Weak equivalence principle and GR

[Physics Monkey]

I can't see much more of any interest in this exchange.
Let's just agree to disagree. Surely I'm not here to convince anyone, and I feel I made my point clear. Hope someone finds it interesting.

Perhaps I'll give my own "closing argument".

I am trying to convince people. I am not doing this just to be argumentative but because I want everyone reading this thread to be able to appreciate the stunning power and subtlety of GR. Instead of quibbling about the precise meaning and history of the equivalence principle, we can accept it as a very useful approximation and move on understand the incredible richness of gravitational phenomena in the universe.

We can follow the evolution of the universe from the hot plasma that existed 13 billion years ago to the stark and empty desert we now find ourselves in. We can calculate the minute deflection of distant star light as it passes the gravitational field of our own Sun. We can study the gravitational dynamics of colliding supermassive black holes. We can predict the orbital decay of binary pulsars due to the slow emission of gravitational radiation. I could obviously go on.

In my opinion, readers of this thread can choose between at least two points of view. On one side you have vague complaints about the idea of a test body, lots of quotations about the equivalence principle, and a point of view that finds it hard to acknowledge the role of approximation in science. On the other side, you have equations and derivations that anyone with a background in calculus and a reasonable study of GR can verify, a careful confrontation with experiment, and a willingness to accept approximation and uncertainty.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Perhaps I'll give my own "closing argument".

I am trying to convince people. I am not doing this just to be argumentative but because I want everyone reading this thread to be able to appreciate the stunning power and subtlety of GR. Instead of quibbling about the precise meaning and history of the equivalence principle, we can accept it as a very useful approximation and move on understand the incredible richness of gravitational phenomena in the universe.

We can follow the evolution of the universe from the hot plasma that existed 13 billion years ago to the stark and empty desert we now find ourselves in. We can calculate the minute deflection of distant star light as it passes the gravitational field of our own Sun. We can study the gravitational dynamics of colliding supermassive black holes. We can predict the orbital decay of binary pulsars due to the slow emission of gravitational radiation. I could obviously go on.

In my opinion, readers of this thread can choose between at least two points of view. On one side you have vague complaints about the idea of a test body, lots of quotations about the equivalence principle, and a point of view that finds it hard to acknowledge the role of approximation in science. On the other side, you have equations and derivations that anyone with a background in calculus and a reasonable study of GR can verify, a careful confrontation with experiment, and a willingness to accept approximation and uncertainty.

Yeah, I bet you'll convince many people with such a well-balanced summary, you forgot to say you were not able to refute anything from the OP, ignored most of the arguments offered and recurred to inventing "personal attacks" to hide the fact you couldn't cope with the argumets given.
As a reader of this thread I don't have any problem with both of the sides you mention, no need to choose, they are compatible,with the only caveat that certainly I have seen no one else but you finding hard to acknowledge the role of approximation in science. But I guess you find hard science in general.
Thanks for your constructive contribution too.

 

[cosmik debris]

As long as the bodies are sufficiently well-separated that one can ignore tidal interactions and other effects that depend upon the finite extent of the bodies (such as their quadrupole and higher multipole moments), then all aspects of their orbital behavior and gravitational wave generation can be characterized by just two parameters: mass and angular momentum.

This statement confuses me, if you ignore quadrupole and higher moments how can the mass and angular momentum describe gravitational wave generation?

 

[PAllen]

This statement confuses me, if you ignore quadrupole and higher moments how can the mass and angular momentum describe gravitational wave generation?

The quote referenced was from Clifford Will. The way you quoted it made it seem like my words.

The explanation is that you have two bodies of given mass and angular momentum in mutual orbit. You compute the gravitational waves on that basis, no other information needed (given the approximating conditions describe in Will's quote are met). The quadrupole moment generating the gravitational waves comes from the mutually orbiting bodies.

Maybe something else needs clarification: the idea is that if the bodies are far enough apart, you can ignore any quadrupole moment (changes) of the body itself (e.g. due to internal pulsations) for the purpose of calculating gravitational waves due to their mutual orbit.

 

[Physics Monkey]

Yeah, I bet you'll convince many people with such a well-balanced summary, you forgot to say you were not able to refute anything from the OP, ignored most of the arguments offered and recurred to inventing "personal attacks" to hide the fact you couldn't cope with the argumets given.
As a reader of this thread I don't have any problem with both of the sides you mention, no need to choose, they are compatible,with the only caveat that certainly I have seen no one else but you finding hard to acknowledge the role of approximation in science. But I guess you find hard science in general.
Thanks for your constructive contribution too.

