• The Direction of geodesics

    From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 7 06:22:42 2022
    A geodesic passes from A and also from B.

    Is the direction from A to B fully equivalent to the direction from B
    to A?

    Or can it happen that one of the two directions prevails over the
    other?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Livingston@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Wed Sep 7 10:12:12 2022
    On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:22:46 AM UTC-5, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
    A geodesic passes from A and also from B.

    Is the direction from A to B fully equivalent to the direction from B
    to A?

    Or can it happen that one of the two directions prevails over the
    other?

    In general relativity, the physical (spatial) distance from A to B is always the same as from B to A. This is not true of the time for light travel however. If A is higher in a gravitational field than B, the round trip
    light travel time is longer for A to B to A (from the point of view of A)
    than it is for B to A to B (from the point of view of B). For any single observer the round trip times are the same either way. That may seem paradoxical, but it is actually true and consistent.

    Rich L.


    [[Mod. note -- Referring to Richard's opening sentence, I take it that
    he is referring to the metric distance integrated along the geodesic
    between points A and B. This is also known as the "geodesic distance".
    -- jt]]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 7 20:43:50 2022
    Richard Livingston mercoledì 07/09/2022 alle ore 05:12:12 ha scritto:
    A geodesic passes from A and also from B.

    Is the direction from A to B fully equivalent to the direction from B
    to A?

    Or can it happen that one of the two directions prevails over the
    other?

    In general relativity, the physical (spatial) distance from A to B is always the same as from B to A. This is not true of the time for light travel however. If A is higher in a gravitational field than B, the round trip light travel time is longer for A to B to A (from the point of view of A) than it is for B to A to B (from the point of view of B). For any single observer the round trip times are the same either way. That may seem paradoxical, but it is actually true and consistent.

    I absolutely agree with what you wrote.

    But how does all this affect the direction of motion that a body
    decides to take when it is left free to follow its geodesic?

    I simplify with my animation
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/zdevssyz
    where there is an elevator that (initially) cannot follow its geodesic
    since it is constrained at point A.

    If we eliminate the constraint (Start) the elevator starts moving
    towards B to follow its geodesic which I have highlighted with the blue
    dotted line.

    This blue line has no limits and has no privileged directions, it is
    not a vector that goes in an obligatory direction.

    One direction is as good as the other.

    But the elevator always goes in one direction only, the one that goes
    down, towards point B.

    And it never goes up.

    What is it that forces the elevator to always get started downwards and
    never upwards?

    What has the down direction more than the up direction?

    In other words, are geodesics open lines or are they vectors with one
    direction privileged over the other?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Wed Sep 7 20:41:17 2022
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> writes:
    Richard Livingston mercoledi 07/09/2022 alle ore 05:12:12 ha scritto:
    In general relativity, the physical (spatial) distance from A to B is always >>the same as from B to A. This is not true of the time for light travel >>however. If A is higher in a gravitational field than B, the round trip >>light travel time is longer for A to B to A (from the point of view of A) >>than it is for B to A to B (from the point of view of B). For any single >>observer the round trip times are the same either way. That may seem >>paradoxical, but it is actually true and consistent.
    I absolutely agree with what you wrote.

    Richard wrote about two points in /space/.

    In GR, a geodesic usually is a curve in /space-time/.

    It's points are not (x, y, z), but (t, x, y, z).
    One should not think of its end points as being two points in space!

    A geodesic has no direction by itself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 8 15:35:59 2022
    Stefan Ram mercoledì 07/09/2022 alle ore 15:41:17 ha scritto:
    Richard wrote about two points in /space/.

    In GR, a geodesic usually is a curve in /space-time/.

    It's points are not (x, y, z), but (t, x, y, z).
    One should not think of its end points as being two points in space!

    Okay, let's talk about two events in spacetime.

    Event A is the lift's departure from point A and event B is the lift's
    arrival at point B.

    Why does the elevator (when it starts) go down (i.e. it goes from event
    A to event B) and doesn't go up (where event B is not there)?

    A geodesic has no direction by itself.

    On this I absolutely agree, however the elevator of my animation https://www.geogebra.org/m/zdevssyz
    it goes only and always in one direction and never in the other, why?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Livingston@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Fri Sep 9 08:19:15 2022
    On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 2:43:54 PM UTC-5, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
    Richard Livingston mercoledÄ=9B 07/09/2022 alle ore 05:12:12 ha scritto:
    A geodesic passes from A and also from B.

    Is the direction from A to B fully equivalent to the direction from B
    to A?

