Is it possible that speed of a gravitational waves are greater than c?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the possibility of gravitational waves traveling faster than the speed of light (c), exploring theoretical implications, observational evidence, and the nature of gravitational fields in relation to black holes and general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether gravitational waves could exceed the speed of light, citing the escape velocity at a black hole's event horizon.
  • Others argue that the gravitational field exists prior to the formation of a black hole and may not be static, raising questions about how changes in mass affect the gravitational field.
  • A participant suggests that under quantum electrodynamics, gravity could be mediated by virtual particles, which are not bound by event horizons.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumption that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, with some participants calling for further testing of this assumption.
  • One participant emphasizes that general relativity predicts gravitational waves travel at the speed of light and has been validated by experimental tests, including observations of binary pulsars.
  • Another participant mentions Lorentz invariance as a key aspect of general relativity that limits propagation speeds to c, suggesting that deviations would contradict established predictions.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the direct observation of gravitational waves and the implications of their speed, suggesting that alternative theories would need to be self-consistent and compatible with observed phenomena.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of gravitational wave speed on the power radiated by orbiting bodies and the orbital decay of binary pulsars, with calculations presented to support the argument that gravitational waves travel at c.
  • One participant notes that if gravitational radiation does not travel at c, it would complicate the framework of relativity significantly.
  • Another participant refers to a controversial attempt to measure the speed of gravity, indicating ongoing debates in the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on whether gravitational waves can exceed the speed of light. Some support the notion that they travel at c based on general relativity, while others question this assumption and explore alternative possibilities.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the speculative nature of some claims regarding gravitational wave speed and the dependence on the validity of general relativity and alternative theories. The discussion also highlights the unresolved status of direct observations of gravitational waves.

  • #31
what i got is this- http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
According to it gravitational wave's speed faster than light, though i don't think so and feel its rubbish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ravi Mandavi said:
what i got is this- http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
According to it gravitational wave's speed faster than light, though i don't think so and feel its rubbish.

The article is clear to point out that it does not dispute the idea that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. What it questions is whether changes to the gravitational field necessarily propagate as gravitational waves, or whether they are different and therefore not bound to the requirement of traveling at c.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
If gravity is the thing that defines spacetime, why is it necessary bounded by a speed, that is only meaningful, when we know exact parameters of spacetime, what is exactly one meter and one sec?
One sec in strong gravity and week gravity isn't exactly the same.
 
  • #34
GTOM said:
If gravity is the thing that defines spacetime, why is it necessary bounded by a speed, that is only meaningful, when we know exact parameters of spacetime, what is exactly one meter and one sec?
One sec in strong gravity and week gravity isn't exactly the same.

To the person in strong/weak gravity, one second is the same.

Why is it necessarily bounded by a speed? A gravitational wave does distort spacetime, and can also be detected. A physicist with an instrument that detects that wave can know that there's a mass at the source of the wave, so the wave can be thought to contain the information that a mass is there. But information can't travel faster than light.
 
  • #35
GTOM said:
If gravity is the thing that defines spacetime, why is it necessary bounded by a speed, that is only meaningful, when we know exact parameters of spacetime, what is exactly one meter and one sec?
One sec in strong gravity and week gravity isn't exactly the same.

Gravity does not define spacetime. Gravity is merely a property of energy and mass occupying an area of spacetime that causes an effect we call "curvature". We measure distance and time using measuring devices, such as a meter stick and a clock and have defined a specific distance and a specific interval on the clock as one meter and one second. There is no known reason that the speed of light be the limiting speed at which information can travel through the universe. It is only known that this limit exists.
 
  • #36
"We measure distance and time using measuring devices, such as a meter stick and a clock and have defined a specific distance and a specific interval on the clock as one meter and one second. "But as far as i understand, a clock will tick with a different rate at the bottom and at the top of a gravity well. Locally of course it can't be noticed, just like you can't notice Earth's orbit and motion locally, but you can measure time dilation, when connecting different time zones.

