A new paper by Steve Giddings, “Universal Quantum Mechanics,” arxiv:0711.0757. Here’s the abstract:
If gravity respects quantum mechanics, it is important to identify the essential postulates of a quantum framework capable of incorporating gravitational phenomena. Such a construct likely requires elimination or modification of some of the “standard” postulates of quantum mechanics, in particular those involving time and measurement. This paper proposes a framework that appears sufficiently general to incorporate some expected features of quantum gravity. These include the statement that space and time may only emerge approximately and relationally. One perspective on such a framework is as a sort of generalization of the S-matrix approach to dynamics. Within this framework, more dynamical structure is required to fully specify a theory; this structure is expected to lack some of the elements of local quantum field theory. Some aspects of this structure are discussed, both in the context of scattering of perturbations about a flat background, and in the context of cosmology.
Part of the problem in reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics is “technical” — GR is not renormalizable, by the lights of ordinary quantum field theory. But part is “conceptual” — ordinary QM takes a spacetime background as given, not as part of the wavefunction. The role of time, in particular, is a bit hazy, especially because the Wheeler-deWitt equation (the quantum-gravity version of the Schrodinger equation) doesn’t contain any explicit time parameter. Most likely, our notion of “time” makes sense only in a semi-classical context, not as part of the fundamental dynamics. Similarly, our notions of “locality” are going to have to be broadened if spacetime itself is part of the quantum picture. But the truth is that we don’t really know for sure. So it’s worth digging into the underlying principles of quantum mechanics to understand which of them rely crucially on our standard understanding of spacetime, and which are likely to survive in any sensible theory of quantum gravity. Giddings’s paper follows in the footsteps of previous work such as Jim Hartle’s Spacetime Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum Mechanics of Spacetime. (The Santa Barbara air must be conducive to thinking such deep thoughts.)
I’ve just done weak-field calculations for point, linear and planar sources following MTW’s Chapter 18, and they all yield accelerations dependent on the velocity of the test particle. It looks like I was wrong about the factor of (1+2v^2), though; the linearised equations give a factor of (1+v^2) for all three cases. (In my previous calculation I started with orbits in the full Schwarzschild solution, but I might have done something naive when partitioning the second derivative of the radial coordinate between gravitational and centrifugal parts.)
Greg (and hoping for comment from anyone knowledgeable):
I suppose you would know how to apply the equations to the case of the parallel field above the planar mass (PM for short), but I am still concerned about the relation of your results to the commonly understood (as I thought, at least, and have seen) implications of strong interpretations of the equivalence principle. It is clear that a transverse bullet fired inside a real extended accelerating elevator (frame K’) would hit the floor the same moment (floor time) as a dropped body. So if you are right about the other formula (now I gather, a = -M (1+v^2)/r^2 as I expected but even then only in the radial field), then the field inside the elevator is different from that around a planar mass. So, how do we describe that difference? It isn’t tidal, it isn’t gravitomagnetic since we are standing at rest on the plane or floor, so what is it? Can you produce an AE metric and a PM metric for comparison and contrast? Uniform gravity is supposed to proceed from the basic “tilt” of space-time standards, so the very idea of it being different from “real acceleration” looks weird, doesn’t it?
The whole idea of GR was, “acceleration” and “gravity” are inherently the same thing, albeit tidal forces can’t be made by acceleration, and caution re of course the Rindler field not being “uniform” intensity by local standards. Now, you expect me to believe there is some peculiar difference between the two simplest cases of each, and not even with a specific “justification” in terms of second-order effects we ever hear about (like tidal, g-magnetism.) I also do remember seeing discussions of the bending of light, showing a light beam moving across an elevator floor, and then talk of how the deflection around the radial source is twice the ordinary s = (1/2)at^2 due to Gauss-type real space curvature (as per diff-geom. definition of “curvature”, not to be confused with the rough usage of “curvature”) and aside from whether you consider it as only being that when the whole path is considered. I will post anything I find.
Finally, your formula leads to dynamical problems in real gravity. Let’s have constrained matter flowing rapidly in a circular path on the floor. Let’s assume, from f = ma in the proper frame of the mass particles (there should be a consistent relation between what free acceleration is seen, with force in the constrained case), that the lab force is now increased to gamma(1+v^2)* m_0*g instead of the gamma* m_0*g that we expect from increased effective mass-energy. Now lets lower a shelf holding this ring, extracting work according to W = – f dot delta h. Then we slow down the ring current, leaving the same mass energy as before (but now same as rest mass.) Then we could raise the ring using only gamma* m_0*g delta h, giving us “free energy” of gamma * v^2 * m_0*g delta h. In short, if the acceleration of all transverse-moving bodies isn’t the same, the weight they have on a floor is not the same either even after taking relativistic mass increase into account. I suppose you don’t want to be responsible for stimlating a perpetual motion proposal.
