Q-reeus
- 1,115
- 3
This thread has greater longevity than anticipated so am butting in again. Physics Monkey presented an argument in #72 (mentioned again in #84, and I see just now in #99) that seems open and shut case. For an extended body sampling a non-uniform field it is only to be expected net motion is not generally the result of assuming a COM applicable for a perfectly rigid mass immersed in a perfectly uniform field. But is this truly pointing to the limited validity of WEP, or rather the limited validity of a particularly simple definition of COM? Why wouldn't one define an effective COM that took proper and sensible account of things like tidal deformation, non-uniform 'sampling effects in a tidal field, non-uniformity of energy density owing to gravitational interaction, and non-uniformity of the metric defining COM? In short, COM in the general setting is properly a dynamical quantity. So are we to believe that when all of the above is correctly incorporated, path of free-fall of effective COM still follows a non-geodesic? Depends on convention here surely - what is to be the yardstick for defining what. And I note this extended body matter is departing from the OP's query which centers around mass independence of free-fall, not spatial extent as factor.
[EDIT: Darn it - on second thoughts one will always find with extended rigid-body systems that inertial and passive gravitational COM will generally differ (as per Physics Monkey's extreme example). But in this setting is a 'pathology' of an extended composite entity. So I will stick to the matter of mass as determining factor, and thus below remarks.]
On a similar vein: PAllen in responding to the example of two co-orbiting neutron stars in an otherwise flat background metric, admitted there was no generally agreed on position as to whether a geodesic made sense or could be well defined. But a read of the article raised in #42
"New limits on the strong equivalence principle from two long-period circular-orbit binary pulsars" http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404270
makes it clear there are dynamical consequences if WEP/SEP fails that cut right through any ambiguities about defining geodesic motion. Namely that the combined system will move in ways not consistent with the momentum conservation principle - and that would unambiguously show up on the canvas of a flat background metric - ie astronomical observations. There is no such observed effect. My conclusion: mass-independent free-fall consistent with WEP/SEP is fact, and 'departures' from that are artifacts of adopting simplifying definitions (eg rigid, invariant COM, excising contribution of test mass from total metric curvature). Now you fellas can run rings around me as far as mathematical grasp of GR goes. But looked at just as matter of logical consistency of founding principles (elevator in free-fall etc), seems clear the OP's premise necessarily holds once proper (as opposed to what looks to be purely 'consensus') definitions are made and adhered to. If this is all wrong-headed then please explain where and how exactly! :zzz:
[EDIT: Darn it - on second thoughts one will always find with extended rigid-body systems that inertial and passive gravitational COM will generally differ (as per Physics Monkey's extreme example). But in this setting is a 'pathology' of an extended composite entity. So I will stick to the matter of mass as determining factor, and thus below remarks.]
On a similar vein: PAllen in responding to the example of two co-orbiting neutron stars in an otherwise flat background metric, admitted there was no generally agreed on position as to whether a geodesic made sense or could be well defined. But a read of the article raised in #42
"New limits on the strong equivalence principle from two long-period circular-orbit binary pulsars" http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404270
makes it clear there are dynamical consequences if WEP/SEP fails that cut right through any ambiguities about defining geodesic motion. Namely that the combined system will move in ways not consistent with the momentum conservation principle - and that would unambiguously show up on the canvas of a flat background metric - ie astronomical observations. There is no such observed effect. My conclusion: mass-independent free-fall consistent with WEP/SEP is fact, and 'departures' from that are artifacts of adopting simplifying definitions (eg rigid, invariant COM, excising contribution of test mass from total metric curvature). Now you fellas can run rings around me as far as mathematical grasp of GR goes. But looked at just as matter of logical consistency of founding principles (elevator in free-fall etc), seems clear the OP's premise necessarily holds once proper (as opposed to what looks to be purely 'consensus') definitions are made and adhered to. If this is all wrong-headed then please explain where and how exactly! :zzz:
Last edited: