GR: "Proper Distance" Meaning and Usage

[Ich]

The method I described in #40 was based on a definition for proper distance given by pervect in another thread.

Well, and the method I described was based on a definition for Rindler distance given by pervect in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1194653#post1194653" - four years ago. Good to see that people still - or, yet again - learn from him.
The method is fairly standard, I think. I used it (together with the appropriate simultaneity convention) mainly to set up "as static as possible" coordinates in cosmology. You find that the Big Bang is now some 25 GLY away, among other interesting things.

 

[pervect]

Unique Proper Distance and Its Physical Interpretation
--------------------------------------------------

This essay aims to clarify the titled question (in the
affirmative) in response to one of the two variants of proper time
that pervect originally asked about:

"I am aware of two meanings of the term "proper distance" in GR. The
first is when you have points in flat space-time, or space-time that's
locally "flat enough", in which case it is defined as it is in SR, as
the Lorentz interval between the two points. This usage of the term
implies that one is considering short distances, or is working in a
flat space-time. "

I claim to give a unique, physically meaningful, answer to this
without any limitations (assuming some conjectures are true). Of
course, most observers won't measure this proper distance, any more
than they would measure proper time. All would calculate this proper
distance the same, but for most observers it wouldn't 'look like a
distance' because the events are not simultaneous.

Here's the problem I see. Your NNT (Non Negative time) condition isn't as innocent as you think. You've already noted that it's not coordinate independent, and I believe it's going to introduce coordinate dependency into your definition.

You start out by making some space-time slice in order to be able to distinguish out negative time from positive time, which means you have defined space-like slices of simultaneity.

Now, the interesting part comes in just when the geodesics lying entirely in this space-like slice are not the same as the geodesics in space-time.

Clearly, if they are different, and if we take our initial point and final point as being "at the same time", some section of the geodesic in space-time is going to violate your NNT condition.

So what's going to be the net result? Well, if the end time is the same as the start time, not even a small section of the geodesic can ever advance forward in time. So the entire geodesic must lie within the surface of simultaneity.

As a consequence, your approach doesn't seem to be any different than just specifying your space-like slice by fiat.

 

[Ich]

As a consequence, your approach doesn't seem to be any different than just specifying your space-like slice by fiat.

With the requirement that a spacetime geodesic be in the slice, you can forget about the slice and use the geodesic instead to define distance. The slice is completely irrelevant then.

 

[yuiop]

Actually this Fermi distance is interesting but I am still not convinced this is the correct way to measure the distance. Do you have references to the literature I can consult?

What would really help this discussion though is that we are not going to mix in radar distance. I think radar distance is very useful but it is something different than ruler distance.

If you look carefully at post #54 (the post you were responding to), you will see that I never actually mentioned radar distance. You simply assumed that when I mentioned "a distance of one light-second" that I must be talking about the radar distance but that is not necessarily true.

Anyway, let us assume we have an "infinitely rigid" ruler that is two light seconds long in flat space. (We can calibrate it's proper length in flat space using radar distance or your slow meter wheel device.) We place a clock cT and observer at the top of the rod, a second clock cM and observer at the middle of the rod and a third clock CB and observer at the bottom of the ruler and synchronise the clocks in flat space using the Einstein clock synchronisation convention. The observer at the middle is the primary observer. We drop the rod and observers and ask the observer at the bottom of the rod to note the time tZ on his local clock cB as he passes the event horizon. (How this observer knows he is at the event horizon is a topic in itself ). We ask the primary observer where he was when his local clock cM read tZ. This distance is the Fermi normal length to the event horizon according to the primary free falling observer. Note that the observers at the top or bottom of the rigid falling rod are not free falling and not inertial.

Finally (and this question is open to anyone) would it useful to reserve the term "proper length" to refer exclusively to the length of a physical object as measured in the rest frame of the object and reserve the term "proper distance" or "proper spacelike separation" to refer exclusively to the spatial separation between two events as measured in a reference frame where the two events are simultaneous?

 

[Passionflower]

Finally (and this question is open to anyone) would it useful to reserve the term "proper length" to refer exclusively to the length of a physical object as measured in the rest frame of the object and reserve the term "proper distance" or "proper spacelike separation" to refer exclusively to the spatial separation between two events as measured in a reference frame where the two events are simultaneous?