Naturally my "closing argument" used rhetorical devices, it's not meant to be a unbiased presentation, just a fun attempt at debate. The equations and arguments given earlier already provide a relatively unbiased point of view without any help needed from me.

And of course, my post is hardly worse than an out of context quote highlighting a definition (of test bodies and their paths) that would only paragraphs later be acknowledged as impossible to realize using physical particles (as I and others have pointed out n \rightarrow \infty times). This is true even though you had the larger quote buried earlier in the thread.

I propose the following. If I understand your claim correctly, you maintain that all objects follow geodesics in GR if acted only by gravitation forces. So I ask you once more straight up, where are the geodesics in the two mass problem I gave? As I see it, you can either:
1) Show to the readers here the geodesic.
2) Otherwise tell us why the formulation I gave is wrong.
3) Complain about geodesics in Newtonian gravity, even though we know Newton is a limit of GR and that geodesics satisify \ddot{x} = g(x)
4) Ignore the question
5) Clarify for us your actual position so that I can repose the question.

 

[TrickyDicky]

I propose the following. If I understand your claim correctly, you maintain that all objects follow geodesics in GR if acted only by gravitation forces. So I ask you once more straight up, where are the geodesics in the two mass problem I gave? As I see it, you can either:
1) Show to the readers here the geodesic.
2) Otherwise tell us why the formulation I gave is wrong.
3) Complain about geodesics in Newtonian gravity, even though we know Newton is a limit of GR and that geodesics satisify \ddot{x} = g(x)
4) Ignore the question
5) Clarify for us your actual position so that I can repose the question.

I already explained in a previous post that we can't speak strictly about geodesics in a flat Newtonian space, and also explained your formulation of the thought experiment with a rod is fine with me, and how it had little to do with my claim, you must have missed those posts.
You are of course entitled to opine otherwise, that is fine with me, once again I'm not trying to convince anyone, nor do I think I hold the TRUTH as you seem to, but at this point I guess if you didn't grasp what I'm saying is due to any of these:
1)You are not willing to, and are trying to engage in gratuitous dispute
2)You are not able to

I'll be delighted with any kind of serious debate though.

 

[TrickyDicky]

The explanation is that you have two bodies of given mass and angular momentum in mutual orbit. You compute the gravitational waves on that basis, no other information needed (given the approximating conditions describe in Will's quote are met). The quadrupole moment generating the gravitational waves comes from the mutually orbiting bodies.

Maybe something else needs clarification: the idea is that if the bodies are far enough apart, you can ignore any quadrupole moment (changes) of the body itself (e.g. due to internal pulsations) for the purpose of calculating gravitational waves due to their mutual orbit.

But how do you separate the quadrupole moment which is proportional to the momentum of inertia for a particular orbital shape, from the angular momentum of the system?
You seem to forget that in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar the calculations of the GW energy is derived from the quadrupole moment tensor, and it is a detached binary system (bodies far enough apart). So you are saying that precisely what is used for the purpose of calculating gravitational waves must be ignored. Maybe you didn't explain yourself well enough, or else I (and maybe cosmik debris), am misunderstanding you.

 

[TrickyDicky]

About test particles:
First of all, let's remember again, test bodies are an idealization. They don't exist. Bodies of different masses do exist, at leat last time I checked.
I was doubting whether or not quoting any more relevant references , because curiously, even though in this site citing well known and relevant texts and papers to back one's claims is apparently officially encouraged (if not mandatory), everytime I cite some author even if that reference is provided by someone else I'm harshly criticized. And when I use my own words they're rather ignored. Not sure what's better.
But here they go, the authors are 't Hooft and Sean Carroll, hope it is fine to quote their public notes on GR.
Actually 't Hooft, don't even use the term "test particle" or "test body",neither in his brief treatment of the EP,nor on his whole notes about GR, soI just use it as an example that "test particles" are just a useful approximation for solving problems, but given the fact they can't be defined rigorously, or rather that they can be used for many purposes so they are better not used in formal definitions if the try to be specific.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/lectures/genrel_2010.pdfCarroll does name test particles in his explanation of the EP and does it precisely in the sense I've used (which as I said it is not the only one possible, thus the formal vagueness of the concept, and its usefulness in solving problems in the approximative, linear regime),
when he says on p. 97:
"the behavior of freely-falling test particles is universal, independent of their mass (or any other qualities they may have)"