Neil
What you call the “accelerating elevator” metric is the Rindler metric. This is given by:
ds^2 = -Z^2 dq^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dZ^2
where Z is in the direction of acceleration, and measures proper distance along lines of constant x, y and q, while the proper time that elapses for an observer at fixed x, y and Z is given by tau = qZ. The acceleration measured by an observer at fixed x, y and Z is a=1/Z.
It’s a straightforward change of coordinates to show that this is really flat Minkowski space-time with coordinates t,x,y,z:
t = Z sinh(q)
z = Z cosh(q)
which are just the hyperbolas of constantly accelerating bodies in SR, with proper acceleration 1/Z.
The metric I get from the weak-field approximation described in Misner, Thorne & Wheeler’s Chapter 18, applied to a planar mass distribution of area mass density sigma, for a square mass of half-side-length H, is:
ds^2 = (-1+h) dt^2 + (1+h) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
where h =2*sigma*(z*(ArcTan[((-H + x)*(H – y))/(z*Sqrt[(H – x)^2 + (H – y)^2 + z^2])] +
ArcTan[((-H + x)*(H + y))/(z*Sqrt[(H – x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2])]) –
z*(ArcTan[((H + x)*(H – y))/(z*Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H – y)^2 + z^2])] +
ArcTan[((H + x)*(H + y))/(z*Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2])]) +
(-H + y)*Log[-H + x + Sqrt[(H – x)^2 + (H – y)^2 + z^2]] +
(H – y)*Log[H + x + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H – y)^2 + z^2]] –
(H + y)*Log[-H + x + Sqrt[(H – x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]] +
(-H + x)*(Log[-H + y + Sqrt[(H – x)^2 + (H – y)^2 + z^2]] –
Log[H + y + Sqrt[(H – x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]]) +
(H + y)*Log[H + x + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]] –
(H + x)*(Log[-H + y + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H – y)^2 + z^2]] –
Log[H + y + Sqrt[(H + x)^2 + (H + y)^2 + z^2]]))
This ugly thing can be safely approximated for x, y in contexts where we’re not taking derivatives of the metric, by:
h = -8*sigma*(z*ArcTan[H^2/(z*Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2])] +
H*(Log[-H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]] – Log[H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]]))
There are some tricky aspects to this; for fixed sigma, h diverges as H goes to infinity, so h is only going to be small (the assumption of the weak-field model) if H is finite and sigma is small. The reason for this is identical to the reason that in the Newtonian treatment, the gravitational potential diverges as H goes to infinity (but the acceleration is nonetheless finite).
This space-time is not flat. It has a Riemann curvature tensor with components that are first-order in sigma (as opposed to the Einstein and Ricci tensors, which are second-order in sigma, i.e. zero in the linearised approximation — as they must be in order to be vacuum solutions).
For the world line of a test particle moving with an ordinary velocity v in the x direction, remaining at a fixed z coordinate (e.g. being prevented from falling by a rocket engine firing vertically), instantaneously passing through x=y=0, the connection coefficients for this metric yield a proper acceleration (i.e. the acceleration measured by the test particle itself) of:
a_p = 4 sigma (1+v^2)/(1-v^2) ArcCot[z Sqrt(2H^2+z^2)/H^2]
Note that the dependence on (1+v^2) is not a function of H, i.e. it is not some kind of “edge effect” that only arises because H is finite.
Now although we can’t let H literally go to infinity and keep using the weak-field approximation, we can still exploit the fact that this expression has a finite limit to obtain an approximation that will be good whenever H >> z > 0 and sigma is small:
a_p = 2 pi sigma (1+v^2)/(1-v^2)
If we switch to a frame in which the planar mass is stationary, we get:
a = 2 pi sigma (1+v^2)
Apart from the factor (1+v^2), this agrees with the Newtonian result.
In the Rindler “elevator”, transverse motion is just an extra degree of freedom that has no effect whatsoever in the Z direction. In the curved space-time near a planar mass, the geometry is sliced differently by world lines with different transverse velocities.
