Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Empirical evidence for gravitational field of EM radiation

  1. Aug 8, 2008 #1

    ANS

    User Avatar

    Hello,

    Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
    produces gravitational fields? I understand that as a form of energy
    it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    prediction of GR actually been tested? Is it at all subject to any
    controversy?
    Thanks,

    Armin
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2008 #2
    On Aug 7, 9:41 am, ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:

    > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
    > produces gravitational fields? I understand that as a form of energy
    > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    > prediction of GR actually been tested? Is it at all subject to any
    > controversy?


    I'm not sure if there is a "classically" accepted proof of this
    concept, but I do remember in a familiar GR textbook (I think Carrol,
    or maybe Weinberg) they motivate this by the mass differences from a
    proton and an electron compared to the hydrogen atom. The positive
    proton and negative electron, when closer, have a lower
    electromagnetic energy, resulting in the atom having a lower mass than
    the sum of its consituents (sp?).

    Like I said, I'm sure there is a better answer, but atleast this
    should help.

    -s
     
  4. Aug 10, 2008 #3
    Hi ANS,

    The clear evidence that photons produce space curvature (a ripple in space-time) comes from the observation that photons appear to be gravitationally attracted to the sun when passing near its rim. (Ref. Eddington observations and many other later observations)

    Recall that the sun cannot exert a force to alter the photon path without a matching force from the photon to move the sun. The photon must gravitationally attract the sun if the sun is to gravitationally attract the photon.

    There is no controversy in physics today regarding the equivalence of mass (with its gravitational field) and energy. Energy added to any object will increase the mass of the object and will increase its gravitational field force. A spring driven watch or clock will be (a tiny bit) more massive (have more weight) when fully wound than when it is run down. The mass increase is equal to the added energy divided by (c^2).

    A perfectly reflecting (mirror) box would have more weight (more gravitational field) when it contains many photons (electromagnetic energy) than it would have if the photons were allowed to escape. The mass increase is equal to electromagnrtic energy divided by (c^2).
     
  5. Aug 11, 2008 #4
    Is it possible that the minute attractions are caused by magnetism rather than gravity? After all, we do call it "electro-magnetic field".
     
  6. Aug 16, 2008 #5
    On Aug 8, 8:16 am, mathki...@ureach.com wrote:
    > On Aug 7, 9:41 am, ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:
    >
    > > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
    > > produces gravitational fields?


    I don't think so.

    > > I understand that as a form of energy
    > > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    > > prediction of GR actually been tested?


    Not AFAICT. Last time I checked the value of Newon's constant (G),
    there is far too much uncertainty in that to permit such testing in
    the observational domain.

    > > Is it at all subject to any
    > > controversy?

    >
    > I'm not sure if there is a "classically" accepted proof of this
    > concept, but I do remember in a familiar GR textbook (I think Carrol,
    > or maybe Weinberg) they motivate this by the mass differences from a
    > proton and an electron compared to the hydrogen atom. The positive
    > proton and negative electron, when closer, have a lower
    > electromagnetic energy, resulting in the atom having a lower mass than
    > the sum of its consituents (sp?).


    That doesn't prove that EM fields gravitate, it only proves that they
    result in a change in massenergy.
    At face value, this argument seems to suggest that EM interactions
    reduce as opposed to increase gravitational fields, but I would be
    happy to get corrected on this.

    > Like I said, I'm sure there is a better answer, but atleast this
    > should help.


    I would appreciate a better answer too.
     
  7. Aug 18, 2008 #6
    Hi Chalky,

    Some quotes from the book "Geons, Black Holes, And Quantum Foam" by John Wheeler may be helpful. The first is from page 234.

    "One of the pillars of physics is Newton's third law. A common way to state it is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Another way to say it is that forces come in balanced pairs."

    The next quote is from page 235.

    "Newton's third law played a role in my first paper on general relativity. One of the three confirmations of Einstein's theory had been the deflection of light by the Sun. While teaching the relativity course in the spring of 1953, I began to think about the fact that if light is influenced by gravity, then gravity must be influenced by light. To put it differently, light not only responds to gravity; it creates gravity. This was not itself a new idea. Einstein had showed that all energy, not just the energy locked up in mass, is a source of gravity. Since light has energy, it can be the source of gravitational force."

    This is the best answer that I have seen in print.
     
  8. Aug 21, 2008 #7
    I noticed this paper.



    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00260-7


    Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring
    laser

    Ronald L. Mallett

    Department of Physics, 2152 Hillside Road and University of
    Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA

    Received 19 January 2000; accepted 3 April 2000 Communicated by P.R.
    Holland Available online 19 May 2000.

    Abstract
    The gravitational field due to the circulating flow of electromagnetic
    radiation of a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving the
    linearized Einstein field equations at any interior point of the laser
    ring. The general relativistic spin equations are then used to study
    the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle at the center of
    the ring laser. It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon
    known as inertial frame-dragging.
     