    Or can it happen that one of the two directions prevails over the
    other?

    In general relativity, the physical (spatial) distance from A to B is always
    the same as from B to A. This is not true of the time for light travel however. If A is higher in a gravitational field than B, the round trip light travel time is longer for A to B to A (from the point of view of A) than it is for B to A to B (from the point of view of B). For any single observer the round trip times are the same either way. That may seem paradoxical, but it is actually true and consistent.
    I absolutely agree with what you wrote.

    But how does all this affect the direction of motion that a body
    decides to take when it is left free to follow its geodesic?

    ...
    What is it that forces the elevator to always get started downwards and
    never upwards?

    What has the down direction more than the up direction?

    In other words, are geodesics open lines or are they vectors with one direction privileged over the other?

    There are many geodesics passing through any given point (event) in
    space-time. What you are asking is how does a velocity 4-vector evolve.
    The velocity 4-vector for a "stationary" object is (c, 0, 0, 0) in flat space-time. In the vicinity of a large mass M it is (c(1-2M/r)^-1/2, 0,
    0, 0) (ref eqn. 20.58 in "Gravity: an introduction to Einsteins general relativity" by J. B. Hartle, 2003). The most rigorous way to calculate
    this is to calculate the covariant derivative in the metric you are
    concerned with. For the Schwarzschild metric this gives an acceleration
    vector in the radial direction:.

    (Revtex code:
    a^\alpha = \GAMMA^{\alpha}_{tt} \left( u^t \right)
    )

    where \GAMMA is a Christoffel symbol, which gives
    a = (0, M/r^2, 0, 0)

    This is actually the acceleration necessary to hold the object
    stationary at this radius. If the object was released it would be in
    free fall (i.e. no acceleration in the objects frame). In terms of the stationary observer the free falling object would accelerate at a = (0,
    -M/r^2, 0, 0) i.e. a radial acceleration towards the mass M.

    This probably doesn't answer your question (it didn't for me) because
    the covariant derivative, while precise and correct, is almost opaque to intuitive understanding of the physics, which I believe is what you are
    asking.

    The covariant derivative is related to the concept of parallel
    transport. If we introduce a simple idea from quantum mechanics we can
    more easily visualize the parallel transport of the particle wave
    function in time, and recognize the resulting acceleration towards the
    mass.

    In relativity a particle with mass m has energy mc^2. In QM this is a frequency mc^2/h, which I will call f = 1/T. For an object at rest, by definition the wave function is in phase over some local region of
    space. In terms of flat space-time the phase of this wave function
    advances by 2pi every time interval T. This happens over the local
    region at the same time as the g_{00} metric component is a constant
    everywhere in flat space-time.

    However near a large mass M, due to the gravitational red shift, not
    every location has the same frequency. A region closer to the mass M
    will appear to advance in phase more slowly, and a region further out
    will advance more quickly. As a result the wave function for a
    stationary object of mass m, while initially in phase over some local
    area, will gradually become more and more out of phase along a radial
    axis. This is entirely because the g_{00} metric component varies along
    the r coordinate direction. The change in phase along r is, in QM, the momentum of the particle, and this momentum gradually increases with
    time. It is easy to show that this gives the same answer as the
    covariant derivative.

    Does that help?

    Rich L.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 9 13:30:53 2022
    Richard Livingston venerd=EC 09/09/2022 alle ore 09:19:15 ha scritto:
    There are many geodesics passing through any given point (event) in space-time. What you are asking is how does a velocity 4-vector evolve.
    The velocity 4-vector for a "stationary" object is (c, 0, 0, 0) in flat space-time. In the vicinity of a large mass M it is (c(1-2M/r)^-1/2, 0,
    0, 0) (ref eqn. 20.58 in "Gravity: an introduction to Einsteins general relativity" by J. B. Hartle, 2003). The most rigorous way to calculate
    this is to calculate the covariant derivative in the metric you are
    concerned with. For the Schwarzschild metric this gives an acceleration vector in the radial direction:.

    (Revtex code:
    a^\alpha = \GAMMA^{\alpha}_{tt} \left( u^t \right)
    )

    where \GAMMA is a Christoffel symbol, which gives
    a = (0, M/r^2, 0, 0)

    This is actually the acceleration necessary to hold the object
    stationary at this radius. If the object was released it would be in
    free fall (i.e. no acceleration in the objects frame). In terms of the stationary observer the free falling object would accelerate at a = (0, -M/r^2, 0, 0) i.e. a radial acceleration towards the mass M.

