Do Gravitating Bodies Warp the Fabric of Space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaketodd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary
Gravitating bodies do warp spacetime, causing light and objects to follow curved paths around them, a phenomenon confirmed by observations such as gravitational lensing. The discussion emphasizes the importance of considering time alongside space when examining this curvature, as geodesics—straight paths in spacetime—appear curved in three-dimensional space. While the balloon analogy helps visualize this concept, it also highlights the complexity of defining the direction of curvature in spacetime. The conversation touches on the nature of motion in warped spacetime, explaining that objects follow straight lines in spacetime, which can lead them toward massive bodies. Overall, the consensus is that gravitating masses do influence the fabric of spacetime, leading to observable effects on light and motion.
jaketodd
Gold Member
Messages
507
Reaction score
21
Physics news on Phys.org
That's a nice analogy, but personally I'd be careful with words like "the fabric of space".

It is true, that light is bent in the direction of gravitational masses. In fact, if the mass is large enough (or more strictly speaking, the mass density) light can be bent so strongly that its orbit is bent into a circle or even more. In that case you have black hole.

Usually, however, the effects are visible near stars. In that case, an object can lie behind a star, like in the lower picture you linked. However, for an observer at the tip of the arrow, the light seems to have originated from somewhere like the far upper corner of the sheet (just draw a tangent line to the last part of the light orbit). This effect has been measured for the sun, as one of the first experimental tests of GR (actually, this effect also exists in Newtonian gravity, but its a factor off which GR gets right) and since it has been seen in action numerous times in so called gravitational lensing, mostly with large clusters and gas clouds.
 
Thanks but my question is still unanswered. Is space bent towards a gravitating mass? Or does no one know? What did Einstein think?

Thanks,

Jake
 
I suggest you take a look at the gravitomagnetic field equations, which are a first-order approximation to GR but good enough to give you an idea of what is going on. The effect is similar to the effect due to a magnetic field caused by a moving charge.

"Is space bent towards a mass?" is, I think, a strange question to ask. To properly examine the curvature, you have to take time into account as well. The result of the curvature is that straight lines in space-time appear to be curved toward masses in space.
 
espen180 said:
I suggest you take a look at the gravitomagnetic field equations, which are a first-order approximation to GR but good enough to give you an idea of what is going on. The effect is similar to the effect due to a magnetic field caused by a moving charge.

"Is space bent towards a mass?" is, I think, a strange question to ask. To properly examine the curvature, you have to take time into account as well. The result of the curvature is that straight lines in space-time appear to be curved toward masses in space.

I appreciate your post. It sounds like I don't need to understand gravitomagnetic field equations. "...straight lines in space-time appear to be curved toward masses..." So the answer to my question seems to be a simple "yes." Right?

Thanks,

Jake
 
jaketodd said:
I appreciate your post. It sounds like I don't need to understand gravitomagnetic field equations. "...straight lines in space-time appear to be curved toward masses..." So the answer to my question seems to be a simple "yes." Right?

Thanks,

Jake

"...straight lines in space-time appear to be curved toward masses...when isolated in space". You have to take time into account. The fact that space in curved toward something makes little sense to me. The only way to get it right, as far as I know, is to include all four dimensions of space-time.
 
Ok, gravitating bodies warp spacetime toward them. Is that correct then? What do you mean by "when isolated in space"?

Thanks,

Jake
 
well I think 'isolated in space' is means that body of certain mass is alone to be observe or in other words it is alone. You can imagine that it is easy to observe the effect when it is only one who shows some deformation in light's straight line path.
prakash0
 
What I meant is that geodesics, which are the straightest possible paths in space-time, sppear curved in space (i.e. not straight lines in space).

What does it mean that something warps spacetime towards it?
 
  • #10
jaketodd said:
Is it true that gravitating bodies actually warp the fabric of space towards them like in this picture? http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/grwarp.gif

Like in http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/todd3.pdf "paper" you just "published" based on what you are learning here.
 
  • #11
starthaus said:
Like in http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/todd3.pdf "paper" you just "published" based on what you are learning here.

Is learning here and applying that knowledge to my work against any rules?
 
