Frame Dragging and the Properties of Space

  • I
  • Thread starter e2m2a
  • Start date
  • #1
281
5

Main Question or Discussion Point

I have some questions about space, inertia and frame-dragging that I can’t find anywhere on the internet. The papers that I have found that deal with the subject are often couched in advanced mathematics, so that I can’t get an intuitive grasp of the phenomenon.

I would appreciate if someone could answer on a conceptual level some of the questions I have on the subject.

Question set one: Lense-Thirring rotational frame-dragging. The results of the Gravity probe B experiment suggested very strongly that this effect is real. I kind of get that the spinning earth drags space along with it. But is it the space itself, because it is being dragged, actually has a physical effect on the gyroscopes, causing real torques on the gyroscopes, which causes them to experience precession? Put another way, is space “colliding” with the gyroscopes?

Question set two: I understand the rotational drag effect of space around the earth is incredibly small, such as once in centuries. But in the case of an intense gravitational object, such as a black hole, does this rate of rotation of space equal the rate of the rotating black hole? Another words, is the rate of rotation of space around a rotating body proportional to the mass of the rotating body?

Question set three: Linear frame dragging. On page 106, The Meaning of Relativity, Einstein reflecting on inertia wrote:

But in the second place, the theory of relativity makes it

appear probable that Mach was on the right road in his thought

that inertia depends upon a mutual action of matter. For we

shall show in the following that, according to our equations, inert

masses do act upon each other in the sense of the relativity of

inertia, even if only very feebly. What is to be expected along

the line of Mach's thought?

1. The inertia of a body must increase when ponderable

masses are piled up in its neighbourhood.

2. A body must experience an accelerating force when

neighbouring masses are accelerated, and, in fact, the

force must be in the same direction as the acceleration.

3. A rotating hollow body must generate inside of itself

a \Coriolis _eld," which deects moving bodies in the

sense of the rotation, and a radial centrifugal _eld as

well.

My question pertains to the second point. Was Einstein conjecturing that linear inertial reaction forces arise when there is relative linear acceleration with respect to cosmic mass-energy currents? And was he implying that it is space itself that is being dragged by the accelerating mass-energy currents, and therefore, it is the “accelerating” space that is causing real effects(inertial forces) on test mass objects?

Question set four: My understanding Einstein later rejected Machian explanations as a cause of inertia because it was found that his field equations predict that inertial forces can still exist in a universe empty of mass. But could this rejection been premature? Again, is it possible that space itself has intrinsic properties such that when there is relative acceleration between space and an object, that space itself can “collide” with the object, causing real, physical effects on the object?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2019 Award
28,216
8,022
But is it the space itself, because it is being dragged, actually has a physical effect on the gyroscopes, causing real torques on the gyroscopes, which causes them to experience precession?
The word "precession" as it's used in this context is somewhat misleading, because the gyroscopes in Gravity Probe B, which confirmed the Lense-Thirring effect, are not being subjected to any torques at all. The "precession" a gyroscope undergoes as it orbits a massive body like the Earth is really a comparison between where its axis actually points, vs. where its axis would be expected to point if pure Newtonian physics were true--i.e., if the axis of the gyroscope were really "fixed in space", always pointing in the exact same direction, when no torques were acting on it. In other words, "precession" of a gyroscope in relativity occurs in the absence of any torques at all.

is the rate of rotation of space around a rotating body proportional to the mass of the rotating body?
No, it's proportional to its angular momentum.
 

Related Threads for: Frame Dragging and the Properties of Space

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
393
Top