According to this, precisely what the EP does is allowing us is to use test bodies as another way to say, bodies of any mass.
Of course the use of the term meaning bodies at the limit of low mass is also valid in the right context, and it is usually used by FTheorists as I explained on some other post.(But then again the quantum space is flat so it makes sense)http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9712/9712019v1.pdf

 

[Physics Monkey]

I already explained in a previous post that we can't speak strictly about geodesics in a flat Newtonian space, and also explained your formulation of the thought experiment with a rod is fine with me, and how it had little to do with my claim, you must have missed those posts.
You are of course entitled to opine otherwise, that is fine with me, once again I'm not trying to convince anyone, nor do I think I hold the TRUTH as you seem to, but at this point I guess if you didn't grasp what I'm saying is due to any of these:
1)You are not willing to, and are trying to engage in gratuitous dispute
2)You are not able to

I'll be delighted with any kind of serious debate though.

How does the motion of the balls+rod system have little to do with your claim when you claim all bodies move on geodesics? Of course, I'd be happy to hear if this is not your claim, but if not, can you please state your claim clearly and precisely once and for all. Also, you didn't "explain" that we can't talk about geodesics in Newtonian space, you simply declared it.

But that's fine. Here is the Newtonian limit metric:
ds^2 = - (1 + 2 \phi ) dt^2 + (1 - 2 \phi ) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

Show us that the massive body consisting of two massive balls connected by a light rod of fixed length follows a geodesic. Otherwise, please state you claim clearly and precisely so that we can adjust the problem to discuss it.

 

[PAllen]

But how do you separate the quadrupole moment which is proportional to the momentum of inertia for a particular orbital shape, from the angular momentum of the system?
You seem to forget that in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar the calculations of the GW energy is derived from the quadrupole moment tensor, and it is a detached binary system (bodies far enough apart). So you are saying that precisely what is used for the purpose of calculating gravitational waves must be ignored. Maybe you didn't explain yourself well enough, or else I (and maybe cosmik debris), am misunderstanding you.

I think I explained fine, for some reason you are not following. I said, for the purpose of calculating GW from the mutual orbit, you can ignore the contrubution due finite extent and shape changes of each body, if they are far enough apart - treating them as point mass (possibly with angular momentum from their spin). So the only quadropole moment you worry about is due to the mutual orpit of spinning point masses.

This, of course, is just a 'very good approximation', if the separation is large enough (the larger the separation, and the more compact the bodies are to begin with, the better the approximation).

(Please note, I am not the source for any of this analysis: it is Clifford Will summarizing his and other's analysis; he provides pointers to the primary research papers justifying the approximations).

 

[Q-reeus]

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:

 

[TrickyDicky]

How does the motion of the balls+rod system have little to do with your claim when you claim all bodies move on geodesics? Of course, I'd be happy to hear if this is not your claim, but if not, can you please state your claim clearly and precisely once and for all. Also, you didn't "explain" that we can't talk about geodesics in Newtonian space, you simply declared it.

From the WP:"In mathematics, a geodesic (pronounced /ˌdʒiːɵˈdiːzɨk/, /ˌdʒiːɵˈdɛsɨk/ JEE-o-DEE-zik, JEE-o-DES-ik) is a generalization of the notion of a "straight line" to "curved spaces"
Excuses for not presenting the definition before, I was under the belief that it was a moreless known concept for the participants in this thread.

My claim has been stated many times and actually is not my claim but the definition of the WEP.
Q-reeus has answered any remaining doubts about the specific problem at hand.

I'm starting to suspect the cause of your misunderstanding is 2) in the above post, in which case I would recommend you to read some basic text on GR (Ryder's is a good intro), being aware of the limitations of the concept of "test body" mentioned in this thread.

 

[PAllen]

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:

I will comment only on a few aspects of this.

The reference paper makes no statement as to whether the pulsars may be treated as following geodesics of the complete, dynamic, spacetime. This interesting question is complicated by several factors: lack of universally accepted definition of COM in GR context (though this is not very significant for the case of compact, nearly sperical objects); and the fact that all solutions to the two body problem are numeric, making it hard to accurately decide if some world line is precisely following a geodesic. It definitely appears that the answer to this question is not well known (maybe known by some experts, but not well known; I have no idea of the answer).

