Measuring curvature of space around a star

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the measurement of space curvature around a large isolated star, focusing on the empirical methods a space geographer might use to determine the length of a radial geodesic segment between two known circumferences surrounding the star. Participants explore theoretical frameworks and practical measurement techniques, including the use of light, plumb lines, and the implications of spacetime geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes measuring the curvature of space using radial geodesics and suggests that the length of a radial geodesic segment could be determined through known circumferences of surrounding spheres.
  • Another participant questions whether radial coordinate lines outside the horizon are spacelike geodesics and discusses integrating the line element along the radial coordinate.
  • There is a discussion about the physical methods a space geographer might use to find and measure the radial geodesic, including the use of light, mirrors, plumb lines, or dropping stones.
  • Some participants note that there are more complex spacelike geodesics but assume they are not relevant to the current discussion.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of a rotating star on the nature of radial lines and the uniqueness of static foliations in spacetime.
  • One participant suggests that a plumb line could be used to find the direction of the radial geodesic but questions its accuracy due to potential stretching.
  • Another participant argues that the speed of light is not constant in strong gravity, complicating the use of light for measuring distances, and suggests that round trip light time could be mathematically converted to geodesic distance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the methods for measuring radial geodesics and the implications of spacetime curvature, particularly concerning rotating versus non-rotating stars. There is no consensus on the best empirical approach or the effects of gravity on measurement techniques.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations related to the assumptions made about the star's rotation and the nature of spacelike geodesics. The discussion also highlights the complexities of measuring distances in a gravitational field and the potential inaccuracies of various measurement methods.

lavinia
Science Advisor
Messages
3,385
Reaction score
760
I am wondering how space geographers would measure curvature of space around a large isolated star. i am thinking of the set up where there are two nearby spheres surrounding the star whose circumferences are already known. The remaining step is to measure the length of a radial geodesic segment connecting the two spheres. This it seems would give measurements in geodesic polar coordinates and would allow the computation of curvature using the usual formulas.

How then does one find a geodesic ray and the measure its length?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aren't radial coordinate lines (t=theta=phi=0, SC coordinates) outside the horizon spacelike geodesics? It looks like this should be so from the geodesic equations, and it seems this is regularly assumed. Then you just integrated the line element along r, with all other coords held to zero.

Am I missing what you are asking?
 
PAllen said:
Aren't radial coordinate lines (t=theta=phi=0, SC coordinates) outside the horizon spacelike geodesics? It looks like this should be so from the geodesic equations, and it seems this is regularly assumed. Then you just integrated the line element along r, with all other coords held to zero.

Am I missing what you are asking?

yes you are right. I was asking an empirical question, How does the space geographer find the radial geodesic physically? And how does he measure the distance between the spheres with instruments? Suppose he is standing on one of the spheres and the other one is some large structure. Does he use light and mirrors? Does he drop a plumb line? does he drop a stone and measure how long it takes for the stone to land?
 
Note, there are other more complex spacelike geodesics, but I assume those are not relevant.

Also, note that a free faller using GP coordinated can foliate a region of spacetime such that the spatial slices are exactly Euclidean flat for the induced metric. Then, all curvature would only be seen by involving time.
 
lavinia said:
yes you are right. I was asking an empirical question, How does the space geographer find the radial geodesic physically? And how does he measure the distance between the spheres with instruments? Suppose he is standing on one of the spheres and the other one is some large structure. Does he you light and mirrors. Does he drop a plumb line? does he drop a stone and measure how long it takes for the stone to land?

For a radial, spacelike geodesic, for static foliation, a plumb line would be the physical analog.
 
PAllen said:
Note, there are other more complex spacelike geodesics, but I assume those are not relevant.

Also, note that a free faller using GP coordinated can foliate a region of spacetime such that the spatial slices are exactly Euclidean flat for the induced metric. Then, all curvature would only be seen by involving time.
Provided the star does not rotate.
Closest to GP coordinates for a rotating star is the Doran metric.
 
Passionflower said:
Provided the star does not rotate.
Closest to GP coordinates for a rotating star is the Doran metric.

Yes, I assumed the star was not rotating (which is obviously absurd in the real world). If it were rotating, then a radial line (in typical coordinates) would not be (exactly) a spacelike geodesic, and there wouldn't be a unique static foliation (because the spacetime is not static).
 
PAllen said:
For a radial, spacelike geodesic, for static foliation, a plumb line would be the physical analog.

I can see why the plumb line would find the direction of the radial geodesic. But wouldn't it stretch and give an answer that is too small? Why wouldn't one use the plumb line to first find the radial direction but use reflected light beamed in the radial direction to measure the distance?
 
lavinia said:
I can see why the plumb line would find the direction of the radial geodesic. But wouldn't it stretch and give an answer that is too small? Why wouldn't one use the plumb line to first find the radial direction but use reflected light beamed in the radial direction to measure the distance?

Because the speed of light is not constant (assuming strong gravity). The closest physical analog to radial proper distance would be a plumb line of extremely high tensile strength.

Of course, if you know the geometry, you could mathematically convert round trip light time to geodesic distance.

You could use roundtrip light time * c as a radial distance coordinate directly. You just can't assume it measures proper distance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
82
Views
6K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K