Warping of Spacetime

[RajeshTrivedi]

While the Time Dilation aspect remains full of questions in a parallel thread, nonetheless there is a very fruitful and enlightening argument given by a new member who has many peer reviewed papers to his credit. Interestingly GP-B experiment was also chipped in and I think we must understand, what this GP-B experiment per say proved......whether public really understand the usefulness and outcome of this experiment........We will try to focus on the nature of the spacetime which permits it to get dragged or/and warped.

This analogy is taken from one of the internet resources.....

..........According to Einstein’s theory, space and time are not the immutable, rigid structures of Newton’s universe, but are united as spacetime, and together they are malleable, almost rubbery. A massive body warps spacetime, the way a bowling ball warps the surface of a trampoline. A rotating body drags spacetime a tiny bit around with it, the way a mixer blade drags a thick batter around........

So, without taking sides, is it incorrect to say that anything which gets dragged, warped or curved or distorted will have to necessarily have materialistic properties ?

[Best exception : 'our thinking', which is non materialistic but still capable of distortion.]

 

[paddoboy]

While the Time Dilation aspect remains full of questions in a parallel thread,

That is patently false. Time Dilation is evidenced and proven beyond doubt.

So, without taking sides, is it incorrect to say that anything which gets dragged, warped or curved or distorted will have to necessarily have materialistic properties ?

[Best exception : 'our thinking', which is non materialistic but still capable of distortion.]

Who are you trying to fool? Without taking sides. You already have taken sides, as is evidenced in your methodology over half a dozen threads.
Suffice to say that spacetime is real, and all GP-B did was add the finishing touches so to speak, specifically with the Lense Thirring effect.
Other Satellites before GP-B had evidenced spacetime warping.
And no, something does not need to be physical to be real. spacetime/gravity is the best example of that.

 

[paddoboy]

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

 

[paddoboy]

Interestingly GP-B experiment was also chipped in and I think we must understand, what this GP-B experiment per say proved......

From the Horse's mouth.......

https://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
Final results of the GP-B experiment were announced at NASA HQ in Washington DC on 4 May 2011.
The experimental results are in agreement with Einstein's theoretical predictions of the geodetic effect (0.28% margin of error) and the frame-dragging effect (19% margin of error). For details,see Mission Status Update page...

Summary of Final GP-B Experimental Results
After 31 years of research and development, 10 years of flight preparation, a 1.5 year flight mission and 5 years of data analysis, our GP-B team has arrived at the final experimental results for this landmark test of Einstein’s 1916 general theory of relativity. Here is the abstract from our PRL paper (see next section) summarizing the experimental results.


Einstein's predicted geodetic and frame-
dragging effects, and the Schiff Equation
for calculating them.
(Click to enlarge image.)

Gravity Probe B, launched 20 April 2004, is a space experiment testing two fundamental predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR), the geodetic and frame-dragging effects, by means of cryogenic gyroscopes in Earth orbit. Data collection started 28 August 2004 and ended 14 August 2005. Analysis of the data from all four gyroscopes results in a geodetic drift rate of -6,601.8±18.3 mas/yr and a frame-dragging drift rate of -37:2±7.2 mas/yr, to be compared with the GR predictions of -6,606.1 mas/yr and -39.2 mas/yr, respectively ('mas' is milliarc-second; 1 mas= 4.848 X10-9 radians or
2.778 X10-7 degrees).
The table and diagram below show the individual gyroscope results, the weighted average results for all four gyroscopes combined, and the theoretical predictions for both effects from Einstein's general theory of relativity, as calculated by Stanford physicist, Leonard Schiff.

Note: The individual and combined statistical uncertainties are corrected for the "over" and "under" dispersion using the Χ2 of the individual estimates in the N-S and W-E directions. Please see our PRL paper (next section below) for more detailed information about these results and their derivation.

Gravity Probe B — Final Experimental Results
GyroscoperN-S (Geodetic Measurement)rW-E (Frame-Dragging Measurement)
Individual Gyroscope Results
Gyroscope #1-6,588.6±31.7 mas/yr-41.3±24.6 mas/yr
Gyroscope #2-6,707.0±64.1 mas/ yr-16.1±29.7 mas/yr
Gyroscope #3-6,610.5±43.2 mas/yr-25.0±12.1 mas/yr
Gyroscope #4-6,588.7±33.2 mas/yr-49.3±11.4 mas/yr
Weighted-Average Results for All Four Gyroscopes
All Gyroscopes-6,601.8±18.3 mas/yr-37.2±7.2 mas/yr
Schiff-Einstein Predicted Theoretical Values
Theoretical Gyroscope-6,606.1 mas/yr-39.2 mas/yr

Click to view enlarged image.