  • #12
If you think about space time as a baloon where the stretchiness of the balloon at a spot on its surface is determined by its mass/energy density, then the surface of the balloon will be dimpled. The rate of time and the spatial dimensions are all determined by the radius of the dimple. Motion across the surface of the baloon means that you will be moving through dimples in space time as well as causing a dimple to propagate over the surface.
 
  • #13
TCS said:
If you think about space time as a baloon where the stretchiness of the balloon at a spot on its surface is determined by its mass/energy density, then the surface of the balloon will be dimpled. The rate of time and the spatial dimensions are all determined by the radius of the dimple. Motion across the surface of the baloon means that you will be moving through dimples in space time as well as causing a dimple to propagate over the surface.

Thank your for that idea. It sparked some of my own.

I guess it works as a 2D analogy of a closed universe, but it doesn't help jaketodd, since inhabitants on the baloon surface cannot experimentally determine the direction of the curvature (positive if on the outside, negative if on the inside, but this is impossible for the 2-dimensional inhabitants to determine).

Nevertheless, the baloon analogy is exellent for demonstrating that asking in what direction spacetime curves is nonsense. We can see that on the balloon, spacetime is embedded in 4 dimensional space (2 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal dimension and a fourth dimension into which spacetime also curves). By analogy we can see that we would need a 5-dimensional space in which to embed our 4-dimensional spacetime for us to be able to ask in which direction spacetime curves, and even then it would be a question of definiton.
 
  • #14
espen180 said:
Thank your for that idea. It sparked some of my own.

I guess it works as a 2D analogy of a closed universe, but it doesn't help jaketodd, since inhabitants on the baloon surface cannot experimentally determine the direction of the curvature (positive if on the outside, negative if on the inside, but this is impossible for the 2-dimensional inhabitants to determine).

Nevertheless, the baloon analogy is exellent for demonstrating that asking in what direction spacetime curves is nonsense. We can see that on the balloon, spacetime is embedded in 4 dimensional space (2 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal dimension and a fourth dimension into which spacetime also curves). By analogy we can see that we would need a 5-dimensional space in which to embed our 4-dimensional spacetime for us to be able to ask in which direction spacetime curves, and even then it would be a question of definiton.

I like the balloon analogy because it allows me to visulaize masss/energy density as the thickness of the rubber and also that we are part of space time, were part of the fabric that holds the universe together.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
espen180 said:
We can see that on the balloon, spacetime is embedded in 4 dimensional space (2 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal dimension and a fourth dimension into which spacetime also curves). By analogy we can see that we would need a 5-dimensional space in which to embed our 4-dimensional spacetime for us to be able to ask in which direction spacetime curves, and even then it would be a question of definiton.

You don't necessarily need a 5th dimension. Imagine, instead of a dimple, spacetime stretched toward a massive object without curving into a 5th dimension. However, the question remains: What force or tendency makes objects go into regions of stretched spacetime?
 
  • #16
jaketodd said:
You don't necessarily need a 5th dimension. Imagine, instead of a dimple, spacetime stretched toward a massive object without curving into a 5th dimension. However, the question remains: What force or tendency makes objects go into regions of stretched spacetime?

Objects are like wave packets in space time, where the the medium of oscillation is the energy density. Greater energy density changes the elasticity and causes time to slow down. When the localized energy in a wave packet enters a high energy density region, the rate of energy transmission through space slows down. Accordingly, the wave energy is trapped in the slowed down area of space and since the location of the object is based upon the location of the energetic portion of its wave function, the object goes into the higher energy region of space time.
 
  • #18
  • #19
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb..._and_general_relativity/curved_spacetime.html
jaketodd said:
but it doesn't explain why something starting from rest, relative to a massive object, starts falling toward the massive object.

Yes it does:

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb/demomanual/modern_physics/principal_of_equivalence_and_general_relativity/curved_time.gif

The "falling object" here is initially at rest in space : it advances initially only along the (proper)time dimension. But It starts moving in space towards the massive object ("more stretched spacetime"), just by advancing locally straight in spacetime.
 
  • #20
If the "falling object" mirrored the path of the proper time in the graphic, then it would stay at the top of the house.
 
  • #21
jaketodd said:
If the "falling object" mirrored the path of the proper time in the graphic, then it would stay at the top of the house.
It wouldn't be a free falling object then, because it's path through spacetime(worldline) wouldn't be a straight line anymore. In order to keep the object at the top of the house, you have to bend it's worldline by applying an upwards force on the object.
 