  9. Aug 22, 2008 #8
    On Aug 21, 3:26 am, johndev...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
    > I noticed this paper.
    >
    > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00260-7
    >
    > Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring
    > laser
    >
    > Ronald L. Mallett
    >
    > Department of Physics, 2152 Hillside Road and University of
    > Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
    >
    > Received 19 January 2000; accepted 3 April 2000 Communicated by P.R.
    > Holland Available online 19 May 2000.
    >
    > Abstract
    > The gravitational field due to the circulating flow of electromagnetic
    > radiation of a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving the
    > linearized Einstein field equations at any interior point of the laser
    > ring. The general relativistic spin equations are then used to study
    > the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle at the center of
    > the ring laser. It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon
    > known as inertial frame-dragging.


    Does inertial frame dragging have anything to do with whether or not
    EM radiation generates gravitational fields?
    (Beyond the obvious fact that this is a prediction of GR theory,
    whereas the gravitation of EMR is an implicit assumption of the
    stressenergy tensor in EFE) ?
     
  10. Aug 27, 2008 #9
    ANS <armin@umich.edu> wrote:
    > Hello,


    > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
    > produces gravitational fields? I understand that as a form of energy
    > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    > prediction of GR actually been tested?


    There has been no direct test for radiation. There have been direct
    laboratory tests showing that electrostatic energy produces a gravitational
    field, with the expected gravitational mass of E/c^2 (with a precision of a
    few percent). A slightly less direct test, using the motion and chemical
    composition of the Moon, gives a value of E/c^2 to a precision of about
    one part in 100,000,000.

    It's very hard to experimentally test the same effect for electromagnetic
    radiation, because gravity is such a weak force; it would take a truly
    enormous amount of radiation to give a detectable signal. But it would be
    very peculiar, to say the least, to find that some forms of electromagnetic
    energy gravitate while others don't.

    > Is it at all subject to any controversy?


    No.

    Steve Carlip
     
  11. Aug 28, 2008 #10
    On Aug 7, 3:41 pm, ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
    > produces gravitational fields?


    There sure is. Just boil a pot of water and you will
    see water molecules move away from the earth's
    surface as the London couplings become
    less coherent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers

    Emergent gravity
    http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3

    Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062

    The Origin of Gravity
    Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London

    > I understand that as a form of energy
    > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    > prediction of GR actually been tested? Is it at all subject to any
    > controversy?


    << Sakharov observed that many condensed matter
    systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are
    identical to general relativity quantitatively. >>
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

    Sue...

    > Thanks,
    >
    > Armin
     
  12. Aug 31, 2008 #11
    ANS <armin@umich.edu> wrote:

    > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
    > produces gravitational fields? I understand that as a form of energy
    > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    > prediction of GR actually been tested?


    It is known that a light beam is deflected by the sun,
    so we would be very surpised indeed
    (action = -reaction, or momentum conservation)
    if there were no corresponding force on the sun,
    while it is doing the deflecting.

    The gravitational field of the light beam
    is the only thing imaginable that can do that.
    (and of course the GTR predicts just that)

    > Is it at all subject to any controversy?


    No, why should there be?

    Jan
     
  13. Sep 6, 2008 #12
    On Aug 26, 9:43 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
    > ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:
    > > Hello,
    > > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagnetic radiation
    > > produces gravitational fields? I understand that as a form of energy
    > > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    > > prediction of GR actually been tested?

    >
    > There has been no direct test for radiation.  There have been direct
    > laboratory tests showing that electrostatic energy produces a gravitational
    > field, with the expected gravitational mass of E/c^2 (with a precision of a
    > few percent).  



    There is a smell of semantics in this statement. For simplicity, let
    us consider a single free atom. The sequence of events are as follows:
    (1) The electrostatic energy inside the atom undergoes metamorphosis
    according to E=mc^2. (2) Accordingly, the mass of the atom increases
    by m=E/c^2 and the total mass of the atom becomes M=M*+m, where M* is
    the mass of the atom before this metamorphosis. (3) What interacts
    with the external gravitational fields is the gravitational field
    produced by the mass M of the atom. Therefore, it is incorrect to say
    that the electrostatic energy produces a gravitational field.
    Actually, the electrostatic energy produces a tiny contribution to the
    total mass of the atom; and it is this mass that produces the
    gravitational field. That this is so can be seen as follows: A
    hypothetical electric field (or equivalently electric energy)
    detector capable of detecting the smallest field values would detect
    no electric field outside the atom. But a similar gravitational field
    detector would detect a gravitational field outside the atom. It is
    this field that interacts with the other external gravitational
    fields. Most relativists cite the Eotvos experiment as a proof that
    the electrostatic energy inside the atom interacts with the external
    gravitational fields. This is nothing but semantics. They say
    "electrostatic energy" when they are supposed to say the " mass due to
    the electrostatic energy". The Eotvos experiment proves that the
    electrostatic energy, along with the other atomic energy components,
    contributes in precisely equal amounts to the gravitational mass and
    inertial mass of the atom. In the above, the electrostatic energy
    considered was not free, namely it was metamorphosed. On the other
    hand, the electrostatic energy outside a charged sphere of total net
    charge Q exists freely. AFAIK there is no experiment performed to
    prove whether or not this kind of free electrostatic energy interacts
    with the gravitational fields outside the charged sphere.