So if Sun would suddenly disappear, time and space would also change nearby, as theese things are flexible like rubber IMHO. So even if gravity waves proceed with speed of light, is it obligatory, that they have to reach Earth in 8,33 minutes? /Normally one astronomical unit is 8,33 light-minute./ Again, spacetime itself would be rearranged, rulers stretch, clocks will tick faster without strong gravity.(I don't see the casuality violation just bacause someone could get an information FTL, if he can't CHANGE the past, although he can see the sender's past, when he gets that information. )

Of course, theese are theoretical questions, i waiting for corrections again.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
GTOM, since gravity is transmitted by gravitational waves, it'll take 8 min 33 sec (?) for the disturbance to reach Earth.

And the causality violation? Basically:

Observer A and B are moving away from each other (so we get time dilation effects.)

Observer A sends a message to observer B faster than c.

Observer B, as soon as (s)he receives it, sends it back to observer A faster than c.

Depending on the speeds of observers A and B, and how much faster than c the signal's transmitted, it's possible for observer A to receive the message before (s)he sends it. So say (s)he decides to send a simple true/false and sends the opposite of what they received. What then?
 
  • #38
And what if A and B sends radio waves, then they arrive instantly? /If there is any possibility, that FTL messages arrive before they were sent. I'm pretty sure, one can see, that they arrived before they were sent./
There is a different time zone on a mountaintop, if somebody put a clock up to a top, and to a valley, eventually, they would show significantly different times. But it mean no time travel and casuality violation to go up and down.Otherwise, yes if an object falls into a black hole, it arrives from the outside, but what if the black hole itself is moving? The gravity field has to be updated outside the event horizont.

Also i wonder, what is exactly a gravity wave? It can be also a small oscillation remained after the update of a gravity field, like sound remains after a gunshot. /The blast itself is supersonic/
 
  • #39
GTOM said:
And what if A and B sends radio waves, then they arrive instantly? /If there is any possibility, that FTL messages arrive before they were sent. I'm pretty sure, one can see, that they arrived before they were sent./
There is a different time zone on a mountaintop, if somebody put a clock up to a top, and to a valley, eventually, they would show significantly different times. But it mean no time travel and casuality violation to go up and down.

The key is

a) They're moving at a significant relative velocity away from each other

b) The messages are quite significantly faster than light

You can perform the calculations if you like to show that it'll be received before it's sent.

And the case of another clock on top of a mountaintop, that is not the same case in any way. In the case I just mentioned, one of the significant details is there's an absolute symmetry between observer A's reference frame and observer B's.
 
  • #40
Suppose a pulse of light falls into a massive object. As the light falls down the gravity well it gains momentum by blue-shifting. Conservation of momentum demands that the object also gains momentum in the opposite direction. If the object does accelerate it would mean that the pulse of light is having an effect on the object prior to its arrival.

I don't mean this as an argument for FTL gravity, it's just scenario I don't understand. Does conservation of momentum not hold in GR or is it conserved in this scenario in some way I don't see?
 
  • #41
mrspeedybob said:
Suppose a pulse of light falls into a massive object. As the light falls down the gravity well it gains momentum by blue-shifting. Conservation of momentum demands that the object also gains momentum in the opposite direction. If the object does accelerate it would mean that the pulse of light is having an effect on the object prior to its arrival.

I don't mean this as an argument for FTL gravity, it's just scenario I don't understand. Does conservation of momentum not hold in GR or is it conserved in this scenario in some way I don't see?

Interesting. Given that a change in a field such as gravity propagates at c, as does light, that almost seems to make light constantly in a "gravity shockwave" as it moves. Unless I'm totally mistaken, which is likely.
 
  • #42
"You can perform the calculations if you like to show that it'll be received before it's sent."

My calculations : t = s/v shows you need infinite speed just to get immediate response.
Okay, let's complicate things with time dilation. So their clocks will show, they didnt get the reply in 10 hours, just one hour.
One minute if message is sent with 60c.