    This probably doesn't answer your question (it didn't for me) because
    the covariant derivative, while precise and correct, is almost opaque to intuitive understanding of the physics, which I believe is what you are asking.

    The covariant derivative is related to the concept of parallel
    transport. If we introduce a simple idea from quantum mechanics we can
    more easily visualize the parallel transport of the particle wave
    function in time, and recognize the resulting acceleration towards the
    mass.

    In relativity a particle with mass m has energy mc^2. In QM this is a frequency mc^2/h, which I will call f = 1/T. For an object at rest, by definition the wave function is in phase over some local region of
    space. In terms of flat space-time the phase of this wave function
    advances by 2pi every time interval T. This happens over the local
    region at the same time as the g_{00} metric component is a constant everywhere in flat space-time.

    However near a large mass M, due to the gravitational red shift, not
    every location has the same frequency. A region closer to the mass M
    will appear to advance in phase more slowly, and a region further out
    will advance more quickly. As a result the wave function for a
    stationary object of mass m, while initially in phase over some local
    area, will gradually become more and more out of phase along a radial
    axis. This is entirely because the g_{00} metric component varies along
    the r coordinate direction. The change in phase along r is, in QM, the momentum of the particle, and this momentum gradually increases with
    time. It is easy to show that this gives the same answer as the
    covariant derivative.

    Does that help?

    No, unfortunately it doesn't help me.

    I can't understand why frequency, wave function, MQ, parallel
    transport, etc. can make the down direction prefer over the up
    direction.

    But thank you all the same for your erudite explanation, a little too
    technical for me.

    Luigi Fortunati

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Fri Sep 9 13:30:00 2022
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> writes:
    it goes only and always in one direction and never in the other, why?

    I currently can't go on websites, but maybe what is intended
    is this: a particle is placed on a geodesic compatible with
    that particle. The particle now can move on the geodesic,
    but how does it know in which direction as the geodesic has
    no preferred direction?

    The answer might be: While a geodesic has no preferred
    direction, the time coordinate has. The particle moves into
    that direction where its time coordinate is growing - assuming
    the time coordinate was chosen in such a natural manner that
    it grows towards the future of the given universe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 11 16:38:28 2022
    Stefan Ram venerd=EC 09/09/2022 alle ore 08:30:00 ha scritto:
    I currently can't go on websites, but maybe what is intended
    is this: a particle is placed on a geodesic compatible with
    that particle. The particle now can move on the geodesic,
    but how does it know in which direction as the geodesic has
    no preferred direction?

    The answer might be: While a geodesic has no preferred
    direction, the time coordinate has.

    The time coordinate is part of the geodesic.

    If the time coordinate has a preferred direction, the geodesic also has
    a preferred direction.

    [[Mod. note --
    A useful mental model for a geodesic at a point is motion on the surface
    of the Earth. That is, starting at some specified point, we can move
    in a specified compass direction (e.g., you might start out moving due
    west). If, once moving, we don't turn left and you don't turn right,
    our motion will be along a geodesic on the Earth's surface.

    Thinking of our starting point again, you could have started moving
    in any direction (e.g., instead of bearing 090 degrees = due west, we
    could have chosen any other compass bearing). So there are a whole
    (infinite) family of possible geodesics passing through that starting
    point (one for each possible compass bearing).

    If I understand you correctly, you're asking "once a particle is moving,
    how does it know to continue moving in that direction?". The answer is basically conservation of momentum: unless there is some external force
    pushing on the particle, it's going to continue moving in the *same*
    direction it was already moving in.

    In terms of geodesics in relativity (the original context of your question), it's essential to realise that (as others have noted) the trajectoris of
    free particles are geodesics in *spacetime*, not geodesics in *space*.
    That means the most useful particle velocity to think about is the
    4-velocity, which is *never* zero (you're always moving forward in time),
    and corresponding momentum is the 4-momentum, which is also never zero.
    (Recall that in relativity, even a zero-rest-mass particle like a photon
    still has a nonzero momentum so long as it carries nonzero energy.)
    -- jt]]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 12 17:02:04 2022
    Luigi Fortunati domenica 11/09/2022 alle ore 11:38:28 ha scritto:
    The time coordinate is part of the geodesic.

    If the time coordinate has a preferred direction, the geodesic also has
    a preferred direction.