Note, also, a fact not mentioned in the paper because it is 'obvious background understanding': If the assemblage of matter into a compact object releases energy (which, of course, it does), the resultant mass of the object declines, the difference representing the gravitational binding energy of the object. In this sense, self gravitation clearly affects the mass of an object. However, the point of the paper and relevant experiments is that to the extent 'finite size' can be ignored, self gravitation has no other impact beyond its affect on mass (specifically, the Nortveldt effect has never been observed).

None of this is really relevant to the WEP, as most commonly stated. Its most common statement is *specifically* to highlight the fact that for test bodies small enough in mass enough not to perturb other 'sources' of gravity, and small enough in extent for finite size effects to be insignificant, that the the trajectory is independent of mass, composition, internal structure. It is is not trying to probe the most general conditions under which an object follows a spacetime geodesic.

 

[Physics Monkey]

From the WP:"In mathematics, a geodesic (pronounced /ˌdʒiːɵˈdiːzɨk/, /ˌdʒiːɵˈdɛsɨk/ JEE-o-DEE-zik, JEE-o-DES-ik) is a generalization of the notion of a "straight line" to "curved spaces"
Excuses for not presenting the definition before, I was under the belief that it was a moreless known concept for the participants in this thread.

My claim has been stated many times and actually is not my claim but the definition of the WEP.
Q-reeus has answered any remaining doubts about the specific problem at hand.

I'm starting to suspect the cause of your misunderstanding is 2) in the above post, in which case I would recommend you to read some basic text on GR (Ryder's is a good intro), being aware of the limitations of the concept of "test body" mentioned in this thread.

Thanks for this, I laughed out loud when I saw that you had included pronunciations in your response.

I guess you aren't aware that the geodesics of the metric I wrote above are, in the Newtonian limit, simply identical to solutions of Newton's 2nd law with potential \phi.

In any event, since it's clear you are unwilling and unable to seriously discuss the issues, I shall not waste anymore time here.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Thanks for this, I laughed out loud when I saw that you had included pronunciations in your response.

I'm glad you did, that was the purpose of including it, to keep a relaxed and humorous tone when treating these sometimes dry issues.

I guess you aren't aware that the geodesics of the metric I wrote above are, in the Newtonian limit, simply identical to solutions of Newton's 2nd law with potential \phi.

Sure, I am aware of that, and guess what makes possible that identity: the WEP in the way I'm formulating it.
The fact remains that the Newtonian limit is the metric of a space at the limit of being flat, and geodesics in strict sense apply to curved spaces.
I've already explained how the WEP allows recovering the Newtonian limit in GR, and linear approximations for calculations such as the precession of Mercury and deflection of light. But IMO it doesn't allow to generalize features intrinsic to the linear solutions to the non-linear theory. (see doubt about GW thread).

In any event, since it's clear you are unwilling and unable to seriously discuss the issues, I shall not waste anymore time here.

I regret you get that impression, I can only assure it doesn't correspond with reality.
Don't consider it a total waste of time though: without any sarcasm, I really think you might learn something. I certainly have.

 

[atyy]

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:

The usual formulation is a freely falling test particle follows a geodesic of the background spacetime.

If the particle is massive, since mass generates curvature, the particle will generate additional curvature in addition to that of the background spacetime. So the full spacetime is not the background spacetime, and the particle should not move on a geodesic of the background spacetime. Presumably it should move on something like a geodesic of the full spacetime? That's tricky to check, because each the the particle moves, the spacetime changes, and you have to compute a new geodesic.

But apparently, it has been calculated. I am not sure I am reading it correctly, but it seems that the result is that up to first order, the particle moves on a geodesic of the full spacetime. See the comments on the generalized equivalence principle in http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0529 , p143, the section on the Detweiler-Whiting Axiom.

As far as I know, the EP is always "local". What does local mean? It means up to first order in derivatives. What has locality to do with a derivative? Well, a derivative involves taking the difference of values at two spacetime points, so it is "non-local" in that sense (mathematically, it is local, since the limit of that exists at each point). So the EP is never exact in the sense of to all orders. It is exact in the sense of a limit, and provide that limit doesn't include second derivatives ("local"). However if we use the mathematical meaning of "local" and include second derivatives, then the EP is always an approximation. So whether the EP is exact or not depends on your definition of "local".