Proper distance or proper radial distance is often used in the Schwarzschild solution to mean the physical radial distance between two coordinate values (as opposed to the coordinate distance which is not really a distance).

 

[yuiop]

Proper distance or proper radial distance is often used in the Schwarzschild solution to mean the physical radial distance between two coordinate values (as opposed to the coordinate distance which is not really a distance).

As you pointed out, a rolling meter wheel device would measure coordinate distance and if the wheel was rolling along a radial "road" at free fall velocity, its measurement would agree with the Schwarzschild radial distance. Are you saying the distance measured by the meter wheel device is not really a distance?

I assume you meant the coordinate distance is not a proper distance, no?

 

[PAllen]

Finally (and this question is open to anyone) would it useful to reserve the term "proper length" to refer exclusively to the length of a physical object as measured in the rest frame of the object and reserve the term "proper distance" or "proper spacelike separation" to refer exclusively to the spatial separation between two events as measured in a reference frame where the two events are simultaneous?

Yes, I think it would be good to distinguish proper distance from proper length in this way. Note that in GR, having the ends simultaneous isn't very meaningful. You could still come different lengths in different coordinate systems. My argument is you would say something more like: the spatial separation between two events in a coordinate system containing a minimal geodesic between them within a hypersurface of simultaneity.

 

[Passionflower]

I assume you meant the coordinate distance is not a proper distance, no?

Right, the Schwarzschild r coordinate is not a measure of physical distance, in fact it is a measure of curvature. To obtain a physical distance from these coordinates we typically have to integrate, however there is one exception and that is for the physical distance (at least one way of measuring distance) observed by a free falling (from infinity) observer. For this observer the physical distance is equal to the Schwarzschild coordinate difference. But as Pervect demonstrated there are multiple ways of defining distance. What would be useful I think is to be able to express all radial motion using these Fermi coordinates as well.

E.g. we can identify three simple conditions:

1. Free fall from infinity with a given initial velocity (including v=0)
2. Free fall from a given r value.
3. An linearly accelerating observer falling in the field (e.g. the magnitude of his acceleration is smaller than the inertial acceleration of the field).

By the way the free falling observer from infinity is also interesting wrt PG coordinates, or sometimes called "The River Model".

 

[yuiop]

What would be useful I think is to be able to express all radial motion using these Fermi coordinates as well.

E.g. we can identify three simple conditions:

1. Free fall from infinity with a given initial velocity (including v=0)
2. Free fall from a given r value.
3. An linearly accelerating observer falling in the field (e.g. the magnitude of his acceleration is smaller than the inertial acceleration of the field).

To start you off here are the equations for radial motion in Schwarzschild coordinates based on information from the mathpages website

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm

1. Free fall from infinity with a given initial velocity V (including V=0)

The coordinate velocity of a free falling particle at r, with initial velocity of V at infinity is:

\frac{dr}{dt} = (1-2m/r) \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r}(1-V^2) +V^2}

The time dilation factor for the falling particle is:

\frac{dt}{dtau} = \frac{1}{(1-2m/r) \sqrt{1 - V^2}}

It follows that the proper velocity of a free falling particle in terms of the proper time of the particle is:

\frac{dr}{dtau} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} + \frac{ V^2}{(1-V^2)}}

2. Free fall from a given r value.

The coordinate velocity of a free falling particle at r that was initially at rest at R is:

\frac{dr}{dt} = \frac{(1-2m/r)}{ \sqrt{1-2m/R} } \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} - \frac{2m}{R}}

The time dilation factor for the particle dropped from R is:

\frac{dt}{dtau} = \frac{ \sqrt{1 - 2m/R}}{ (1-2m/r) }

It follows that the proper velocity of a free falling particle dropped from R in terms of the proper time of the particle is:

\frac{dr}{dtau} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} - \frac{2m}{R}}

3. An linearly accelerating observer falling in the field (e.g. the magnitude of his acceleration is smaller than the inertial acceleration of the field).

This is more complicated. Some equations for this situation were given in #345 of this old thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2747788#post2747788

[EDIT] The equations for a particle with initial velocity V have been edited to correct a major mistake in the calculations pointed out by Passionflower. [/EDIT]

 

[PAllen]

IOW, any spacetime geodesic is also a geodesic of a hyperplane in which it is fully contained.
That seems to be true, but why do you bother? The distance is already defined by the geodesic, without reference to frames or foliation.