In the diagram above, the area inside each colored ellipse represents a 95% confidence interval for one gyroscope's measurement of both the N-S (geodetic) and the E-W (frame-dragging) measurements. In other words, the height of each colored ellipse represents a 95% confidence interval for the N-S (geodetic) measurement and the width of each ellipse represents a 95% confidence interval for the W-E (frame-dragging) measurement. The black ellipse shows the weighted average of these measurements for all four gyroscopes combined. The black star in the center of the black ellipse is the actual location of Einstein's predicted geodetic and frame-dragging values.

Back to Top
Gravity Probe B Physical Review Letters (PRL) Paper
On behalf of the GP-B team, Principal Investigator, Francis Everitt, submitted a paper summarizing the GP-B experiment, flight mission, data collection, instrument calibration, data analysis and the final results to PRL in mid-April. The paper is entitled:Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to test General Relativity. This paper was peer-reviewed, resulting in a few suggestions for minor revisions and clarifications. The revisions were made, and the final draft was then sent to PRL on 28 April 2011. The manuscript was accepted for publication on 1 May 2011 and was published in PRL on 31 May 2011, along with a companion APS Physics Viewpoint article by Clifford Will, entitled Finally, results from Gravity Probe B.

Gravity Probe B PRL Paper and APS Physics Viewpoint

View/Download PRL Paper ( PDF)View/Download Clifford Will's Physics Viewpoint (PDF)
Note: We have also posted a copy of the paper to the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology Section (GR-QC) of arXiv.org. This submission, dated 17 May 2011 is numbered arXiv:1105.3456v1. You can download and view a PDF copy of this arXiv submission at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3456


Gravity Probe B Video Files

GP-B in a Nutshell — The Video
14-min YouTube Video
Nutshell overview of the program, experiment, technology and results


GP-B Video File, Part 1
10-min YouTube Video
Technology development,Spacecraft launch & separation and four animationsGP-B Video File, Part 2
14 min YouTube Video
GP-B PI Francis Everitt and Co-PI Brad Parkinson discuss GP-B
You can click on the video playback icons above to view YouTube video clips containing a "nutshell" overview of the program and results, plus video file segments about GP-B technology development and discussions betweeen PI Francis Everitt and Co-PI Brad Parkinson about various aspects of the program.

Back to Top
Press Releases and Message from Stanford President Emeritus Donald Kennedy
Press Releases
Each of the three GP-B collaborative institutions—Stanford, NASA and Lockheed Martin—prepared press releases for the results announcement. Click any of the links below to view these press releases respectively.

Gravity Probe B Final Results Press Releases

Stanford Press Release ( PDF)NASA Press Release (PDF)Lockheed Martin Press Release (PDF)
Message from Stanford President Emeritus Donald Kennedy
Professor Donald Kennedy was president of Stanford University from 1980-1992, the phase of the GP-B program in which the flight hardware was developed and tested, leading directly to the commencement of the GP-B flight mission in 1994. On the occasion of the GP-B Press Conference and Final Results Announcement at NASA Headquarters in Washington DC of 4 May 2011, President Emeritus Kennedy prepared a message to the Stanford community—and the world—about GP-B, Francis Everitt and the GP-B team.



Click the thumbnail above to view a PDF copy of Donald Kennedy's Message

Back to Top
News and Media Coverage
The GP-B Science Update and announcement of the final experimental results at NASA Headquarters on 4 May 2011 generated a considerable amount of press and media coverage. The table below summarizes this press and media coverage to date, including links to each story, as well as links to PDF copies or media files of these stories.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

......... try to focus on the nature of the spacetime which permits it to get dragged or/and warped.......

 

[OnlyMe]

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

Paddoboy, this last sentence is itself an opinion, "This is not speculation, but sound observation."

The conclusion is an interpretation of the results of the experiment. Not an entirely objective observation.

Very often in these discussions spacetime is described or treated as if it has some independent existence from the gravitational mass associated with it. "Mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move."... Which might suggest some kind of kinetic transfer of momentum between mass and spacetime... Or maybe spacetime is really just a geometric description of the gravitational field potential associated with a dynamic gravitationally significant mass. It is kind of like making a distinction between whether a magnet and a magnetic field are two things that interact, or that the magnetic field is just a description of the field potential associated with a magnet.

