Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity leaving a permanent indention?

  1. Dec 14, 2006 #1
    I have a pretty good question. I was thinking today how gravity almost makes an "indention" into space time, which is what causes the attraction of other matter. Could it be possible that larger masses in space, like stars and blackholes, create permanent indentions in space/time? Maybe they aren't nearly as "deep" as they would be if the object still existed, but left some kind of indention in the fabric of space?

    Is this in any ways possible? Have we tested any experiments that could indicate this kind of outcome from large sources of gravity? If something like this could happen, could it be in any way an explantation of "dark matter" or "dark energy." If it does occur, I doubt it has anything to do with dark matter, but just a vague speculation.

    I know this sounds like a bunch of crazy bs from someone who is not trained in physics, however I think it's a decent idea. I was thinking this because like any other object in space, if a meteor crashes in the land, it damages the surface due the impact. If there is a large collection of mass in a given point, pressing very firmly on the fabric of space/time, could there be ANY type of "damage" done to the fabric after the existance of this object (for example having a massive star collapse into a black hole, over billions of years it dissipates and some kind of evidence is left behind.. or even super novas and the eventual nebula that will form.)

    Also, could something like this explain the Pioneer anomoly?

    Just an idea, what do you guys think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 14, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Indentation in what surface? Space is not a "surface" and the "fabric of space" is at best an analogy.
  4. Dec 14, 2006 #3
    I think .. No.

    If you want to publicise your own theories of physics, please first study the mainstream physics (well enough to calculate what the mainstream theory predicts and to know why the mainstream theory is currently accepted - hint: if you're thinking "conspiracy" keep studying).
  5. Dec 15, 2006 #4
    Actually I know about Newton's theory and relativity a bit. From my understanding, scientist use the analogy that space kind of "bends" when gravity is present. Sort of like if you hold a sheet out and put a ball on it, there is an indention on the sheet. Anyways this is my last post on this forum, people can't freely discuss ideas without being bashed into the oblivion, sorry Mr. PhD, not everyone who loves space, science and the universe has a degree (well yet) so maybe your critism can be taken kind of personally some times. I like talking to people about a common interest, and respecting their ideas, even if I know they are bogus, they are just thoughts. I love the universe around me more than anyone can know, and while I'm not up to all the scienctific data concernign the issue, doesn't mean I don't share the same love that you do.

    Thanks and goodbye.
  6. Dec 16, 2006 #5
    Apologies if I've offended you. Nonetheless, you're presenting your own independent theory here, which I understand contradicts your agreement (with this site) to present such ideas only in the independent research subforum.

    To expand on my previous post:

    - Your idea depends on the notion of where-in-space a piece of matter "has been", which seems at odds with relativity (despite the impression one might get at first from the popular introductory analogy you mention).

    - It suggests maximum influence in the region with the greatest visible mass-density (ie. galaxy interior), which seems the wrong place to explain either dark matter or dark energy.

    - No "pioneer anomaly" (requiring new physics) has yet been shown to exist.

    - If a meteor crashes into an object, matter is just rearranged. I don't think of the ocean as "damaged" by passing fish, that is, the motivating analogy is ineffective to me.

    - Personally: I just flew back from another conference at which a few "crackpots" also managed to present. This isn't just annoying but also diverts resources away from other work. In their eagerness these individuals seem to ignore "scientific method" and very frequently (to my amazement) seem never to have actually bothered taking a proper course to learn in detail the relevent mainstream theory. Consequently their work is rendered meaningless by mistakes and misunderstandings that are obvious for others to spot. Unfortunately it also seems unproductive for experts to explain any specific error, since rather than concede they seem more likely to produce yet another theory.. That whole situation seems to be an embarassing waste of potential.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2006
  7. Dec 16, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Please allow the mentors to handle such situations. Yes, independent research is restricted to that sub-forum, but questions like this don't necessarily cross the line between simple curiosity and "independent research".
  8. Dec 17, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Gravity follows mass possessing bodies at the speed of light [as best we know]. There is no lingering effect in the path of a body in motion. Orbits would otherwise be unstable. Bear in mind the sun has a proper motion of about 300 km/s relative to the CMB photons. If gravity did not remain centered on the center of mass of the sun, all the planets in our solar system would be orphans by now.
  9. Dec 27, 2006 #8
    We think that a particle called the graviton might exist that carries the gravitational force.