The equivalence principle applies to infinitesimal regions of spacetime, and allows one to get the laws of physics in GR by taking those that apply in SR and converting all the ordinary derivatives to covariant derivatives. That’s it. Neither Einstein nor anyone else who knew what they were talking about made any promise about large elevators. (If you don’t believe me, read Misner, Thorne and Wheeler’s Chapter 16.)
I’ll do a full analysis of energy considerations for a falling test mass with a transverse velocity, using Killing’s theorem, but it might be a day or so before I get around to that.
I forgot to escape some inequalities:
This ugly thing can be safely approximated for x, y << H, in contexts where we’re not taking derivatives of the metric, by:
Greg, I appreciate the effort you put into this. I am still rather flabbergasted, since I was sure the Rindler field and planar mass field would be the same (you confirmed what I implied about the Rindler field, that it is really “flat,” using acceleration along Z instead of X.)
If you’re right (and I still wonder why I haven’t heard about this oddity before), then we have a weird situation with a real elevator falling in the field of the planar mass. The acceleration would cancel for a test body not moving relative to the plane, but a transversely-moving body would accelerate towards the plane (the difference being (v^2/g). Since there is no (?) actual tidal field therein, it seems odd to me for some masses to fall and not others (and when at the same spot, and independently of which direction moving parallel to the plane). The field in that elevator would be rather weird, having neither tidal nor any gravitomagnetic field I can imagine (in my non-adept middle-brow way.)
Finally, remember that “infinitesimal” versus “extended” doesn’t directly translate into whether the EP can handle rapid motions (and local *instantaneous* acceleration)through the small region, does it?
One last question: do weak gravitational fields (i.e., their effects in every way, including the peculiar velocity-dependent acceleration) obey superposition, basically? (Like, an effect of magnitude 3 and one of magnitude 5 might add to 7.99 or 8.02 etc., but not way off like adding to two or 16 etc.)
tx
Clarification: When I said that I expected the field around the planar mass to be like the Rindler field of real acceleration, I didn’t mean to include the 1/r nature of the Rindler field. I just meant, that basic phenomenae would be the same at a given place – such as, the lab acceleration of bodies not being dependent on their velocity. I still regard difference in that regard between real acceleration and planar mass field to be amazing.
Note: Here are some interesting references about all that, no time to linkify:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0503092
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0708/0708.2906v1.pdf
The metric I’ve been looking at for a weak-field analysis of a square planar mass is:
ds^2 = (-1+h) dt^2 + (1+h) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
where h is small. In reality, for a finite planar mass h will be a function of x, y, and z, but for x, y << H, we can (when we’re not computing its x and y derivatives) approximate it as a function of z alone:
h[z] = -8*sigma*(z*ArcTan[H^2/(z*Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2])] +
H*(Log[-H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]] – Log[H + Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2]]))
Here sigma is the area mass density of the planar mass, and H is half the side length of the square.
The function h[z] is well-behaved at 0 and monotonically decreasing, tending to zero as z goes to infinity.
Globally, the metric has no dependence on t, so it has a perfect time-translation symmetry. Additionally, to the extent that the independence from x and y are reasonable approximations, there will also be approximate symmetries for translations in the x-y plane.
This leads to an exactly conserved energy, E_inf, and two (approximately) conserved linear momenta, P_x,inf and P_y,inf. Killing’s theorem tells us that along any geodesic for a test particle in this spacetime, the dot products of the 4-momentum p with the coordinate derivatives d/dt, d/dx and d/dy will equal these constants:
g(p,d/dt) = E_inf
g(p,d/dx) = P_x,inf
g(p,d/dy) = P_y,inf
We’ll confine ourselves to motion in the x-z plane (i.e. test particles falling towards the mass plane z=0, possibly with some transverse velocity in the x direction), and we’ll shorten P_x,inf to P_inf. The locally measured values of energy and (x-)momentum for particle will be:
E = E_inf / sqrt(1-h[z])
P = P_inf / sqrt(1+h[z])
and for a particle with energy and momentum E_1 and P_1 at z=z_1, which then falls to z=z_2, we have:
E_2/E_1 = sqrt(1-h[z_1]) / sqrt(1-h[z_2])
P_2/P_1 = sqrt(1+h[z_1]) / sqrt(1+h[z_2])
If z_2 < z_1, h[z_2] > h[z_1], and we have E_2 > E_1 while P_2 < P_1. So the “gravitational blue shift” for a falling particle’s energy is accompanied by a decrease in its measured transverse momentum.
