Universal speed of gravity attraction?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the speed at which gravity is transmitted between masses, questioning whether this occurs instantaneously or at the speed of light. According to General Relativity Theory (GRT), changes in gravitational influence travel at light speed, contrasting with Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation (TUG), which posits instantaneous gravity. This difference is exemplified by the unexplained precession of Mercury's orbit, which GRT accurately accounts for, resolving discrepancies noted since the mid-19th century. The conversation also touches on the theoretical implications of creating mass suddenly, highlighting that mass conservation prevents such scenarios, leading to paradoxes. Ultimately, the speed of gravity is a critical aspect of understanding gravitational interactions in the universe.
jetset
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
In theory:

If mass is created all the sudden, how long does it take for another pre-existing mass to "feel" the new one? is this dependant on the medium through which the "pulse" travels? would it be instant? would it be light speed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
According to the General Theory of Relativity (GRT), the speed of gravity is the speed of light. So if (for instance) the Sun were to disappear right now, we wouldn't know it for the eight minutes it would take both the change in the light and the change in the gravity to reach us.

This is one of the major differences between GRT and Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation (TUG); the TUG says that the speed of gravity is instantaneous. This introduces a difference in the way that the planets are predicted to orbit the Sun; these differences are most notable in the closest planet, Mercury. In fact, one of the known problems with the TUG that was being studied at the time of the discovery of Neptune (during the mid-nineteenth century) was the orbit of Mercury.

Mercury, like all the planets, orbits the Sun in an ellipse. The Sun is at one focus of this ellipse. The major axis (the line connecting the foci of the ellipse) of this ellipse rotates around the Sun. After accounting for all of the influences of the other planets on Mercury, astronomers found that there was a remaining unexplained discrepancy in the rate of rotation of the major axis of Mercury's orbit, an error of about 43.03 seconds of arc per century. This meant that Mercury's orbit's major axis was making a complete extra turn, and an unexplained one, every 3 million years.

In 1915, Einstein, using the equations of GRT, showed that it accounted exactly for this discrepancy. This was the first astronomical proof of GRT.

Thanks to Dr. Isaac Asimov, for the explanation in his History of Physics, Walker, 1984, which I have used as a source.
 
In fact, one of the known problems with the TUG that was being studied at the time of the discovery of Neptune (during the mid-nineteenth century) was the orbit of Mercury.
can you do a little bit explanation here?
 
jetset said:
In theory:

If mass is created all the sudden, how long does it take for another pre-existing mass to "feel" the new one? is this dependant on the medium through which the "pulse" travels? would it be instant? would it be light speed?

The answer is very simple. You can't create mass "all of a sudden". So you get paradoxes when you assume you can. The solution to the paradoxes - realize you can't "create mass", because it is conserved.
 
vincentchan said:
can you do a little bit explanation here?
Given that I explained the problem with the orbit of Mercury and the resolution of it by GRT, I guess I'm not quite clear on what you'd like explained.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top