    [[Mod. note --
    A useful mental model for a geodesic at a point is motion on the surface
    of the Earth. That is, starting at some specified point, we can move
    in a specified compass direction (e.g., you might start out moving due
    west). If, once moving, we don't turn left and you don't turn right,
    our motion will be along a geodesic on the Earth's surface.

    Thinking of our starting point again, you could have started moving
    in any direction

    Exactly, I could have started moving in any direction and, among all, I
    would have been forced, finally, to choose only one.

    in any direction (e.g., instead of bearing 090 degrees = due west, we
    could have chosen any other compass bearing). So there are a whole (infinite) family of possible geodesics passing through that starting
    point (one for each possible compass bearing).

    That's right, the choice is one of an infinite number of possible
    geodesics.

    If I understand you correctly, you're asking "once a particle is moving,
    how does it know to continue moving in that direction?".

    No! I am asking how does it know how to "start" to move (along
    4-geodesic) and not how to "continue" to move.

    Once the particle has moved, its choice (among the infinite possible)
    has already been made!

    The answer is basically conservation of momentum

    There is no conservation of 4-momentum when the elevator cables break
    and the elevator goes from constrained condition to free fall.

    unless there is some external force pushing on the particle, it's going to continue moving in the *same* direction it was already moving in.

    The elevator where the cables break, does not keep moving in the *same* 4-direction it was moving before.

    In terms of geodesics in relativity (the original context of your question), it's essential to realise that (as others have noted) the trajectoris of
    free particles are geodesics in *spacetime*, not geodesics in *space*.
    That means the most useful particle velocity to think about is the 4-velocity, which is *never* zero (you're always moving forward in time),
    and corresponding momentum is the 4-momentum, which is also never zero.

    Ok, let's talk about 4-momentum.

    When the cables break, the elevator does not retain the 4-momentum it
    had before but switches from a certain 4-momentum (the one it had when
    standing at the floor) to another completely different 4-momentum (the
    one it assumes during free fall).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Livingston@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Mon Sep 12 12:36:11 2022
    On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 6:38:33 PM UTC-5, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
    Stefan Ram venerd=EC 09/09/2022 alle ore 08:30:00 ha scritto:
    I currently can't go on websites, but maybe what is intended
    is this: a particle is placed on a geodesic compatible with
    that particle. The particle now can move on the geodesic,
    but how does it know in which direction as the geodesic has
    no preferred direction?

    The answer might be: While a geodesic has no preferred
    direction, the time coordinate has.
    The time coordinate is part of the geodesic.

    If the time coordinate has a preferred direction, the geodesic also has
    a preferred direction.
    ...

    This is somewhat over simplified, but you can think of the g_00 metric component
    as similar to a potential, in that it multiplies the particle energy rather than
    adds/subtracts like a true potential. Never the less, the "potential" decreases
    as you get closer to the gravitating mass, and thus objects feel a "force"
    in that direction.

    When you really understand how it works, you will find that the curvature
    of the metric that causes gravitational acceleration is the time metric,
    g_00, that varies with radius. Ultimately this is what causes the acceleration to be toward the large mass.

    The radial metric, g_11, also varies with radius, but this is not an intrinsic curvature that causes an acceleration. It does affect orbits, particularly close to the event horizon, and is the reason there are no stable orbits
    w/in 1.5 Schwarzshild radii of the event horizon.

    Rich L.

    [[Mod. note --
    For massive particles the innermost stable *circular* orbit in
    Schwarzschild is a bit farther out, at r=6M. There are circular orbits
    inside r=6M, but they're unstable.

    For massless particles (photons et al), there's only one circular orbit,
    at r=3M. It's unstable.
    -- jt]]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Mon Sep 12 12:30:42 2022
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> writes:
    The time coordinate is part of the geodesic.

    When I wrote my last post, I thought of a geodesic as being
    a mere subset of space-time, i.e., a set of events like a
    line is a set of points, and a mere line has no direction.

    But you may be right that it can be seen as having more
    structure. Maybe it depends on the details of how a specific
    textbook defines it. For the book "Gravitation" by Misner
    et al. it's a "curve". I can't find a formal definition for
    "curve" in "Gravitation", but it seems to be a continuous
    mapping from the real numbers into space-time. So it has a
    natural positive direction.

    [[Mod. note -- You're right, in relativity a curve is a continuous
    mapping from the real numbers (or a closed interval of real numbers)
    into spacetime.
    -- jt]]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- t@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Tue Sep 13 06:20:03 2022
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> wrote:
    [[about a particle]]
    I am asking how does it know how to "start" to move (along
    4-geodesic) and not how to "continue" to move.