The definition of proper distance doesn't employ coordinate dependent quantities. However, this was in the section 'physical meaning'. In SR, one often talks about proper distance between two events being the distance you would measure in a frame in which the events are simultaneous. I was seeking to make an equivalent statement in GR, where the SR statement is totally inadequate (actually, it isn't adequate in SR if you allow accelerated frames, but you can trivially fix it by restricting to inertial) For GR and events on either side of e.g. a black hole, you need more of a fix. So my attempt at the best equivalent statement in GR is:

The proper distance between two events is equal to the 3-distance measured in a coordinate system containing a minimal geodesic in a hypersurface of simultaneity.

 

[PAllen]

Here's the problem I see. Your NNT (Non Negative time) condition isn't as innocent as you think. You've already noted that it's not coordinate independent, and I believe it's going to introduce coordinate dependency into your definition.

The definition of proper distance doesn't use anything related to the NNT condition or any coordinates at all. Check the definition section again to see this. The NNT idea comes in with an attempt to say something limited about the extremal properties spacetime geodesics. I establish that without restrictions in nearby paths, no max/min statement is possible at all, even in SR. So I am only looking here to propose a restricted sense in which you can declare a max/min property.

You start out by making some space-time slice in order to be able to distinguish out negative time from positive time, which means you have defined space-like slices of simultaneity.

Now, the interesting part comes in just when the geodesics lying entirely in this space-like slice are not the same as the geodesics in space-time.

I am not referring to these geodesics at all. Much later, in talking about physical meaning of proper distance I talk about 3-geodesics in a carefully chosen simultaneity slice. But in this section I am only talking about spacetime geodesics and spacetime paths.

Clearly, if they are different, and if we take our initial point and final point as being "at the same time", some section of the geodesic in space-time is going to violate your NNT condition.

So what's going to be the net result? Well, if the end time is the same as the start time, not even a small section of the geodesic can ever advance forward in time. So the entire geodesic must lie within the surface of simultaneity.

As a consequence, your approach doesn't seem to be any different than just specifying your space-like slice by fiat.

This observation gets at a small omission in the extremal conjecture section, where an additional issue I dealt with later (in the "meaning of proper distance" section) I forgot to include in the geodesic extremal conjecture. I thought of this early today, but haven't had a chance to fix it. That, indeed, is related to what you say here.

I meant to specify that a spacelike geodesic is a local minimum related to NNT paths in a coordinate system that includes that geodesic as an NNT path. This is they way I did it later.

Then I think there is nothing wrong with my conjecture. I will see if I can still edit the original post, otherwise I will post a corrected version of the extremal conjecture.

 

[PAllen]

In reference to my long post #51, which I can no longer edit, I describe a limited statement about in what sense a spacelike geodesic can be considered minimal. The statement in that post is correct but worded in a coordinate dependent way. I realize a somewhat stronger, more coordinate independent statement is implicit, as follows (you need to read this in conjunction with post #51 for terminology):

Suppose there is a path p between two events with spacelike separation,
and interval(p) < interval(nearby geodesic between the same events). Then in every coordinate
system in which the geodesic is NNT, p will violate NNT.

 

[pervect]

I am looking for a practical operational method to measure proper distance in GR to try and get an intuitive feel for the concept. One difficulty is that using a rod as a ruler is problematic in GR because even in free fall the ruler is subject to tidal forces and its proper length is being physically changed making it useless as a measuring device. Would the following proposed method work for measuring proper distance in free fall?

1) Attach a master clock to the centre of gravity of the falling object.
2) Attach further clocks above and below the master clock at intervals defined in (3).
3) Arrange the clocks so that the radar distance between any two clocks is the same and the clocks are spaced close enough to each other so that the radar distance measured from either end of the unit gap is approximately the same to an agreed accuracy.
4) Attach a mechanism to each clock that adjusts its spatial separation from its neighbouring clocks so that the unit gap length as defined in (3) is actively maintained to provide continuous active calibration of the ruler.