So Observer B gets message from sender A and he can see, it has arrived before it was sent.
Than, he resends it, so A can notice the message was arrived before it was sent by B, and B already saw it was arrived before it was sent.
The problem is, what they see, is information depreacted by hours.
 
  • #43
GTOM this has nothing to do with time dilation. If you perform a lorentz transformation between two relativistic frames sending signals at a greater than c velocity relative to each other (The exact values vary with observer and signal velocity), then according to the math one of the frames WILL receive a signal before it sent it's first. You cannot calculate this without using the lorentz transformation.
 
  • #44
t=s/v

How should i perform the calculations to get a negative value instead of positive or imaginary value at worst?

What arrives instantly, if FTL message can possibly arrive before it was sent?
 
  • #45
GTOM said:
t=s/v

How should i perform the calculations to get a negative value instead of positive or imaginary value at worst?

What arrives instantly, if FTL message can possibly arrive before it was sent?

a) Observer A sends an FTL message, wait until Observer B receives the message in Observer A's reference frame. Note that Observer B's moving away from the message, so that must be taken into account.

b) Now calculate how much time's passed for Observer B, and now we're in Observer B's reference frame. As Observer B receives it, calculate how much time's passed for Observer A in their reference frame since the beginning of the experiment.

c) Observer B now sends the message back to Observer A, and take into account the fact that observer A's also moving away from the message. Using the same logic, it should arrive before it was sent in some cases.

(Note that this depends on how fast Observer A and B are moving relative to each other and how much faster than light the message is going.)
 
  • #46
I guess i am a retard, but i get lost at the points : WAIT UNTIL Observer B receives the message. Calculate how much time's PASSED.
Maybe if i could see the exact equations at least.

Even if a clock will show it has arrived before it was sent, if you add the time dilation caused by the DISTANCE, it will be still a positive value.
 
  • #47
The time dilation caused by the distance. Do you mean for Observer A? In this case, both observers A and B measure the same distance between them, no length contraction is present.

EDIT: Forget that. It is present. It just means Observer B appears contracted from Observer A's point of view and vice versa.
 
  • #48
Ok, would you be so kind to write down the equations, how do you get the negative value of time passed?
I can get only a complex value if the gravity propagation also affected by Lorentz transformations, not just electromagnetic waves.

Also : how can the gravity field of black hole updated outside the event horizont if the black hole moves?
 
  • #50
"So if I tug on a string of space-time, it's not individual atoms moving, it's a continuous string so as I pull on my end, the other end moves simultaneously."

Can't be simultaneous across our universe! The 'ends' are in question also.
 
  • #51
justwondering said:
"So if I tug on a string of space-time, it's not individual atoms moving, it's a continuous string so as I pull on my end, the other end moves simultaneously."

Can't be simultaneous across our universe! The 'ends' are in question also.

Are you quoting someone in the thread? If so, you can just hit the "Quote" button on their post.
 
  • #52
Nothing in this universe moves 'instantly' at the other end when you push/pull it. It's called Young's modulus, in case you were curious.
 
  • #53
Ok, while i still processing this, the following questions emerged :

"It is clear that two events that are simultaneous in frame S (satisfying Δt = 0), are not necessarily simultaneous in another inertial frame S′ (satisfying Δt′ = 0). Only if these events are colocal in frame S (satisfying Δx = 0), will they be simultaneous in another frame S′."

That takes the assumption, that gravity isn't absolute spacetime.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0116043/specialtheorytext.htm

That takes the assumption, that not just local time, not just a ruler's size, but distance itself is dependent on light.Is there any experiment, that invalidates, that gravity is absolute spacetime?http://vixra.org/pdf/1110.0037v1.pdf

That says the working of GPS shows that c is constant in the frame of gravity field.
Not constant to everything that moves. (Like Earth's surface. MM experiment doesn't showed Earth's rotation due to the length contradiction of the interferometer's arm.)

What do theese calculations say about the following dilemma i read : there is a fast moving train, observer A on the train, observer B is on the ground.
You light two bulbs at the begin and end of the train.
Is it possible, that both A and B see both lights at the same time?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K