Gravitational lensing paradoxon

mersecske
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Let us assume that two light rays are started at the same time symmetrically (towards the left and towards the right side of the star) which are diffracted due to the gravitational effect of a star and they meet each other at the same place behind the star. The meeting is the same event, therefore the world-lines of the two light rays cross each other twice. How it is possible? Because a light ray goes on the surface of the light cone, which separates the causality regions in general relativity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mersecske said:
Let us assume that two light rays are started at the same time symmetrically (towards the left and towards the right side of the star) which are diffracted due to the gravitational effect of a star and they meet each other at the same place behind the star. The meeting is the same event, therefore the world-lines of the two light rays cross each other twice. How it is possible? Because a light ray goes on the surface of the light cone, which separates the causality regions in general relativity.

I am not sure why you think this is any more paradoxical than passing two diverging light rays through a suitable glass lens so that they converge on a focal point. Happens all the time in cameras, telescopes, etc.

The diagram of the diverging rays going around a massive body and converging on a point is essentially a space-space diagram, while light cones are normally depicted in space-time diagrams, so there is no conflict here because they are different situations.

In a spacetime diagram of a light cone, with time on the y-axis and distance on the x axis, the physical situation is two rays going in opposite directions parallel to the x axis. The diagram does not depict a physical "light cone" in space.

You should also bear in mind that in the curved spacetime of gravitational field, the spacetime diagram of a light cone is warped or curved, especially near a black hole and is not a neat cone consisting of null paths diverging in straight lines at 90 degrees to each other.
 
Last edited:
kev said:
I am not sure why you think this is any more paradoxical than passing two diverging light rays through a suitable glass lens so that they converge on a focal point. Happens all the time in cameras, telescopes, etc.

Agreed, unless I'm missing something?
 
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