In the above set up only the master clock will be inertial in the sense that it experiences no proper acceleration. Since all the secondary clocks experience proper acceleration and since the proper acceleration is a function of the proper distance from the master clock it would be interesting to find out is the proper distance can be defined in terms of proper acceleration. If the above method does define a mechanism to measure proper distance in the free falling frame, the change in proper length of a natural free falling object due to tidal forces could in principle be measured by such a device attached to the object.

The method you describe for distance is due to Born, it's the concept of using Born rigid motion to define length, though it's one I also like and have espoused in the past.

A more detailed calculation confirms to my satisfaction that the fermi-normal distance will give the same result as the measurement of distance via a Born rigid ruler.

(I felt I needed to confirm that the timelike worldlines of the accelerating observers at constant fermi-normal distance were orthogonal to the space-like geodesics along which the distance was measured. This will be true if the metric in these coordinates is diagonal away from the origin, which appears to be the case. Using the same series approach but including higher order terms, I convinced myself that metric was in fact diagonal.)

Secondly, would anyone here agree that the "Fermi normal distance" described by Pervect in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=435999 is in fact a proper distance in the free falling frame? (Note: I do not think that Pervect has claimed the Fermi normal distance is the proper distance in the free falling frame, but I suspect it might be.)

It is a proper distance in the sense that it's a distance measured along a specific curve. Passionflower's distance will also be a proper distance - if he ever gets around to specifying the curve along which it's measured, that is :-)

However, I don't believe that passionflower's distance will be equivalent to the distance measured by dropping a Born rigid ruler.

 

[yuiop]

Just a quick note to acknowledge that Passionflower pointed out a major mistake in my calculations for the motion of a falling body with an initial velocity at infinity in post #69. I have now edited that post and hopefully the equations are now correct. Thanks for checking Passionflower. It is good to know that someone is checking the posted equations so that they might be a useful and accurate reference to someone in the future .

 

[yuiop]

It is a proper distance in the sense that it's a distance measured along a specific curve. Passionflower's distance will also be a proper distance - if he ever gets around to specifying the curve along which it's measured, that is :-)

However, I don't believe that passionflower's distance will be equivalent to the distance measured by dropping a Born rigid ruler.

As far as I can tell, Pf's distance is the distance measured by a series of free falling observers each with their own clock and very short Born rigid ruler. The observers would have to synchronise clocks at infinity and then jump at regular intervals of say one second. At the time the leading observer arrives at the event horizon, each observer notes their spatial separation from their nearest neighbours at that time (according to their own local clock) and the distance to the event horizon according to a given observer at "that time" is the sum of all the individual measurements. The observers have to be very close together and the Born rigid rulers very short. Unlike Fermi normal observers and clocks, the Pf free fall observers are not physically connected in any way and do not experience proper acceleration. They will notice that their separation from their immediate neighbours is continually changing according to measurements using their Born rigid rulers or radar measurements. The Pf distance should also agree with the Schwarzschild coordinate distance and with what is measured by a free falling observer using a rolling wheel meter like the odometer of a car, as also pointed out by Pf. I am pretty sure the Pf measurement is closely related to the PG coordinate system. It would be interesting to check that out.

 

[Passionflower]

You are welcome yuiop, I definitely can use some practice in checking mistakes in formulas as the formulas I write myself are often full of mistakes.

I attempted to generalize the formulas to obtain the proper velocity of a free falling observer wrt a local stationary observer, in the attempt to generalize the, what Pervect calls, 'the passionflower distance'. Then perhaps we can do the same thing but then for the 'Fermi distance'.

Apparently the velocity function can be parametrized, if I am not mistaken such thing was developed by Hartle (or perhaps he copied it before, I don't know that).

Basically the proper velocity wrt a local stationary observer of a radially free falling observer can be described as:

<br /> v=\sqrt {{\frac {{A}^{2}-g_{{{\it tt}}}}{{A}^{2}}}}<br />

where:

<br /> g_{{{\it tt}}}=1-2\,{\frac {m}{r}}<br />

In the case the free fall is from infinity A simply becomes 1.
In the case the free fall has an initial velocity then A is calculated as:

<br /> A={\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-{v}^{2}}}}<br />

Now, if we assume the formula below as given by yuiop is both correct and not an approximation:

<br /> \frac{dr}{dtau} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} - \frac{2m}{R}} <br />

then there is a catch.