Energy will be conserved, of course, so if a particle with transverse motion falls from z_1 to z_2, and its total energy at z_2 is used to create a particle without transverse motion travelling back up to z_1, it will arrive there with exactly the same total energy as the initial falling particle.
This might seem to contradict the statement I made in my earlier post, that a particle with transverse motion will be accelerated more than one without, but it doesn’t; with the change in transverse momentum, everything balances out. What’s more, we can use these results to demonstrate explicitly that a particle that falls from z_1 to z_2 will arrive at z_2 with a z-component of its velocity (i.e. its locally measured rate of descent) dependent on its transverse velocity at z_1.
We have:
v_x = P / E (recalling that P is momentum in the x direction)
= (P_inf / E_inf) sqrt(1-h[z]) / sqrt(1+h[z])
(v_z)^2 = 1 – (m_0 / E)^2 – v_x^2
= 1 – (1-h[z]) (m_0 / E_inf)^2 – v_x^2
For a particle falling from z_1, starting with transverse velocity v_{x,1} = v and no vertical velocity (v_{z,1} = 0), we can find its constants of motion:
E_inf = m_0 sqrt(1-h[z_1]) / sqrt(1-v^2)
P_inf = m_0 v sqrt(1+h[z_1] / sqrt(1-v^2)
and then get the components of its velocity at z_2:
v_{x,2} = (P_inf / E_inf) sqrt(1-h[z_2]) / sqrt(1+h[z_2])
= v sqrt(1+h[z_1]) sqrt(1-h[z_2]) / [sqrt(1+h[z_2]) sqrt(1-h[z_1])]
(v_{z,2})^2 = 1 – (1-h[z_2]) (m_0 / E_inf)^2 – v_x^2
= 1 – (1-v^2) (1-h[z_2]) / (1-h[z_1]) – v^2 (1+h[z_1])(1-h[z_2]) / [(1+h[z_2]) (1-h[z_1])]
= (h[z_2]-h[z_1])[(1-h[z_2])(1+v^2) + 2h[z_2]] / [(1+h[z_2])(1-h[z_1])]
Neil,
I’ve pretty much exhausted the amount of time I want to spend looking at this, but I’ll mention the tidal components of the Riemann curvature tensor I’ve already computed.
At x=y=0, and to first order in sigma, the tidal stretching along the z-axis is:
(8*H^2*sigma)/((H^2 + z^2)*Sqrt[2*H^2 + z^2])
while this is accompanied (as it must be, for any vacuum solution) by tidal squeezing in the other directions, which from symmetry must be half as much in each of the x- and y-directions.
These terms do go to zero as H goes to infinity, but of course the weak-field approximation is not appropriate at all as H goes to infinity. And as I think the mathpage site you referenced seems to be saying, there really is no satisfactory solution in GR for an infinite plane.
There are various results that can be obtained by using the Rindler coordinates on flat spacetime to create partially useful analogies, but these need to be employed with great care, and they’re never going to be perfect. But I don’t pretend to have the kind of detailed experience with this subject that would be needed to spell out an exhaustive list of what is and isn’t safe.
If you want to learn more about this, FWIW my suggestion is to get a thorough grounding in basic GR first: spend six months reading Carroll, or Wald, or MTW. Although weak-field approximations and comparisons with flat spacetime seem to offer a lure of a kind of intuitive short-cut to GR, my experience is that they’re potentially very misleading unless you really grasp the full theory first.
Greg,
Thanks for all your help. I can see your point about the reduction in lateral velocity comp’ing for the higher downward acceleration of a side-moving body – when in free fall. The one thing that I still feel uneasy about is the case where high-speed circulating masses are on a platform that is raised and lowered – is the correction for free fall equivalent to an effective “weight” of just gamma*m_0? If not, I don’t see how an effective mass of (1 + v^2) could square with conservation during raising and lowering.
Wow, losing the “elevator” as game for whatever I wanted to think about is really disappointing (and low to middle-brow science education doesn’t warns about this much – I just didn’t get into gravity at top level.)
A simple answer is fine, and if you could also: regarding “superposition” of weak-field effects.
tx
With a circulating mass (such as a horizontal rotating barbell) you could do a similar analysis on the basis of approximate rotational symmetry of the spacetime it moves through, presumably leading to a slower rate of spin when the barbell reaches z_2. Whether it free-falls or is lowered more slowly under a vertical force shouldn’t make any difference.
