say how close you could go and still treat it as a point source.

Note that an atom is not gravitationally bound. Atoms are held together by strong forces in the nucleus and electromagnetic forces between the nucleus and electrons.
BeedS said:
Yes, I was thinking for external objects located outside the system, interacting with the system.
Basically, any system will look like a point source when you're far enough from it. But what "far enough" means in practice depends on how precisely you're measuring. For a simple example, consider the case of the Sun, mass ##M_S## and distance ##R## away from you, and the Earth, mass ##M_E## and distance ##R+r## away from you. We'll have you, the Earth and the Sun in a straight line so we can be lazy about vectors and use Newtonian gravity, because that's valid way before pretending the Earth and Sun are a single point is valid.

The gravitational acceleration you feel is $$\begin{eqnarray*}
g&=&\frac{GM_S}R+\frac{GM_E}{R+r}\\
&=&\frac{GM_S}R+\frac{GM_E}{R}\frac{1}{1+r/R}\\
&=&\frac{GM_S}R+\frac{GM_E}{R}\left(1-\frac{r}{R}+\frac{r^2}{R^2}-\frac{r^3}{R^3}+\ldots\right)\\
&=&\frac{G(M_S+M_E)}R-\frac{GM_E}{R}\left(\frac{r}{R}-\frac{r^2}{R^2}+\frac{r^3}{R^3}-\ldots\right)
\end{eqnarray*}$$Whether you can detect the difference between that and ##G(M_S+M_E)/R^2## depends on whether the experiment you are doing is far enough away that your measurement error is bigger than that last term in the brackets - that is that your distance from the Sun, ##R##, is so much larger than the Earth-Sun distance, ##r##, that all those terms in the brackets are so nearly zero you don't care.
 
  • Like
Likes BeedS and PeroK
Ibix said:
You mean the gravitational field of a single atom? It's too tiny for is to know if GR models it correctly
It's too tiny to tell if Newtonian gravity models it correctly too.
 
  • Like
Likes Nugatory, Ibix and PeroK
Hello, everyone, hope someone will resolve my doubts. I have posted here some two years ago asking for an explanation of the Lorentz transforms derivation found in the Einstein 1905 paper. The answer I got seemed quite satisfactory. Two years after I revisit this derivation and this is what I see. In the Einstein original paper, the Lorentz transforms derivation included as a premise that light is always propagated along the direction perpendicular to the line of motion when viewed from the...