For A smaller than 1 the free fall starts from a given height. I was trying to obtain the correct formula in order to plug in the right A in such a case and here is where I got some surprises (I assume for the greater minds on the forum this is yet another demonstration of my lack of understanding). I did not succeed in expressing this in terms of r only. Initially I was trying to reason that if in some way I could 'subtract' the escape velocity at the given R and convert that into A I would get the expected results. But that did not work, it turns out that A is no longer constant during the free fall from a given height, we could express it in the following way to get the desired results, but it is ugly:

<br /> A = -{\frac {\sqrt { \left( -rR+2\,mR-2\,rm \right) R \left( -r+2\,m<br /> \right) }}{-rR+2\,mR-2\,rm}}<br />

This 'monstrosity' is not even real valued!

Now the interesting question is why, assuming again the formula based on this is exact, does the parameter depend on r? Perhaps I made a mistake or is perhaps the formula to obtain the proper velocity from a given R only an approximation?

For instance it is rather tempting to calculate A for a drop at h independently of r by using:

<br /> A=\sqrt {1-2\,{\frac {m}{h}}}<br />

The result is close to yuiop's formula but not identical. The 'shape' of the slabs look rather similar.

 

[JesseM]

Is it true that each hovering observer's local surface of simultaneity in their local inertial rest frame is parallel to a line of constant Schwarzschild time and varying radius? If so, maybe Passionflower's distance would be the proper distance along a single spacelike curve where the tangent at each point along the curve is parallel to the local surface of simultaneity of a freefalling observer at that point?

 

[Passionflower]

Mathpages gives a parameter K defined as

K = \sqrt{1-V^2}

or alternatively as:

K = 1/\sqrt{1-2m/R}

It is obvious that the Hartle parameter A is related to the mathpages parameter by A = 1/K.

This suggests you should end up with:

A = \sqrt{1-2m/R}

for the constant parameter in terms of the apogee height R.

Right, I think I did that, but then the results do not seem identical to the formula you quoted (see the graph). Could you confirm? It looks like it is off by some linear factor. I probably made some mistake.

Hopefully we can work out the kinks because then we have a generic velocity formula for a free falling observer. Then it is simply a matter of finding the Lorentz factor based on the obtained velocity v(r) and divide (because it is length contraction! ) the integrand by the Lorentz factor to get the correct integrand to obtain a proper distance in all free falling radial scenarios (except for acceleration that is, but I think it is better to get the kinks out free falling motion first). By the way, the parametric approach has the advantage that we can extend things to a solution with a rotating black hole by applying some adjustments. As far as I am concerned that would then cover most areas where the notion of distance makes some sense, as the concept of proper (e.g. physical) distance in non-stationary spacetimes do not make much sense to me (except perhaps in things like FLRW models where distances are 'pumped up' in time). To me, but that is likely because I am simple minded, the generic distance discussion is rather academic for arbitrary non-stationary spacetimes as there is really not much to calculate.

By the way once this is sorted out it would be really interesting to lay out (in a separate topic) all the Doppler shifts (including a decomposition into kinematical and gravitational components) for all radial motion wrt a stationary local observer, an observer from infinity and of course wrt other free falling observers. As far as I know, no such generic formula is available.

 

[yuiop]

Apparently the velocity function can be parametrized, if I am not mistaken such thing was developed by Hartle (or perhaps he copied it before, I don't know that).

Basically the proper velocity wrt a local stationary observer of a radially free falling observer can be described as:

<br /> v=\sqrt {{\frac {{A}^{2}-g_{{{\it tt}}}}{{A}^{2}}}}<br />

where:

<br /> g_{{{\it tt}}}=1-2\,{\frac {m}{r}}<br />

O.K. I have figured it now. The equation given by Hartle is not proper velocity (dr/ddtau), but the coordinate velocity (dr'/dt') according to a local stationary observer using his local stationary rulers and clocks. Proper velocity is the velocity using the proper time of the falling clock which is a different thing.