    The simple answer is that it's always been moving. When the particle
    first came into existence, it was already moving in spacetime, so it
    already had a nonzero 4-velocity.


    There is no conservation of 4-momentum when the elevator cables break
    and the elevator goes from constrained condition to free fall.

    In special relativity we start with the notion of a worldline, a particle's path through spacetime. Introducing $(t,x,y,z)$ coordinates, we can write
    this as
    t = t(tau)
    x = x(tau)
    y = y(tau)
    z = z(tau)
    where tau is the particle's proper time, i.e., the time measured by an
    ideal clock carried along with the particle.

    The particle's 4-velocity and 4-acceleration are then defined as
    $u = (dt/d\tau, dx/d\tau, dy/d\tau, dz/d\tau)$
    and
    $a = du/d\tau = (d^2t/d\tau^2, d^2x/d\tau^2, d^2y/d\tau^2, d^2z/d\tau^2)$ Finally, we can define the particle's 4-momentum (assuming the particle
    to have constant mass $m$) as
    $p = mu = (m dt/d\tau, m dx/d\tau, m dy/d\tau, m dz/d\tau)$

    [In general relativity things are a bit messier: we define a worldline
    in the same way, but 4-velocity and 4-acceleration are now defined in
    terms of "covariant derivatives" or "absolute derivatives", which
    effectively add some extra terms which depend on the Christoffel symbols. 4-momentum is still given by $p = mu$.]

    See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-acceleration
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum
    for more on these concepts.

    [Note that some authors -- including those of at least the 4-velocity
    and 4-acceleration Wikipedia articles -- use a different convention than
    I use; they take the time component of 4-vectors to have an extra factor
    of c, i.e., they define
    $u = (c dt/d\tau, dx/d\tau, dy/d\tau, dz/d\tau)$
    $p = (mc dt^2/d\tau^2, m dx^2/d\tau^2, m dy^2/d\tau^2, m dz^2/d\tau^2)$
    I'm omitting these extra factors of c.]

    When we say that 4-momentum is conserved, that's shorthand for saying
    that a particle's 4-momentum is constant *if* there is no net force
    acting on the particle.

    To discuss your elevator example, we need to decide how we're going to
    model gravity, either
    (a) Newtonian mechanics or special relativity, in which we model gravity
    as a force acting in flat (Minkowski) spacetime, or
    (b) general relativity, in which we model gravity as a manifestation
    of spacetime curvature.


    There is no conservation of 4-momentum when the elevator cables break
    and the elevator goes from constrained condition to free fall.

    The elevator's movement is always governed by the relativistic version
    of Newton's 2nd law, which (taking the elevator's mass $m$ to be constant)
    is
    a = F_net/m
    where a is again the elevator's 4-acceleration, and F_net is the net
    4-force acting on the elevator.

    In perspective (a) [where gravity is a force in flat spacetime]:
    Before the cable breaks, there are two forces acting on the elevator:
    gravity: F=mg downwards
    and
    cable tension: F=mg upwards
    so F_net = 0, the elevator's 4-momentum p is constant, and the elevator's
    4-acceleration is 0.
    After the cable breaks, there is one force acting on the elevator:
    gravity: F=mg downwards
    so F_net = mg (pointing down) and hence the elevator's 4-momentum p
    changes and the elevator's 4-acceleration is nonzero.

    In perspective (b) [where gravity is a manifestation of spacetime curvature]:
    Before the cable breaks, there is one force acting on the elevator:
    cable tension: F=mg upwards
    so the elevator's 4-acceleration is nonzero (pointing upwards) and
    the elevator's path is not a geodesic. This is consistent with the
    elevator remaining stationary (i.e.,
    x(tau) = constant
    y(tau) = constant
    z(tau) = constant
    is a solution of Newton's 2nd law) because of the extra
    Christoffel-symbol terms in the covariant derivatives in the
    definition of 4-acceleration.
    After the cable breaks, there are no forces acting on it, so it moves
    along a geodesic, with zero 4-acceleration. That geodesic path starts
    (at the moment the cable breaks) with the 4-velocity of the elevator
    being at rest (4-velocity having zero spatial components); at later
    times the elevator moves downwards.



    I wrote [in the context of *general* relativity, where we model gravity
    via spacetime curvature, so gravity is *not* a "force"]
    unless there is some external force pushing on the particle, it's going to >> continue moving in the *same* direction it was already moving in.

    The elevator where the cables break, does not keep moving in the *same* 4-direction it was moving before.