The GP-B experiment only proves a prediction of GR. It does not prove any specific underlying conceptual interpretation. When you space space and spacetime, the way you do, it becomes difficult to avoid the idea that space is a thing and that momentum can be transferred between space (spacetime) and massive objects... Then you get into the same problematic issues that recently plagued the EM-Drive hype.., conservation of momentum. If momentum can be transferred between a massive object and space/spacetime, an object in motion can no longer be believed to remain in motion indefinitely as it moves through space/spacetime.

A long winded speculation, to point out a potential trap in how, some of the public or lay oriented comments associated with otherwise good science, can create problems.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, this last sentence is itself an opinion, "This is not speculation, but sound observation."

The conclusion is an interpretation of the results of the experiment. Not an entirely objective observation.

I strongly disagree....
Ask yourself, what was the BB? The BB was an evolution of space and time.
From that space and time everything else arose, energy, matter, gravity.
As Sten Odenwald says, gravity is reflected when spacetime is mis-shapen to any degree in the presence of matter/energy.
I think it speaks for itself.

Very often in these discussions spacetime is described or treated as if it has some independent existence from the gravitational mass associated with it. "Mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move."... Which might suggest some kind of kinetic transfer of momentum between mass and spacetime... Or maybe spacetime is really just a geometric description of the gravitational field potential associated with a dynamic gravitationally significant mass. It is kind of like making a distinction between whether a magnet and a magnetic field are two things that interact, or that the magnetic field is just a description of the field potential associated with a magnet.

Sure, spacetime is the geometrical description of a gravity field in the presence of matter/energy, but again space and time [spacetime] at least according to the BB theory is the most fundamental...bring in energy or matter, and the spacetime metric curves/warps or twists, giving us the observable effect of gravity.
I fail to see how there is any transfer of "momentum" between any energy/matter component or field back to the spacetime metric from whence they arose.
And although again energy/matter components are totally necessary for gravity, its the spacetime which is the most fundamental.

The GP-B experiment only proves a prediction of GR. It does not prove any specific underlying conceptual interpretation.

A prediction that matter/energy, will warp/curve/twist spacetime giving us the effect we call gravity.
I see your statement as splitting hairs, and of course the prediction of warped/curved spacetime was already evidenced by other Satellites previously, and in fact way back in 1919 by Eddington and his experiment during a total eclipse.

 

[OnlyMe]

I strongly disagree....
Ask yourself, what was the BB? The BB was an evolution of space and time.
From that space and time everything else arose, energy, matter, gravity.
As Sten Odenwald says, gravity is reflected when spacetime is mis-shapen to any degree in the presence of matter/energy.
I think it speaks for itself.

Sure, spacetime is the geometrical description of a gravity field in the presence of matter/energy, but again space and time [spacetime] at least according to the BB theory is the most fundamental...bring in energy or matter, and the spacetime metric curves/warps or twists, giving us the observable effect of gravity.
I fail to see how there is any transfer of "momentum" between any energy/matter component or field back to the spacetime metric from whence they arose.
And although again energy/matter components are totally necessary for gravity, its the spacetime which is the most fundamental.


A prediction that matter/energy, will warp/curve/twist spacetime giving us the effect we call gravity.
I see your statement as splitting hairs, and of course the prediction of warped/curved spacetime was already evidenced by other Satellites previously, and in fact way back in 1919 by Eddington and his experiment during a total eclipse.

In another thread you agreed that all of cosmology was speculative. Speculation based on theory and reasonable logic within that context but still speculative. How then could the BB not be speculative? There are too many assumptions that cannot at present be proven that go into describing what things were like some 14+ billion years in the past to not accept that it is speculative.

Space + time does not equal spacetime, except in the flat geometry of SR. A great deal more goes into any description of spacetime, as it involves gravitation, than just space and time.

If you believe that spacetime actually causes matter to move in a certain way, such that that matter follows something other than a straight path, it suggests that there is a change in the momentum of the mass, imparted from its interaction with spacetime. That is a transfer of momentum from spacetime to mass. You carry that forward to the GP-B results proving that frame dragging does occur and if spacetime is a thing as you suggest, telling matter what to do.., and it is in tern drug along by the motion of a massive object (mass telling it how to move), there has to be a two way transfer of momentum taking place... Which then implies that when a massive object transfers momentum to spacetime, to conserve momentum it must loose momentum... And there is the nut of the problem with doggedly holding on to that bit of the modern interpretation of GR, because the massive object loosing momentum (transferred to spacetime) is the same as saying that a massive object experiences an inertial resistance to any motion through spacetime, whether it is accelerating or not.

This same issue does not arise if spacetime remains a field description of gravitational potential, because as a field potential no transfer of momentum occurs, between the field and the massive object, the field remains a potential until another mass is involved, like the gyroscopes on the GP-B satellite.