Starting with the Schwarzschild falling coordinate velocity I gave in #69:

<br /> \frac{dr}{dt} = (1-2m/r) \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r}(1-V^2) +V^2} <br />

and using dr'/dr = 1/sqrt(1-2m/r) and dt/dt' = 1/sqrt(1-2m/r) to relate local measurements of the stationary observer to the observer at infinity such that dr/dt = dr'/dt' (1-2m/r), the local coordinate velocity is:

<br /> \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r}(1-V^2) +V^2} <br />

This can be written using A = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) as:

<br /> \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m/r +V^2A^2}{A^2} } <br />

\Rightarrow \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m/r + A^2 - A^2 +V^2A^2}{A^2} }

(because A^2-A^2 =0)

\Rightarrow \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m/r + A^2 - A^2(1-V^2)}{A^2} }

\Rightarrow \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m/r + A^2 - 1 }{A^2}

\Rightarrow \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{ A^2 - (1 -2m/r) }{A^2}

\Rightarrow \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{ A^2 - g_{\it tt} }{A^2}

 

[Passionflower]

O.K. I have figured it now. The equation given by Hartle is not proper velocity (dr/ddtau), but the coordinate velocity (dr'/dt') according to a local stationary observer using his local stationary rulers and clocks.

Just to verify we are on the same page, you do not mean coordinate velocity in terms of Schw. coordinates right? Because clearly a local stationary observer would not measure such coordinates with local clocks and rulers. Also the free falling observer would measure the same velocity right, since this is simply the principle of relativity at work, right (e.g. time dilation, length contraction, locally Minkowskian)? But if so, then what is proper velocity in this context if you call this one coordinate velocity? Celerity?

Since:

<br /> {dt \over d\tau} = {A \over g_{tt} }<br />

It should be staightforward to convert this coordinate velocity to proper velocity.

By the way it would be helpful is someone could attach the relevant page from Hartle, unfortunately I do not have it: http://books.google.com/books?id=azZmQgAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22James+B.+Hartle%22&hl=en&ei=uWHCTLO0I5CCsQP1xrjZCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

 

[yuiop]

Just to verify we are on the same page, you do not mean coordinate velocity in terms of Schw. coordinates right? Because clearly a local stationary observer would not measure such coordinates with local clocks and rulers. Also the free falling observer would measure the same velocity right, since this is simply the principle of relativity at work, right (e.g. time dilation, length contraction)? But if so, then what is proper velocity in this context if you call this one coordinate velocity? Celerity?

I was just trying to make clear the distinction between proper velocity and coordinate velocity. Proper velocity (or celerity) is coordinate distance (which depends on the observer) divided by the proper time of the moving object. In post #69 I gave the proper velocity of the falling object according to the Schwarzschild observer at infinity as:

<br /> \frac{dr}{dtau} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} + \frac{ V^2}{(1-V^2)}} <br />

where tau is the proper time of the falling clock. This can be converted to the proper velocity as measured by a local observer at coordinate radius r by using dr'/dr = sqrt(1-2m/r) so that: <br /> \frac{dr&#039;}{dtau} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2m/r}} \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} + \frac{ V^2}{(1-V^2)}} <br />

and this can be simplified using A = 1/sqrt(1-V^2) and g_{tt} = (1-2m/r) to:

<br /> \frac{dr&#039;}{dtau} = \sqrt{\frac{A^2 - g_{tt}}{g_{tt}}}<br />

The equation for the local velocity of the falling object given by Hartle is obviously not the proper velocity.

Since:

<br /> {dt \over d\tau} = {A \over g_{tt} }<br />

It should be staightforward to convert this coordinate to proper velocity.

Yes we can do it that way too. Starting with the Hartle equation for local velocity:

<br /> \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} =\sqrt {{\frac {{A}^{2}-g_{{{\it tt}}}}{{A}^{2}}}}<br />

the local proper velocity is:

\frac{dr&#039;}{dtau} = \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;}*\frac{dt&#039;}{dt}*\frac{dt}{dtau} = \frac{A}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}} \sqrt {\frac {{A}^{2}-g_{tt}}{A^2}} = \sqrt{\frac{A^2 - g_{tt}}{g_{tt}}}

 

[Passionflower]

I was just trying to make clear the distinction between proper velocity and coordinate velocity. Proper velocity (or celerity) is coordinate distance (which depends on the observer) divided by the proper time of the moving object. In post #69 I gave the proper velocity of the falling object according to the Schwarzschild observer at infinity as:

Ok, it looks we are on the same page.

