Looking for linear frame dragging formula

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jonathan Scott
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of linear frame dragging as predicted by General Relativity, particularly in the context of accelerated gravitational sources and their effects on nearby objects. Participants explore theoretical formulations and seek clarification on the value of a constant related to this phenomenon.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes linear frame dragging as an effect where an accelerated gravitational source induces a small acceleration on other objects, suggesting a formula for the induced acceleration.
  • The same participant proposes a specific form for the induced acceleration, questioning the value of a constant ##n## in this context and speculating it might be ##n = 2## based on their interpretation of gravitational potentials.
  • Another participant provides a reference to a 2005 paper that offers a comprehensive treatment of linear dragging, noting that the derivations are complex.
  • A subsequent reply expresses appreciation for the reference but critiques the model's assumptions, suggesting that a simpler approximation could have been used.
  • This participant mentions that the paper concludes with a specific value of ##n = 4/3##, which aligns with the factor found in the Lense-Thirring effect, but indicates uncertainty about whether this model addresses their original question.
  • A later post emphasizes the importance of including the stress-energy tensor of the source producing the acceleration when considering frame dragging effects, cautioning against overlooking the conservation of momentum in such scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate value of the constant ##n## and the assumptions underlying the models discussed. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the definitive value of ##n## and the implications of including the stress-energy tensor in the analysis.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the effects of linear frame dragging are typically too small to be experimentally confirmed and that the discussion is heavily theoretical. There are also mentions of specific models and assumptions that may not universally apply.

Jonathan Scott
Gold Member
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
1,192
Linear frame dragging is the effect predicted by General Relativity that if a gravitational source is accelerated, this produces a small gravitational induction effect on other objects which tends to accelerate them in the direction of the source acceleration. The induced acceleration is a multiple of the gravitational potential due to the source times the acceleration of the source. It is analogous to the ##\partial A/\partial t## term in the electric field expression for electromagnetism.

At present, it is too small an effect to be confirmed experimentally, being normally swamped by the usual gravitational field, so it seems to be largely ignored. However, for a clean theoretical situation one could for example consider a test mass inside a spherical shell, where there should be no static field, and then accelerate the shell.

The induced acceleration is presumably approximately of the following form:
$$n \frac{Gm}{rc^2} \frac{dv}{dt}$$

I would like to know what ##n## is in this context. Can anyone provide a definitive reference, please? I've looked in various text books (for example MTW, Wald, Ciufolini & Wheeler "Gravitation and Inertia") and Googled without finding anything useful. I also have an old paper on frame dragging by Nordtvedt, but I don't understand it enough to extract the information I need.

If gravity was the same as electromagnetism, we would have ##n = 1##. However, the gravitational equivalent of the four-potential is a tensor quantity, so it does not transform in the same way as the electromagnetic potential. My guess is ##n = 2##, as I think the approximate equivalent of the four-potential of a moving gravitational source involves the square of the classical velocity, ##\phi(1+\tfrac{2v}{c}+\tfrac{v^2}{c^2})##, which of course does not transform as a four-vector.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's a link to a 2005 paper with a comprehensive treatment of the subject: A model for linear dragging that contains references to earlier work. Be warned that the derivations and results in the paper are rather involved. As the authors state:
1753887586323.webp
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JimWhoKnew and Jonathan Scott
Thanks very much - that's much better than anything I found so far. But it's a lot to digest to get the value of a simple constant! Their model for the method of acceleration seems very contrived, being a charge distribution inside the shell. I know that constant linear acceleration in free fall needs energy, but I would have hoped they could have assumed something like a distant mechanism and light strings for approximation purposes (which would still of course contribute source terms involving tension and pressure).

From a very quick look, it appears to conclude that for some specific model n=4/3, the same factor as for the Lense-Thirring rotation, but it could take me a while to understand whether that model matches my question.
 
Jonathan Scott said:
if a gravitational source is accelerated
Note that doing this means you need to include whatever is producing the acceleration in the gravitational source (the stress-energy tensor). For example, in the scenario you pose later on, with a spherical shell with a test mass inside, and the shell getting accelerated, whatever accelerates the shell also has stress-energy and has to be included. And since accelerating the shell will involve accelerating something else in the opposite direction (by conservation of momentum), whatever linear dragging occurs due to the shell ought to, at least to first order, be cancelled by the dragging due to the something else.

A common mistake in posing scenarios involving gravity in GR is to forget that a self-consistent solution for an object with nonzero proper acceleration has to also include whatever is producing the acceleration.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
29
Views
4K