Now, how did we know that the "local" in the EP meant "up to first derivatives" (as opposed to zero or third order derivatives)? We didn't. The EP was a imprecise rule of thumb until we had GR, in which an EP can be precisely defined.

But more generally, Einstein's EP isn't a "principle of GR". Rather, the EP was one of the many "rules" of thumb Einstein used to construct GR. Those "rules" could have given other consistent theories. These theories are ruled out by experiment, not pure thought. We take GR as the principle, not the EP or some other rule of thumb, because GR has passed experimental tests, not because of pure thought. So GR will survive as the principle, until experiments say otherwise.

 

[PAllen]

The usual formulation is a freely falling test particle follows a geodesic of the background spacetime.

I have always seen this referred to as, e.g. the geodesic hypothesis. It is specific to GR. Meanwhile, the WEP, EEP, and SEP are meant to classify gravitational theories, and make no statements about geodesics (because they are potentially meant to apply to non metric theories, at least at the outset). From what I've seen the following review presents the most generally accepted formulations of the various EPs (and similar wording was used in the OP of this thread):

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

If the particle is massive, since mass generates curvature, the particle will generate additional curvature in addition to that of the background spacetime. So the full spacetime is not the background spacetime, and the particle should not move on a geodesic of the background spacetime. Presumably it should move on something like a geodesic of the full spacetime? That's tricky to check, because each the the particle moves, the spacetime changes, and you have to compute a new geodesic.

But apparently, it has been calculated. I am not sure I am reading it correctly, but it seems that the result is that up to first order, the particle moves on a geodesic of the full spacetime. See the comments on the generalized equivalence principle in http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0529 , p143, the section on the Detweiler-Whiting Axiom.

This whole discussion does not cover the case I was worried about: inspiralling, similarly massive bodies (which in reality are spinning). This discussion is, instead focused (if you read through it) on the case extreme mass ratio system, where the central body is, e.g. a million times the mass of the orbiting body, which allow for the perturbative approaches used. Note specifically, the following summary:

"In the gravitational case the Detweiler-Whiting axiom produces a generalized equivalence
principle (c.f. Ref. [153]): up to order "2 errors, a point mass m moves on a geodesic of the spacetime with
metric g + hR
, which is nonsingular and a solution to the vacuum eld equations. This is a conceptually
powerful, and elegant, formulation of the MiSaTaQuWa equations of motion. And it remains valid for
(non-spinning) small bodies."

I'm sure I could easily have missed something but I did a lot of searches to see if there was paper or expert statement specifiying whether, in a binary pulsar system, the binary pulsars could be said to follow geodesics of the total spacetime (including the radiation). I could find none. Note also, besides being similarly massive, a binary pulsar system (by definition) involves rapid spinning.

But more generally, the EP isn't a "principle of GR". Rather, the EP was one of the many "rules" of thumb Einstein used to construct GR. Those "rules" could have given other consistent theories. These theories are ruled out by experiment, not pure thought. We take GR as the principle, not the EP or some other rule of thumb, because GR has passed experimental tests, not because of pure thought. So GR will survive as the principle, until experiments say otherwise.

I definitely agree with this.

 

[atyy]

This whole discussion does not cover the case I was worried about: inspiralling, similarly massive bodies (which in reality are spinning). This discussion is, instead focused (if you read through it) on the case extreme mass ratio system, where the central body is, e.g. a million times the mass of the orbiting body, which allow for the perturbative approaches used. Note specifically, the following summary:

"In the gravitational case the Detweiler-Whiting axiom produces a generalized equivalence
principle (c.f. Ref. [153]): up to order "2 errors, a point mass m moves on a geodesic of the spacetime with
metric g + hR
, which is nonsingular and a solution to the vacuum eld equations. This is a conceptually
powerful, and elegant, formulation of the MiSaTaQuWa equations of motion. And it remains valid for
(non-spinning) small bodies."

I'm sure I could easily have missed something but I did a lot of searches to see if there was paper or expert statement specifiying whether, in a binary pulsar system, the binary pulsars could be said to follow geodesics of the total spacetime (including the radiation). I could find none. Note also, besides being similarly massive, a binary pulsar system (by definition) involves rapid spinning.

Yes, I wasn't making a point different from yours (ie. the geodesic equation is only exact for test particles).