After some tinkering, the simplest generic formula I came up with is not the 'Hartle' approach but this:

<br /> v_{(r)} = \sqrt {2m \left( {r}^{-1}-{{\it r_0}}^{-1}-{\frac { \left( -r+1<br /> \right) {{\it v_0}}^{2}}{r}} \right) }<br />

I worked out a position-velocity equivalent, and it turned out it is much simpler to express an initial velocity as a (virtual) position than vice versa.

Lorentz factoring the equation gives:

<br /> {1 \over \gamma} =\sqrt {1-2\,m \left( {r}^{-1}-{r_{{0}}}^{-1}-{\frac { \left( -r+1<br /> \right) {v_{{0}}}^{2}}{r}} \right) }<br />

Multiplying 1/gamma by the integrand used by a stationary observer to obtain the distance for an arbitrary radial free falling observer gives:

<br /> \int _{{\it r1}}^{{\it r2}}\!\sqrt {1-2\,m \left( {r}^{-1}-{{\it r_0}}^<br /> {-1}-{\frac { \left( -r+1 \right) {{\it v_0}}^{2}}{r}} \right) }{\frac <br /> {1}{\sqrt {1-2\,{\frac {m}{r}}}}}{dr}<br />

A few plots:

 

[yuiop]

Ok, it looks we are on the same page.

After some tinkering, the simplest generic formula I came up with is not the 'Hartle' approach but this:

<br /> v_{(r)} = \sqrt {2m \left( {r}^{-1}-{{\it r_0}}^{-1}-{\frac { \left( -r+1<br /> \right) {{\it v_0}}^{2}}{r}} \right) }<br />

Before I check this out in detail, can you confirm that to use your formula, that if r0 is not infinite then v0 must be set to zero and if v0 is not zero then r0 has to be set to infinite?

 

[Passionflower]

Before I check this out in detail, can you confirm that to use your formula, that if r0 is not infinite then v0 must be set to zero and if v0 is not zero then r0 has to be set to infinite?

Yes, as far as I understand both parts 'on' would lead to something unphysical.

 

[yuiop]

After some tinkering, the simplest generic formula I came up with is not the 'Hartle' approach but this:

<br /> v_{(r)} = \sqrt {2m \left( {r}^{-1}-{{\it r_0}}^{-1}-{\frac { \left( -r+1<br /> \right) {{\it v_0}}^{2}}{r}} \right) }<br />

If I set v0 = 0 then the above equation reduces to:

<br /> v_{(r)} = \sqrt {2m \left( {r}^{-1}-{{\it r_0}}^{-1}\right) }<br />

which agrees with the mathpages equation I gave in #69 for the proper velocity dr/dtau:

... the proper velocity of a free falling particle dropped from R in terms of the proper time of the particle is:

\frac{dr}{dtau} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} - \frac{2m}{R}}

Now if I set r0 = infinite in your equation, it reduces to:

<br /> \frac{dr}{dt} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r}(1-v_0^2) +2mv_0^2} <br />

which does not agree with either the mathpages coordinate velocity or proper velocity:

The coordinate velocity of a free falling particle at r, with initial velocity of V at infinity is:

\frac{dr}{dt} = (1-2m/r) \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r}(1-V^2) +V^2}

... the proper velocity of a free falling particle in terms of the proper time of the particle is:

\frac{dr}{dtau} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r} + \frac{ V^2}{(1-V^2)}}

although it is similar to the coordinate velocity. More tinkering required I think

You did not specify if v_{(r)} is intended to be a proper or coordinate velocity or if the observer that makes the measurement is local or at infinity.

[EDIT] Actually looking back I am guilty of the same thing in #69 and did not make it clear that all measurements in that post are according to the Schwarzschild observer at infinity.

 

[Passionflower]

Now if I set r0 = infinite in your equation, it reduces to:

<br /> \frac{dr}{dt} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r}(1-v_0^2) +2mv_0^2} <br />

which does not agree with either the mathpages coordinate velocity or proper velocity:


although it is similar to the coordinate velocity. More tinkering required I think

There are different kind of velocities, pure coordinate velocity for an observer at infinity will obviously be zero at the EH.

You did not specify if is intended to be a proper or coordinate velocity or if the observer that makes the measurement is local or at infinity.

The velocity this formula is supposed to track is the velocity as measured by a local stationary observer. I am not using the observer at infinity in any way, this observer is by the way physically speaking rather uninteresting.