Paddoboy, you do a good job of pulling up mainstream references, but you don't always see that sometimes they don't always agree at a fundamental level.., and that very often they were intended for a lay audience and get misunderstood. One of the worst examples is the phrase, "mass tells spacetime how to curve and space time tells mass how to move.", not because it is inaccurate.., because too many lay persons confuse spacetime and space... and all to often to the lay person spacetime takes on physical characteristics, apart from just describing the field potential.

It is not splitting hairs to make a distinction between spacetime as a geometric description of a gravitational field and spacetime as the cause of gravity. The description does not make any mass move in any particular way. It describes how any mass moves in a gravitational field. No one has yet won a Nobel prize for discovering the fundamental cause of gravity. Even though we can describe how two massive objects interact gravitational, we still can't say why that happens... But we can describe what happens or would happen. We call the major player in that description spacetime. Do I need to say it again? Not because spacetime does the work, because spacetime does a very good job of describing what happens..., not why.

 

[paddoboy]

In another thread you agreed that all of cosmology was speculative. Speculation based on theory and reasonable logic within that context but still speculative.

I can say categorically I did not say that. I would have said some cosmology is speculative, or words to that effect.

Space + time does not equal spacetime, except in the flat geometry of SR. A great deal more goes into any description of spacetime, as it involves gravitation, than just space and time.

Gravitation is the spacetime continuum, and
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

If you believe that spacetime actually causes matter to move in a certain way, such that that matter follows something other than a straight path, it suggests that there is a change in the momentum of the mass

Matter/energy arose from spacetime.
Matter/energy follow paths in curved spacetime, dictated by the curvature of said spacetime.

Paddoboy, you do a good job of pulling up mainstream references, but you don't always see that sometimes they don't always agree at a fundamental level.., and that very often they were intended for a lay audience and get misunderstood. One of the worst examples is the phrase, "mass tells spacetime how to curve and space time tells mass how to move.", not because it is inaccurate.., because too many lay persons confuse spacetime and space... and all to often to the lay person spacetime takes on physical characteristics, apart from just describing the field potential.

I don't believe that something needs to be physical to be real....space is real, time is real, spacetime is real, gravity is real etc ....
I've argued that point in a few threads particularly with time.

It is not splitting hairs to make a distinction between spacetime as a geometric description of a gravitational field and spacetime as the cause of gravity. The description does not make any mass move in any particular way. It describes how any mass moves in a gravitational field. No one has yet won a Nobel prize for discovering the fundamental cause of gravity. Even though we can describe how two massive objects interact gravitational, we still can't say why that happens... But we can describe what happens or would happen. We call the major player in that description spacetime. Do I need to say it again? Not because spacetime does the work, because spacetime does a very good job of describing what happens..., not why.

On those points OnlyMe, particularly the first part, I must again disagree.
Sorry for the briefness of my answers, but I have a few things to do today...

 

[OnlyMe]

my edit: your whole post was a quote, which makes it unquotable

That was a unique way to avoid being quoted in response.

 

[paddoboy]

That was a unique way to avoid being quoted in response.

My error...too much haste, not enough time.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

As Sten Odenwald says, gravity is reflected when spacetime is mis-shapen to any degree in the presence of matter/energy.

and the spacetime metric curves/warps or twists, giving us the observable effect of gravity.

its the spacetime which is the most fundamental.

A prediction that matter/energy, will warp/curve/twist spacetime giving us the effect we call gravity.

Four meaningful points are segregated, these are generally accepted semantics of matter distorting the spacetime and thus Gravity as per GR.....but

1. No mechanism is suggested how the matter distorts the spacetime at a distance.

2. There is no explanation how an object (in the distorted spacetime of some massive object) starts moving from rest.

3. The most used solution is Schwarzschild Metric (SM), but this is a single body solution, that too exterior to the spherical body (Vacuum Solution), that means bringing in second object in the distorted spacetime of an existing spherical object, will give an erroneous results if SM is used.....or at the best approximation.

4. Consider two body system....Einstein Field Equations are complex non linear equations, so the geometry of spacetime cannot be described simply by solving the equations by adding up the mass......Newtonian we could do and we do.

5. This is hypo........Spacetime is outside the the spherical object, so we accept something (which GP-B told us) got distorted or curved or dragged.....but the Gravitation Force (sorry I am using the word Force) is present between (and among all particles of object) the consecutive layers of the solid object (interior to the body), now there is no explanation of what of a solid body gets distorted....we should be able to find out the telly-tale signs of distortions (of what ?) interior to the body.

