Parallel transport to explain motion of light near black hole?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of parallel transport in explaining the motion of light near a black hole, particularly in the context of general relativity. Participants explore how parallel transport relates to the perceived speed of light and gravitational effects, such as redshift, while considering pedagogical approaches for teaching these concepts to non-science majors.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant discusses using parallel transport as a qualitative explanation for the geodetic effect and the behavior of light near black holes, questioning its effectiveness in conveying the concept of apparent speed changes to students.
  • Another participant argues that parallel transport does not change the null nature of light vectors, suggesting that while the speed of light remains constant, the apparent frequency can change, thus linking it to gravitational redshift.
  • A later reply proposes that the Doppler shift could be explained through parallel transport of the momentum vector of light, although it acknowledges potential confusion regarding the rescaling of vectors while maintaining their norm.
  • Another participant suggests using a massive test particle as an example of parallel transport, noting that while the mass remains unchanged, the direction of momentum changes, which could help clarify the concept.
  • One participant raises a hypothetical scenario about parallel-transporting a null vector along different paths, questioning whether the resulting vectors could differ by a scaling factor, depending on the path taken.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of parallel transport in explaining the motion of light near black holes. While some see potential in linking it to gravitational redshift and Doppler effects, others remain skeptical about its applicability to changes in the speed of light. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their pedagogical approach, including the lack of definitions for certain coordinates and metrics, which may affect the clarity of the concepts being discussed.

  • #31
martinbn said:
If you parallel transport a vector around a loop you can end up with a vector with a diffrent orientation. Then why can't you end up with a vector at 180 degrees angle with the original i.e. a scalor multiple, where the scalor is -1? It seems quit possible. Start at the north pole facing south, walk along a meridian till you reach the equator, move along the equator for half of the circumference, then go back north to the pole. You end up facing the other way compare to you start.

You're right, that's a clear counterexample. I think the problem is my assertion that the result generalizes from infinitesimal parallelograms to larger paths. Now that I think more carefully about it, it's clearly wrong. If you add a bunch of vectors that are not parallel to a given line, you can still get a sum that's parallel to the line.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
After posting a bunch of wrong stuff about the rescaling of null vectors, I think I finally understand it better. The antisymmetry of the Riemann tensor on its first two indices is exactly the condition needed so that parallel transport around an infinitesimal closed loop doesn't change inner products. For such a loop lying in a fixed plane, the set of possible actions by Riemann tensors are therefore the six-dimensional set of linear transformations that preserve inner products. In other words, they are the set of possible Lorentz transformations. Such a transformation can certainly take a null vector and rescale it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: martinbn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K