Space Warping & Mass: Is There an Equation?

  • Thread starter Jake Minneman
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mass Space
In summary, the speed of the warping of space-time is dependent on the mass of an object, and this can be calculated using the Schwarzschild radius equation. However, objects do not necessarily warp space at the speed of light, as the propagation of gravitational waves occurs at this speed. If the sun were to explode or vanish, there would be a delay in the effects on Earth's orbit, but this is difficult to measure and express in the context of general relativity.
  • #1
Jake Minneman
24
0
Is there an equation directly incorporating the mass of an object to the speed at which it warps space? Or do all object warp space at the speed of light?

If there is could one provide me with said equation.

An example of an equation directly incorporating mass is the schwarzschild radius where the mass of the figure is a variable that is required to calculate.

Thank You,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I know that the closer you get to the speed of light the more mass
you gain...so if you get infinitely close to that speed than you have infinite
mass or something like that.
 
  • #3
Jake Minneman said:
Is there an equation directly incorporating the mass of an object to the speed at which it warps space? Or do all object warp space at the speed of light?

The warping of space-time occurs at the speed of light.
 
  • #4
If that is true and gravitational waves propagate at c, does this mean that if the sun were to explode we would be shot form orbit the exact time we saw the explosion? 8 minutes after. (That is of course if we are looking up.)
 
  • #5
Yes sir but remember that only gravitational waves with sufficiently weak amplitudes propagate at c.
 
  • #6
Jake Minneman said:
If that is true and gravitational waves propagate at c, does this mean that if the sun were to explode we would be shot form orbit the exact time we saw the explosion? 8 minutes after. (That is of course if we are looking up.)

Roughly speaking, yes. But note that to a first approximation, attraction is to center of mass. Thus if the sun split in a few fragments, by the time the gravitational ripple of the explosion (and light) reached us, the center of mass of the fragments would still be the same, so our motion would not be dramatically affected. Only when the fragments reach 'near' the Earth's orbit would this break down, which would be much later than the explosion. If the fragments were moving at e.g. 50% speed of light, our orbit would really go haywire about 20 minutes after the explosion, more from the motion of the fragments than the propagation delay (though propagation delay would be an important secondary effect).
 
  • #7
Actually, there is a further complication in the exploding sun example, making it hard to detect any effects of propagation delay except as high order corrections to the Newtonian action at a distance picture. This is because the direction of attraction to a *moving* body is not to its retarded postion but to the quadratically extrapolated retarded position. Thus, after explosion, with fragments moving inertially, the attraction would be exactly as if action at a distance occurred (except for high order corrections).

This difficulty is why there is, at present, no experimental measurement of the speed of propagation of gravity (there is a measurement of the velocity dependent component of the Shapiro time dely by Fomalont and Kopeikin that the authors claim measures the speed of gravity; other authors (Clifford Will, Steven Carlip) believe that this experiment does not measure the speed of gravity; Neither set of author's has accepted the other's arguments).
 
  • #8
What if perhaps instead of exploding the sun "hypothetically" vanished. Would this then follow the principals i have listed above.
 
  • #9
Jake Minneman said:
What if perhaps instead of exploding the sun "hypothetically" vanished. Would this then follow the principals i have listed above.

Well, a little yes, mostly impossible. Yes, if that were somehow possible, there would be propagation delay. However, it would be impossible to express such a thing in GR - mass/energy cannot disappear in a solution of the GR field equations. Maybe something that could be hypothesized: suppose 10 Jupiter's worth of anti-matter were brought near the sun, and fired at it in a controlled way such that the sun moved with rapidly increasing *acceleration* for a significant period of time. Then, the Earth's orbital changes would substantially lag the sun's position, distinguishable at the first order from Newtonian gravity.
 

What is space warping?

Space warping refers to the bending or distortion of space, which is a fundamental concept in Einstein's theory of general relativity. It occurs in the presence of massive objects, such as stars or planets, and is responsible for the force of gravity.

What is the equation for space warping?

The equation for space warping is known as the Einstein field equations. It is a set of 10 nonlinear partial differential equations that describe how the curvature of spacetime is related to the distribution of matter and energy.

How does mass affect space warping?

Mass is the source of gravitational fields, and therefore, it plays a crucial role in space warping. The greater the mass of an object, the stronger its gravitational pull, and the more it will warp the space around it.

Can space warping be observed?

Yes, space warping can be observed through the phenomenon of gravitational lensing. This occurs when the light from a distant object is bent as it passes through the warped space around a massive object, such as a galaxy or a black hole.

How is space warping related to time dilation?

Space warping and time dilation are both consequences of the same underlying principle - the curvature of spacetime. As objects with mass warp the space around them, they also affect the flow of time. This results in time passing differently for observers in different gravitational fields.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
793
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
724
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
990
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
970
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
Back
Top