B Gravitational Lensing: Refraction or Something Else?

Paige_Turner
Messages
44
Reaction score
9
TL;DR Summary
Does 4D spacetime, bent by mass, act like "compressed space" in 3D?
It seems like a strong gravitational field acts like spacetime is denser in some sense. Light passing through a gravitational lens is delayed, just like in a glass lens (which refracts because it's denser than air).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While there are similarities between gravitational lensing and refraction by an ordinary glass lens, they are only similarities and can't be taken too far. There is nothing in the actual mathematical model in GR that corresponds to "density of spacetime", so that part of the analogy does not hold.
 
Paige_Turner said:
Summary:: Does 4D spacetime, bent by mass, act like "compressed space" in 3D?

It seems like a strong gravitational field acts like spacetime is denser in some sense. Light passing through a gravitational lens is delayed, just like in a glass lens (which refracts because it's denser than air).
I have never seen any paper that made that analogy.
 
Paige_Turner said:
Summary:: Does 4D spacetime, bent by mass, act like "compressed space" in 3D?

It seems like a strong gravitational field acts like spacetime is denser in some sense. Light passing through a gravitational lens is delayed, just like in a glass lens (which refracts because it's denser than air).
Light follows similar geometry if you only consider a convex (converging) lens (left-side diagrams).

If this analogy really held, you could theoretically find a galaxy or galaxy cluster that is concave in shape. One would naively expect light passing through volume of space with a concave-shaped mass to diverge (right-side diagrams).

1626401086219.png
 
Paige_Turner said:
Summary:: Does 4D spacetime, bent by mass, act like "compressed space" in 3D?

It seems like a strong gravitational field acts like spacetime is denser in some sense. Light passing through a gravitational lens is delayed, just like in a glass lens (which refracts because it's denser than air).
As was stressed before, it is not literally the same to have refraction, which is usually naming the phenomena related to the interaction of the electromagnetic field with matter, i.e., due to scattering of em. waves with charged particles, and empty space is not considered as any kind of matter anymore since Einstein got rid of the aether.

Mathematically in some sense there's an analogy, because to describe "lensing" you can use for both usual refraction as well as the "bending of light" by gravitational fields using geometrical optics, which is the eikonal approximation of Maxwell's equations. It turns out that the light rays as defined by geometrical optics follow from Fermat's principle, and in matter-free space within GR, this leads formally to a geodesic equation for "massless particles". Fermat's principle of course is also a valid description of light propation in matter in the eikonal approximation. In this sense mathematically both effects are a bit analogous.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top