In the full weak-field approximation, what adds linearly is the metric perturbation, the difference between the metric and a flat metric. There is no guarantee that anything else will be linear. Newtonian gravity and the gravitomagnetic approximation (for slow-moving sources and test masses) are linear in accelerations relative to the flat reference spacetime. But I’m afraid I have no idea of the degree to which that simpler condition will be violated when there’s relativistic motion.
Neil
One of the arXiv papers you mentioned, “The general relativistic in?nite plane”, gives two exact solutions for infinite planes. There are some exotic aspects to these solutions that make them qualitatively different from the weak-field solution for a finite plane, but it’s worth noting that both have non-zero tidal forces, and velocity-dependent accelerations.
Greg, (or et al) there’s still a problem IMHO. It looks like we can solve my first problem about conservation of energy, but what if we modify it thus: let’s assume that g(moving transverse to g) = g(1 + v^2/c^2). But what if you accelerate a ring of vast radius R from rest to rapid rotation, using up its own mass-energy. The total mass-energy per unit ds of the ring, seen in the lab, stays the same (and we can use discrete points to avoid stretching.) In my original understanding, the close to 1/r gravity field near the ring current therefore stays the same value. That avoids free energy tricks like raising/lowering parallel static mass rings before/after acceleration of the first ring.
But if you’re right, then we can speed up the first ring, get g(new) = g(rest)*(1 – v^2/c^2), lower in some sandwiching static rings, decelerate the first ring (keeping the energy there for same mass-energy per unit), then raise the other rings back out and keep the extra energy. It would be worth 0.36 g*delta h if the main ring got up to 0.6c, etc. The other rings or sets of masses go right towards the spinning ring, there’s no way for corrections to fix energy using transverse velocity. Play with it some, and maybe you’ll see that differential values of g cause problems.
Comments, anyone?
Neil
I don’t have time to do a detailed analysis of a scenario as complex as this, but one obvious impossibility here is accelerating a ring “using it own mass-energy”, which would violate conservation of angular momentum. If you want an initially static ring to remain a closed system while spinning up, the best you could do is split it into two counter-rotating rings.
(Does the external spacetime geometry change, when a static ring splits into two counter-rotating ones, with no input of mass-energy? My hunch is it does, but I don’t know how much or in what way. And it would certainly not be reasonable to assume that you could “add accelerations” due to the individual rings.)
It’s also far from obvious that if you lower a non-rotating ring into the plane of a rotating one that this will have no effect on the rotational speed of the rotating ring; my guess is it would be slowed down (and the initially non-rotating one would start rotating).
A detailed accounting of energy flows in a complex relativistic scenario isn’t a trivial business, and treatments which are basically Newtonian gravity plus fudge factors are only going to muddy the waters. I think the source of some of your confusion here is that you’re (implicitly) trying to apply the concept of gravitational potential energy in a context where that ceases to be valid. If giving an object transverse motion changed its potential energy (or that of objects around it), then of course everything would go haywire, but in GR there is no such thing as potential energy.
A better way to come to grips with this issue than thinking up complicated thought experiments which are extremely hard to analyse precisely would be to study
A better way to come to grips with this issue than thinking up complicated thought experiments which are extremely hard to analyse precisely would be to study simpler scenarios (like the Schwarzschild geometry) and see how the conservation laws work in that context.
OK Greg, thanks again and I hope you had/have a great Thanksgiving (well maybe you’re in Hawaii for all I know.) Briefly, you can accelerate one ring one-way by pushing on it from the floor, which exerts torque back on the floor (but you can still draw from the ring’s own mass to do that – or try pulling from just below it. In any case the point is to avoid pulling in stuff from outside, which affects the local mass-energy sourcing of gravity.)
You might find this post of mine in sci.physics, talk.philosophy.cosmology etc. to be interesting:
“What happens if contraction of a universe is impeded by body surfaces?”
Thanks, the same to you. Actually I’m Australian, but we’re having an election here tomorrow, the result of which I hope will be worth some mild celebration.
BTW, one point I failed to stress sufficiently: whenever two free-falling test particles pass each other (infinitesimally closely), the instantaneous second rate of change of their separation (as measured by either one) will be zero, whatever their relative velocity. That’s what the equivalence principle demands, and that’s what happens. Maybe that will help convince you that the equivalence principle isn’t void.
How does that square with the different vertical accelerations seen in the non-inertial frame fixed to the planar mass? The particle that’s moving horizontally in that frame has a greater vertical acceleration, but it’s also decelerating horizontally.