 

[PAllen]

I want to add the my 'intuition' suggests there is some sense in which mutually orbiting, similar mass, spinning bodies, of large mass (though compact enough relative to their separation to be treated as pointlike) do follow geodesics of the total spacetime (that includes their mutually perturbative effects, finite propagation time, GW, etc). However, I am totally incapable of demonstrating this, and, so far as I can tell, it has not been successfully investigated. Unlike some, I would not declare that my intuition must be true.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Unlike some, I would not declare that my intuition must be true.

I suspect by some you mean me. In that case, I must say that I've been trying to present "my intuitions" in the form of questions and some long explanatory posts, with and without quoting references. Much of what I have asked has remained unanswered, now that doesn't mean my way of seeing things is the right one. I have also said that I don't pretend to hold the absolute truth about anything.
Perhaps from my tone you can derive what you say in the quotation, I've been told before that I show sometimes a certain intellectual haughtiness. If that were true that is not easy to correct since I do it unwittingly.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Since I consider the possibility to be wrong about this as a real one, I'll just describe my questions in the form of perplexity or confusion that might be derived just from ignorance.

But then I go to the WP page on geodesics, and read:
"Geodesics are of particular importance in general relativity, as they describe the motion of inertial test particles."
"In relativistic physics, geodesics describe the motion of point particles under the influence of gravity alone. In particular, the path taken by a falling rock, an orbiting satellite, or the shape of a planetary orbit are all geodesics in curved space-time."
And add it to the WEP definition from Carroll (aimed to college students):"the behavior of freely-falling test particles is universal, independent of their mass (or any other qualities they may have)"

All I can say is that maybe my perplexity with the difference between what is stated in this thread by some and what I read is justified.
It could be blamed on my reading superficially or that all the sources I read are incorrect due to pedagogical reasons, but even in that case it should be explained in what way are those clear statements wrong.

If I may point to a source of misunderstanding, it seems some consider the background geometry in GR like that in Maxwell field theory, to be fixed, and therefore think that the freefalling body's mass should act as a correction of the geodesic it would otherwise describe if it was a particle in the low mass limit described by GR's linear approximation. However, I think GR is non-linear, and further its geometry defines the motion equations, unlike Maxwell theory, that means the mass of the freefalling body is already integrated in its geodesic path. It wouldn't be a correction of the geodesic motion it would have if it was almost massless, but the geodesic motion dictated by the geometric nature of GR non-linear dynamic background that integrates all sources of curvature (including the body that is freefalling unperturbed by other forces): that is the purpose of general covariance and the tensorial form in which the EFE must be formulated.
Looks as if the fact that we can only tackle GR with approximation methods has led some to forget that the theory is not linear and treat it like classic linear field theory.

If something here is wrong I would like it to be specifically corrected by someone more knowledgeable about GR than me (most people around here).

 

[PAllen]

Since I consider the possibility to be wrong about this as a real one, I'll just describe my questions in the form of perplexity or confusion that might be derived just from ignorance.

But then I go to the WP page on geodesics, and read:
"Geodesics are of particular importance in general relativity, as they describe the motion of inertial test particles."
"In relativistic physics, geodesics describe the motion of point particles under the influence of gravity alone. In particular, the path taken by a falling rock, an orbiting satellite, or the shape of a planetary orbit are all geodesics in curved space-time."

These may seem like very broad statements, but all of these are cases where the object in question is tiny in mass compared to a huge mass gravitational source, and effectively pointlike compared to the gravitational gradient (thus finite size effects are insignificant), and not rapidly spinning.

And add it to the WEP definition from Carroll (aimed to college students):"the behavior of freely-falling test particles is universal, independent of their mass (or any other qualities they may have)"

I don't know why you are having so much difficulty with this. This statement uses the code word test particle. This has established connotations that have been explained by several of the physicists here many times. I also read over the equivalence principle section of the t'Hooft notes you linked. He does not specifically mention test particles (or any concise formulation), but his mathematics makes very clear that he is assuming a large source of gravity is not perturbed by the body under investigation. He assumes the reader is able to see this on their own.

All I can say is that maybe my perplexity with the difference between what is stated in this thread by some and what I read is justified.
It could be blamed on my reading superficially or that all the sources I read are incorrect due to pedagogical reasons, but even in that case it should be explained in what way are those clear statements wrong.

These statements are not wrong. It seems you want to read them differently than the way were intended. This does suggest there is pedagogical weakness in some of these presentations.

