Expanding/Collapsing Universe vs Bouncing Ball: Kinetic & Potential Energy?

Spinnor
Gold Member
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
419
I think in a piece by John Baez we learn that the physics of an expanding and collapsing dust filled universe is the same as the physics of a bouncing ball,
Radius, R, verses time and height, h, verses time?

If so are there counterparts to the kinetic and potential energy of a bouncing ball and an expanding and colapsing dust filled universe? It seems that when R and h are maximum we have max potential energy and when R and h are near zero we have max kinetic energy, if General Relativity has "things" like potential and kinetic energy?

If you and I were nearby dust particles, in an expanding and collapsing universe, in the expansion stage say, we could estimate our potential and kinetic energies of each other by observation? I can "measure" your distance and velocity and thus estimate kinetic and potential energy? If

When a gravitational wave goes by does space-time kind of "vibrate"? If so can we identify parts of the energy of a gravitational wave as being part "kinetic" and part "potential"?

Could an oscillating dust filled universe be considered a "standing wave" because the potential and kinetic energy are 90 degrees out of phase?

Thanks for any help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When a gravitational wave goes by does space-time kind of "vibrate"? If so can we identify parts of the energy of a gravitational wave as being part "kinetic" and part "potential"?
Gravitational and electromagnetic waves are closely similar. Can you do this for an electromagnetic wave?

Think - the electromagnetic energy density is (E2 + B2)/2. But in an electromagnetic wave, E and B are in phase. They reach maximum at the same time, and fall to zero at the same time. So the analogy with a mechanical wave, where energy goes back and forth between a "kinetic" part and a "potential" part simply does not hold. Like for gravitational waves.
 
Bill_K said:
Gravitational and electromagnetic waves are closely similar. Can you do this for an electromagnetic wave?

Think - the electromagnetic energy density is (E2 + B2)/2. But in an electromagnetic wave, E and B are in phase. They reach maximum at the same time, and fall to zero at the same time. So the analogy with a mechanical wave, where energy goes back and forth between a "kinetic" part and a "potential" part simply does not hold. Like for gravitational waves.

Unless we have a standing E and M wave?
 
Last edited:
Unless we have a standing E and M wave?
How is that different? E and B are still in phase.
 
Bill_K said:
How is that different? E and B are still in phase.

In a standing wave its all E and then all B? I would normally defer to your expertise but I think you are wrong.
 
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...
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