Perhaps that is the source of some of the confusion we had communicating this. At all times I talked about the velocity as measured by a local stationary observer.

So far I do not see anything wrong with the formula, and the plots look right as well.

Perhaps you could present an alternative and then we can plot those out as well. I would not have been wrong the first time. :)

 

[pervect]

As far as I can tell, Pf's distance is the distance measured by a series of free falling observers each with their own clock and very short Born rigid ruler. The observers would have to synchronise clocks at infinity and then jump at regular intervals of say one second. At the time the leading observer arrives at the event horizon, each observer notes their spatial separation from their nearest neighbours at that time (according to their own local clock) and the distance to the event horizon according to a given observer at "that time" is the sum of all the individual measurements. The observers have to be very close together and the Born rigid rulers very short. Unlike Fermi normal observers and clocks, the Pf free fall observers are not physically connected in any way and do not experience proper acceleration. They will notice that their separation from their immediate neighbours is continually changing according to measurements using their Born rigid rulers or radar measurements. The Pf distance should also agree with the Schwarzschild coordinate distance and with what is measured by a free falling observer using a rolling wheel meter like the odometer of a car, as also pointed out by Pf. I am pretty sure the Pf measurement is closely related to the PG coordinate system. It would be interesting to check that out.

You've gotten a key point - because PF's ensemble of observers doesn't maintain a constant distance from each other, they don't define a Born rigid distance.

The motion of the observers can't be ignored and is important to specify, because different observers have different notions of space and time.

As far as using small, born-rigid rulers goes - if you are in an area of space-time small enough that the effects of curvature are small, radars and rulers agree. This is why the SI folks were able to switch from a physical, rigid rod, to a radar-like method of counting the wavelengths of a particular frequency of a cesium standard without a major upheaval. When you consider how atoms maintain their distance, it's not surprising, the forces between nearby atoms are based on the same electromagnetic fundamentals that the radar is based on.

One of the advantages of the radar concept for measuring distance is that it makes the implied concept of simultaneity more manifest than using rigid bars.

Let one wolrdline hold the radar. The other worldline reflects the radar signal. Then the midpoint between the time of signal emission and its reception on the radar world-line is simultaneous with the reflection of the radar signal on the reflection worldline.

This defines a short segment of a curve on the radar world-line, that propagates in a spatial direction. It's an alternate way of defining "orthogonal" without the math, though the 4-vector approach remains more convenient in my opinion. And if you imagine repeating the process, by putting a bunch of radars on a bunch of worldlines, and adjusting the timing so that the short line-segments all connect, you'll generate the entire curve, the curve of simultaneity, the one that PF's distance is being measured along.

 

[Roshanjha14]

I want to know that is it possible that we will get all our lost things when the big CRUNCH occur?

 

[yuiop]

The velocity this formula is supposed to track is the velocity as measured by a local stationary observer. I am not using the observer at infinity in any way, this observer is by the way physically speaking rather uninteresting.

In that case you formula still does not reduce to the correct equations for the local velocity when r0 = infinite or v0 = 0. These are the correct equations:

The local velocity of a falling particle with initial velocity v0 at infinity, according to an observer at r, was derived in #79 and is:

<br /> \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{r}(1-v0^2) +v0^2} <br />

The local velocity of a falling particle with apogee r0 according to an observer at r is:

<br /> \frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m(r^{-1} - r0^{-1})}{(1-2m/r0)}} <br />

Perhaps that is the source of some of the confusion we had communicating this. At all times I talked about the velocity as measured by a local stationary observer.

So far I do not see anything wrong with the formula, and the plots look right as well.

Perhaps you could present an alternative and then we can plot those out as well. I would not have been wrong the first time. :)

A general formula that combines both the above equations should be something like (if I have got it right):

\frac{dr&#039;}{dt&#039;} = \sqrt{\frac{2m(r^{-1}(1-v0^2) - r0^{-1})}{(1-2m/r0)}+v0^2}

Just to be clear, I am not talking about proper velocity and I assume you are not either.

 

[yuiop]

I want to know that is it possible that we will get all our lost things when the big CRUNCH occur?

Yes, all your mysteriously lost odd socks will be right there next to you, but they will still be rather difficult to find because everyone elses missing odd socks and the rest of the universe will be right there next to you too.