  • #22
In the graphic, why doesn't the object have to mirror the axis of proper time? What causes it to deviate from that path?
 
  • #23
jaketodd said:
If the "falling object" mirrored the path of the proper time in the graphic, then it would stay at the top of the house.



In the four dimensional model of space time, you are never stationary. In uncurved space, you are moving at a constant velocity in the direction of time. When space curves, some of your velocity is in the other three dimensions.

However, I think that five dimensional models provide a more intuitive picture of space time.
 
  • #24
TCS said:
In the four dimensional model of space time, you are never stationary. In uncurved space, you are moving at a constant velocity in the direction of time. When space curves, some of your velocity is in the other three dimensions.

However, I think that five dimensional models provide a more intuitive picture of space time.

So you're saying inherent temporal velocity is transferred to spatial velocity in the environment of warped spacetime? There still needs to be something that chooses which spatial direction to go in. And if you bring a 5th dimension into it, there needs to be a force that pulls things into a dimple of spacetime.
 
  • #25
jaketodd said:
In the graphic, why doesn't the object have to mirror the axis of proper time?
Because there is no real force acting on it (it is in free fall), it advances on a straight line trough spacetime.

jaketodd said:
What causes it to deviate from that path?
In GR you don't need a cause to advance straight in spacetime - it the default behavior of all objects. You need a cause (force) to deviate from that straight line.

jaketodd said:
There still needs to be something that chooses which spatial direction to go in.
By moving locally straight you always tend towards the area of increasing distances (more stretched spacetime). This is dictated by geometry as shown in the pictures.

jaketodd said:
And if you bring a 5th dimension into it, there needs to be a force that pulls things into a dimple of spacetime.
No, moving locally straight is enough.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
A.T. said:
Because there is no real force acting on it (it is in free fall), it advances on a straight line trough spacetime.

Since the graphic defines the proper time as curved, then an object with no forces on it would mirror that curved path. It would be following the curvature of time in spacetime. The movement of the object as presented in the graphic would be like taking a shortcut straight across a dimple in the time part of spacetime.
 
  • #27
jaketodd said:
Since the graphic defines the proper time as curved, then an object with no forces on it would mirror that curved path.
No. The graphic shows how GR models gravitation, and in GR force free objects advance locally straight in spacetime. Maybe you are confusing GR with a different (your own?) theory.
 
  • #28
A.T. said:
No. The graphic shows how GR models gravitation...

A.T. said:
...gravitation...

A.T. said:
gravitation

Finally, a force that makes things move in spacetime and can lead to the straight line in the graphic.
 
  • #29
A.T. said:
Because there is no real force acting on it (it is in free fall), it advances on a straight line trough spacetime.

In GR you don't need a cause to advance straight in spacetime - it the default behavior of all objects. You need a cause (force) to deviate from that straight line.

As you can see, before you where claiming no force on the object.
 
  • #30
A.T. said:
gravitation
jaketodd said:
Finally, a force...
Where did I say "force" ? "Gravitation" refers to the general phenomena, not a specific model.
jaketodd said:
...that makes things move in spacetime
No. In GR you don't need a force to make things advance in spacetime. All objects advance in spacetime by default.
jaketodd said:
and can lead to the straight line in the graphic.
No. In GR you don't need a force to advance locally straight in spacetime. It is the default behavior of force free objects.
jaketodd said:
As you can see, before you where claiming no force on the object.
Yes, in GR within inertial frames, free falling objects are force free.
 

Similar threads

High School How fast do space-time changes propagate?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Does Space Recover or Oscillate After Being Distorted by Massive Objects?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
984
High School Can We Use Space/Time Fabric to See the Past?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
High School A question about warp bubbles and navigation
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Undergrad Does the Alcubierre drive shorten distances?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
High School Ride Gravitational Waves to Increase Speed?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Is Spacetime a Real Physical Entity or Merely a Conceptual Framework in Physics?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Why is the fabric of space and time always portrayed flat?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
Undergrad Alcubierre Warp Drive: Spacetime Diagram Explained
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
High School Does Mass determine our depth in the fabric of space?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K