6. Pt#6 gives an interesting twist to our on going tussle on Time Dilation, the Gravitational Field is different at various points as we travel down fro r = R to r = 0 (From Earth' surface to center), should the Gravitational Time Dilation not effect the stability of Earth (for that matter any celestial object which is spinning).


PS : Only meaningful, to the point and objective response will be appreciated......reference can be given with brief explanation on how the reference is relevant to the point, but pl avoid lengthy copy pastes.

 

[paddoboy]

PS : Only meaningful, to the point and objective response will be appreciated......reference can be given with brief explanation on how the reference is relevant to the point, but pl avoid lengthy copy pastes.

Don't be such a pretentious crank Rajesh. You have been derided and refuted by at least 8 professional people as well as myself, and I'll continue in the way I see fit.

1. No mechanism is suggested how the matter distorts the spacetime at a distance.

Correct. Science does not yet have the answer for why ravity is what it is and how. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen as described.

2. There is no explanation how an object (in the distorted spacetime of some massive object) starts moving from rest.

?? Matter/energy follow the curvature of spacetime.

3. The most used solution is Schwarzschild Metric (SM), but this is a single body solution, that too exterior to the spherical body (Vacuum Solution), that means bringing in second object in the distorted spacetime of an existing spherical object, will give an erroneous results if SM is used.....or at the best approximation.

You are asking questions that you have asked before and that have been answered before. GR covers two, three or any number of body problem solutions, it just gets terribly difficult.

4. Consider two body system....Einstein Field Equations are complex non linear equations, so the geometry of spacetime cannot be described simply by solving the equations by adding up the mass......Newtonian we could do and we do.

Yes it can.

5. This is hypo........Spacetime is outside the the spherical object, so we accept something (which GP-B told us) got distorted or curved or dragged.....but the Gravitation Force (sorry I am using the word Force) is present between (and among all particles of object) the consecutive layers of the solid object (interior to the body), now there is no explanation of what of a solid body gets distorted....we should be able to find out the telly-tale signs of distortions (of what ?) interior to the body.

GP-B measured the warping/curving of spacetime caused by the earth and also the Lense-Thirring effect caused by its rotational properties.
The mass/matter/Earth is not distorted other then the buldge at the Equator through the rotation. But what has this to do with gravity/spacetime?
Once again, you appear to be going out of your way to create red herrings and confusion.

6. Pt#6 gives an interesting twist to our on going tussle on Time Dilation, the Gravitational Field is different at various points as we travel down fro r = R to r = 0 (From Earth' surface to center), should the Gravitational Time Dilation not effect the stability of Earth (for that matter any celestial object which is spinning).

Why would it?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Correct. Science does not yet have the answer for why Gravity is what it is and how. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen as described.

Quite a scientific statement !!

 

[paddoboy]

Quite a scientific statement !!

Thank you....
Summed up rather exquisitely with the famous line.
Matter/energy tells spacetime how to curve: Spacetime tells matter/energy how to move.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Thank you....
Summed up rather exquisitely with the famous line.
Matter/energy tells spacetime how to curve: Spacetime tells matter/energy how to move.

(Post # 14) Sarcasm is a kind of subtle rebuke..

 

[paddoboy]

(Post # 14) Sarcasm is a kind of subtle rebuke..

And continued invalidation of your paper is an even more substantial rebuke, but not so subtle.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

And continued invalidation of your paper is an even more substantial rebuke, but not so subtle.

No, thats your wishful sadistic thinking, seeing your fellow forum member paper go down...But it hasn't.......You just have to wait for some more time, at least it will be apparent that both Prof Hamilton and Prof Link objections is unsustainable.........just the matter of a few more days, let me finish my understanding of polytropes.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Muon Decay,

In another ongoing thread, this Muon Decay was taken as proof of Time Dilation....it was one of the ballastic arrow in the hands of those who just don't want to listen to absolute time theory...

Like muon decay, we have neutron decay (not when it is in the nucleus with proton), kind of radioactive decay which is not dependent on pressure or temperature per say. The important parameter is half life (for free neutrons it is around 11 minutes).

Now how about decay statistics and calculations of these radioactive elements/particles under extreme Gravity ? They should decay much faster in and around NS/BH ? In fact technically a BH should have every decayable stuff decay instantly......Just a question.

 

[paddoboy]

No, thats your wishful sadistic thinking, seeing your fellow forum member paper go down...But it hasn't.......You just have to wait for some more time, at least it will be apparent that both Prof Hamilton and Prof Link objections is unsustainable.........just the matter of a few more days, let me finish my understanding of polytropes.

No its, a total matter of fact, as the two Professors you mentioned and others have readily testified.
Do you realise you are becoming a laughing stock?