If I may point to a source of misunderstanding, it seems some consider the background geometry in GR like that in Maxwell field theory, to be fixed, and therefore think that the freefalling body's mass should act as a correction of the geodesic it would otherwise describe if it was a particle in the low mass limit described by GR's linear approximation. However, I think GR is non-linear, and further its geometry defines the motion equations, unlike Maxwell theory, that means the mass of the freefalling body is already integrated in its geodesic path. It wouldn't be a correction of the geodesic motion it would have if it was almost massless, but the geodesic motion dictated by the geometric nature of GR non-linear dynamic background that integrates all sources of curvature (including the body that is freefalling unperturbed by other forces): that is the purpose of general covariance and the tensorial form in which the EFE must be formulated.
Looks as if the fact that we can only tackle GR with approximation methods has led some to forget that the theory is not linear and treat it like classic linear field theory.

Yes, I think some of this is a source of confusion. One can talk about a geodesic of test particle in a background geometry (excluding the body), versus a complete solution of GR encoding motion of a compact body (otherwise COM difficulties in GR arise) that may turn out to be a geodesic of the complete solution (including other bodies). The former is what is normally done because it is enormously easier to compute, and is sufficient for 'almost all' uses of GR. In particular, note that there is no exact, non-static, two body solution known, so even the simplest case of treating both bodies on the same footing requires approximation. Only in this latter, un-achieved sense, could one talk about "that means the mass of the freefalling body is already integrated in its geodesic path", as you put it. When you compute geodesics in e.g. a Kerr geometry, they have validity as paths only of 'test particles' that may be assumed not to perturb the source of the Kerr geometry; otherwise you would need the non-existent two body solution, or you must accept perturbative approximation methods.

If something here is wrong I would like it to be specifically corrected by someone more knowledgeable about GR than me (most people around here).

I believe I am knowlegeable enough to make these statements. It would be helpful if others more knowledgeable commented on my answers.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Yes, I think some of this is a source of confusion. One can talk about a geodesic of test particle in a background geometry (excluding the body), versus a complete solution of GR encoding motion of a compact body (otherwise COM difficulties in GR arise) that may turn out to be a geodesic of the complete solution. The former is what is normally done because it is enormously easier to compute, and is sufficient for 'almost all' uses of GR. In particular, note that there is no exact, non-static, two body solution known, so even the simplest case of treating both bodies on the same footing requires approximation. Only in this latter, un-achieved sense, could one talk about "that means the mass of the freefalling body is already integrated in its geodesic path", as you put it.

But it is precisely to this last sense only that I've been referring all the time in this thread when bringing up these WEP definitions! I thought it was clear that the EP as an axiom valid for the full non-linear GR had to be expressed that way. Of course that doesn't apply to the linearized version of GR. I really think this was clear from the start, if that is what people has been arguing against, this seems to be a case of prejudiced answering or regrettable misunderstanding.

 

[PAllen]

But it is precisely to this last sense only that I've been referring all the time in this thread when bringing up these WEP definitions! I thought it was clear that the EP as an axiom valid for the full non-linear GR had to be expressed that way. Of course that doesn't apply to the linearized version of GR. I really think this was clear from the start, if that is what people has been arguing against, this seems to be a case of prejudiced answering or regrettable misunderstanding.

I guess both mis-understanding and disagreement. EP definitions are not axioms of GR, but general principles for comparing and motivating theories of gravity, and they make no statements about geodesics (because, among other things, they are meant to be usable to characterize non-metric theories). The geodesic equation of motion is meant to apply only to 'test bodies'. The only axiom of GR is its field equation (equivalently, its action principle). The full field equations allow derivation geodesic motion of test bodies against background geometry, with the normal understanding of test bodies (so this need not be a separate axiom).

For the case of a binary star system, it is obviously meaningless to talk about geodesics of a backgrouond geometry - what would it be? Because there is no known exact, non-static, two body solution, the only thing known about this case at all is numerical approximations from the full equations (which have greatly advanced over the years). It is somewhat surprising to me that the question of whether star's motions are (very nearly) geodesics of the complete (perturbative) solution is not known (for the similar mass case), but that appears to be the case. It may be that no one has been sufficiently interested in this question.

Finally, note that any time you want to make a statement about motion of an arbitrarily large mass in GR, you have to deal with the two body (or N-body) problem, for which ... see last paragrapgh.

In my view, this has all been said, and for whatever reason, this discussion proceeds in circles without progress toward mutual understanding.