    Similar to the X and Y Bosons ( I think ) that carry the weak force, and the photon which carries the electromagnetic force ( Maxwell's equations prove this )
  10. Dec 28, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Could there be a way then to remove these particles from the others so we have an object untouched by gravity?
  11. Dec 29, 2006 #10

    I see where you're going with this, but we'd see the effect in most galaxies right now.
    Correct me if I'm wrong on this but at the center of most galaxies right now are black holes.
    But currently no galaxy we know of is sitting perfectly still and neither is the black hole in it's center.
    If the black hole at the center was leaving some kind of gravity well behind as it moved (as it no longer is in that space, but once was) we would see the perturbations in the galaxy itself.
    In other words if a gravity well was left behind, we would be able to detect movement changes of smaller objects as they passed the black hole's previous point.
    Even our sun would have some sort of influence such as that on the planets, moons and and other flotsam, which we don't see.

    Does that make sense?
  12. Jan 3, 2007 #11
    Gravity and Gravitomagnetic Fluctuatuations are transmitted through space by light velocity as believed by most scientists now. There are two faces to deal with the theory. One of which is the gravitomagnetic concept........ It is very similar to magnetic field in electromagnetism, also speed is the same "C".

    Engineer\ Amr Morsi.
  13. Jan 3, 2007 #12
    Then, for approximately static gravitational field, the gravitational field of a vanishing star will be cancelled after L/C "Roughly speaking", ended by ubrupt gravitomagnetic change and then null effect.

    Engineer\ Amr Morsi.
  14. Jan 3, 2007 #13

    As already mentioned before, you are just trying to get the whole thing into mind.

    I know that it is very hard that you get my answer. But, whenever you get it, this is my answer.

    Moreover, as I learned from these long trials in the field of research in electromagnetism, quantum, relativity, elecrtoweak and strong forces, it is a very good thing to have rigid macro knowledge about the present theories in field of science to be able to determine first, if you will have to go into a long way of investigation or not.

    The effect that may be due to these black holes or even huge stars may only appear in the cosmological constant, in which there are very small deviations in many measurements form the calculated values and they are always related to the same constant defined by a certain formula.

    Engineer\ Amr Morsi.
  15. Jan 3, 2007 #14
    Indention spoken about by some scientists is in two aspects, one in relativity "or, space science, generally speaking" and the other is in quatum mechanics. The former is related to high frequency fuctuations. The latter, however, is relatted to what is posted as vacuum polarizability.

    Jim T,
    I think what you want to say is that there will be some remaining effect to some time after the star being vanished.

    I am ready for any guided discussion in the issue of general relativity (And unguided if have time).

    Engineer\ Amr Morsi.
  16. Jan 3, 2007 #15
    But Amr,
    Isn't it difficult for GR equations to give this simple result although being so complex and complicated. You are right most of specialized scientists say this fact except very few. But, thee some debates about this. What do you think? Is there more ideas about it? Is there other way (and sure it is) to get this rigid fact from an applied curvature tensor? It seems that you are much experiences in this, Aren't you?

    Schwartz Vandslire.
    Either to do it correctly as required, or to pass it as required.
  17. Jan 5, 2007 #16
    :cool: Vandslire,

    Of course, there are some features of the GR Equations that make some difficulties in our imagination of the situation. This is the main problem that lead some scientists to interpret it as another concept.

    Away from boundaries upon transformations and fluctuations as considered by GR (in general), according to my belief:

    1. A space point in SR, can not be approached by another frame with a speed larger than that of the light.
    2. In GR, Equivalence Principle, doesn't contradict this, but it reshape this (something similar in concept of changing the direction of 3-dimensional vector without changing the magnitude).
    3. LA Principle or (minimum "possible" 4-dimensional length) is equivalent to formulating the shape of force in Newtoninan mechanics (or other Forces; strong electroweak). So, no opposition to our discussed fact.
    4. In the Frame of a Star "Observer at infinity", an approacher to a certain space point will be liable to our conclusion when meeting the properties of the space-time curvature at that point.
    5. And so, is the case in any other frame.

    Of course, some of these points need detailling. But, done and confirmed.

    Amr Morsi.:smile:
  18. Jan 5, 2007 #17
    Just to add Vandslire,

    Some fluctuations (I mean gravitomagnetic furnituring) spreads by a velocity less than that of light.

    But, in general, when speaking about curvature transition, we are referring to gravitational waves, which are through speed of light. No matter, they discovered it or not, but this is the implied in GR's Equation.

    Morsi. :uhh:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?