    Murat Ozer




    >A slightly less direct test, using the motion and chemical
    > composition of the Moon, gives a value of E/c^2 to a precision of about
    > one part in 100,000,000.
    >
    > It's very hard to experimentally test the same effect for electromagnetic
    > radiation, because gravity is such a weak force; it would take a truly
    > enormous amount of radiation to give a detectable signal.  But it would be
    > very peculiar, to say the least, to find that some forms of electromagnetic
    > energy gravitate while others don't.
    >
    > > Is it at all subject to any controversy?

    >
    > No.
    >
    > Steve Carlip
     
  14. Sep 21, 2008 #13

    ANS

    User Avatar

    Thanks everyone for their replies. I do have some comments below.

    John,
    Thank you very much for the link to the paper. I am a little
    disappointed that it apparently refers only to theoretical predictions
    as opposed to actual experiments carried out, although it states that
    the technology has sufficiently advanced to test them. I wonder
    whether this has been done already?

    Steve Carlip,
    Yes, I did not mean to ask whether it was controversial that some EM
    radiation induces spacetime curvature and not others, but whether it
    was controversial that any EM radiation induces spacetime curvature at
    all (see below for my view).

    Sue,
    Thank you for the links. I am most interested in Einstein’s theory of
    gravity, however, because it is the relativistic theory of gravity
    with the greatest empirical support.

    Jan,
    Thank you for your comments. I think you put your finger directly on
    one of the main issues to which I will respond in a future post. For
    now, I just would like to explain my main motivation for asking the
    question.
    We know that the classical picture of EM radiation is an approximation
    to the quantum mechanical picture in the limit of a large number of
    photons. It appears to me that if EM radiation does indeed produce
    spacetime curvature, then one could, in principle, determine the
    trajectories of photons (or groups of them) in space (To do so,
    observe the direction in which some appropriately placed small test
    masses accelerate, under the assumption that the photon inducing the
    curvature is much much more energetic than those used to observe the
    test masses) . Yet this would be clearly in conflict with quantum
    theory.
    This leads me to question whether EM radiation really produces
    gravitational curvature. This is the reason why I asked whether this
    subject was at all controversial.
    Any comments?

    Armin
    I

    On Aug 30, 7:44 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
    > ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:
    > > Is there any empirical evidence that electromagneticradiation
    > > producesgravitationalfields? I understand that as a form of energy
    > > it is expected to induce a spacetime curvature, but has this
    > > prediction of GR actually been tested?

    >
    > It is known that a light beam is deflected by the sun,
    > so we would be very surpised indeed
    > (action = -reaction, or momentum conservation)
    > if there were no corresponding force on the sun,
    > while it is doing the deflecting.
    >
    > Thegravitationalfieldof the light beam
    > is the only thing imaginable that can do that.
    > (and of course the GTR predicts just that)
    >
    > > Is it at all subject to any controversy?

    >
    > No, why should there be?
    >
    > Jan
     
  15. Mar 6, 2011 #14
    To late by far (as usual), but still. Murat have it beautifully straight. That's the post answering this question, imagining gravity to act as a radiation is not working. Imaging particles to add 'energy' to themselves though, even though we have no isolated measurement of 'pure isolated energy', will work and will add a very slight invariant mass. Check out the examples with compressed springs.

    How that 'mass' comes to be is another question and, if you like, may be seen as a proof for our magical 'energy' existing. But 'energy', as far as I know, is only defined through 'interactions'. Potential energy may be a very useful concept in Physics. But if you look at a spaceship :) Uniformly moving near light speed, relative earth, its 'atoms' won't radiate any more. It will not 'glow', telling you that even though you can define a greater 'relative mass', or 'momentum', or 'potential energy' to it, it's above all a way of defining what we expect to happen in that later 'interaction'. To me only compression seems to be able to prove the concept?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Empirical evidence for gravitational field of EM radiation
  1. Em Fields (Replies: 4)

  2. EM fields (Replies: 23)

  3. Gravitation and EM (Replies: 4)

  4. EM radiation (Replies: 6)

  5. Em radiation (Replies: 4)

Loading...