 

[Q-reeus]

The heavy going paper "The motion of point particles in curved spacetime" atyy linked to in #106 is while impressing as a masterpiece of technical excellence, also a reminder of the fragmentation in philosophy (definitions, methodology etc) amongst GR specialists on this issue(s). My impression is everyone participating here could find something in that article to vindicate their own position. Used to think GR was the cut-and-dried classical theory where the only real difficulty was in finding solutions to horrendously difficult non-linear equations. But evidently there are numbers of subtle issues still unresolved. I see an unexpected parallel with the situation in QM where numerous interpretations abound and the dictum is "We have Schrodinger's equation - shut up and calculate". Just replace 'Schrodinger's equation' with 'EFE's' and it seems one has GR. That's my way of easing out of this long running thread.
Finally, TrickyDicky, a word of advice. In championing the Equivalence Principle, General Covariance Principle etc, there is one principle you have failed miserably to uphold. What is that you may ask? The Don't-Open-A-Can-Of-Worms-But-If-You-Do-Put-The-Lid-Back-On-It-Quick Principle!

 

[PAllen]

On the question of motion equal mass binaries, the state of the art analyzing the motion is impressive, but the question asked here (is a geodesic of the total geometry followed) was not even asked in e.g. the following:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4551 (Equal mass Neutron star case)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4184 (Equal mass black holes)

 

[TrickyDicky]

The only axiom of GR is its field equation (equivalently, its action principle). The full field equations allow derivation geodesic motion of test bodies against background geometry, with the normal understanding of test bodies (so this need not be a separate axiom).

This doesn't seem right. How can the EFE by themselves be axiomatic when so many different solutions, many of them unphysical can be derived from them depending on the boundary conditions- symmetries applied?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Tricky asked me via PM to comment on this thread. I'm not sure I have much to add. I am not a GR expert; I just know a lot of differential geometry, of which GR is a special case.

Is the "weak equivalence principle" specifically defined in this thread or in another thread? I couldn't find a definition after a brief skimming.

As for motion on a spacetime manifold, it is certainly true that "test masses follow geodesics". However, remember there is no such thing as a test mass.

If you try to look at point masses, then you have tiny black holes, and then you are asking what "path" a singularity takes. Since the geometry is singular at the singularity, this can't really be formulated as a local law of motion.

If you instead look at extended masses, then you no longer have a single "path". If each part of the extended mass follows a local geodesic, then you have a geodesic spray. But this assumes that the mass has no cohesive forces to hold it together; i.e., it is a dust. These sorts of things don't actually exist either, but they can be good approximations.

I haven't had a chance to read the long review paper on motion in GR, but I probably will later.

 

[TrickyDicky]

Tricky asked me via PM to comment on this thread. I'm not sure I have much to add. I am not a GR expert; I just know a lot of differential geometry, of which GR is a special case.

Thanks for joining.

Is the "weak equivalence principle" specifically defined in this thread or in another thread? I couldn't find a definition after a brief skimming.

One definition that has been used in the thread is:"The world line of a freely falling test body is independent of its composition or structure". By which I understand that they also mean to be independent of mass.

As for motion on a spacetime manifold, it is certainly true that "test masses follow geodesics". However, remember there is no such thing as a test mass.

If you try to look at point masses, then you have tiny black holes, and then you are asking what "path" a singularity takes. Since the geometry is singular at the singularity, this can't really be formulated as a local law of motion.

If you instead look at extended masses, then you no longer have a single "path". If each part of the extended mass follows a local geodesic, then you have a geodesic spray. But this assumes that the mass has no cohesive forces to hold it together; i.e., it is a dust. These sorts of things don't actually exist either, but they can be good approximations.

All this is true. So what it was proposed is to use the path followed by the center of mass of the massive object as the one representing the body's geodesic motion.

 

[PAllen]

This doesn't seem right. How can the EFE by themselves be axiomatic when so many different solutions, many of them unphysical can be derived from them depending on the boundary conditions- symmetries applied?

I don't understand this question. Given a theory, you go in with initial conditions, boundary conditions, and possibly symmetry condtions that corrrespond to reasonable hypotheses about the system you want to study (up to the whole observable universe). Then you look for a solution. There is only a problem if reasonable conditions lead to ambiguous or unreasonable solutions. I am not aware of this being the case for GR. Instead, the unreasonable solutions are associated with initial and boundary conditions that are believed to be unreasonable and certainly not resembling known portions of the observable universe.