    That's right. The elevator's 4-velocity will change after the cable
    breaks. In special relativity we say that that change is due to an
    external force (gravity) acting on the elevator. In general relativity
    we say that that change is due to geodesic motion in a curved spacetime.
    It's the same (changing) 4-velocity either way, we're just describing
    it differently.


    Ok, let's talk about 4-momentum.

    When the cables break, the elevator does not retain the 4-momentum it
    had before but switches from a certain 4-momentum (the one it had when standing at the floor) to another completely different 4-momentum (the
    one it assumes during free fall).

    Let's work this out in the context of special relativity.
    [Doing this in general relativity would be a bit messier.]

    Let's take the time the cable breaks to be t=0, and let's take our (x,y,z) coordinates to be such that the elevator is at rest at x=y=z=0 before
    the cable breaks. Finally, let's orient our (x,y,z) coordinates such
    that the external gravitational accelration g points in the -z direction.

    To simplify the computation, let's assume that the elevator's 3-velocity
    is much less than the speed of light. This is fine for investigating what happens around the time when the cable breaks. This assumption means that
    tau = t, so that the time component of 4-velocity is just 1.

    Then Newtonian mechancis tells us that the elevator's 3-velocity (the usual velocity of Newtonian mechanics) is
    { (0 ,0,0) if t <= 0
    v(t) = {
    { (-gt,0,0) if t > 0
    while the elevator's 4-velocity is
    { (1,0 ,0,0) if t <= 0
    u(t) = {
    { (1,-gt,0,0) if t > 0
    and hence the elevator's 4-momentum is
    { (m,0 ,0,0) if t <= 0
    p(t) = m u(t) = {
    { (m,-mgt,0,0) if t > 0

    You can see that v, u, and p are all continuous functions of time.

    If we were to analyze the dynamics in general relativity we'd get the same answers for $v(t)$, $u(t)$, and $p(t)$, but the calculations to get them
    would be messier.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 13 12:03:36 2022
    Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- to reply] marted=EC 13/09/2022 alle ore 08:20:03 ha scritto:
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> wrote:
    [[about a particle]]
    I am asking how does it know how to "start" to move (along
    4-geodesic) and not how to "continue" to move.

    The simple answer is that it's always been moving. When the particle
    first came into existence, it was already moving in spacetime, so it
    already had a nonzero 4-velocity.

    Ok, in spacetime the elevator has always been in motion, even when it
    is stopped at the floor.

    Okay, it's true that his 4-velocity has always been non-zero.

    But, when the cables break and the elevator goes into free fall, its
    4-velocity changes (i.e. it's a new different 4-velocity that wasn't
    there before) or is still the same as it was when it was bound to the
    floor?

    [[Mod. note -- I think I answered your question in a recent message
    which may not have reached you yet:

    Let's take the time the cable breaks to be t=0, and let's take our (x,y,z) coordinates to be such that the elevator is at rest at x=y=z=0 before
    the cable breaks. Finally, let's orient our (x,y,z) coordinates such
    that the external gravitational accelration g points in the -z direction.

    To simplify the computation, let's assume that the elevator's 3-velocity
    is much less than the speed of light. This is fine for investigating what happens around the time when the cable breaks. This assumption means that
    tau = t, so that the time component of 4-velocity is just 1.

    Then Newtonian mechancis tells us that the elevator's 3-velocity (the usual velocity of Newtonian mechanics) is
    { (0 ,0,0) if t <= 0
    v(t) = {
    { (-gt,0,0) if t > 0
    while the elevator's 4-velocity is
    { (1,0 ,0,0) if t <= 0
    u(t) = {
    { (1,-gt,0,0) if t > 0
    and hence the elevator's 4-momentum is
    { (m,0 ,0,0) if t <= 0
    p(t) = m u(t) = {
    { (m,-mgt,0,0) if t > 0

    You can see that v, u, and p are all continuous functions of time.
    -- jt]]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 15 16:12:38 2022
    Richard Livingston luned=EC 12/09/2022 alle ore 07:36:11 ha scritto:
    The time coordinate is part of the geodesic.

    If the time coordinate has a preferred direction, the geodesic also has
    a preferred direction.
    ...

    This is somewhat over simplified, but you can think of the g_00 metric component as similar to a potential, in that it multiplies the particle energy rather than adds/subtracts like a true potential. Never the less, the "potential" decreases as you get closer to the gravitating mass, and thus objects feel a "force" in that direction.

    Why is "force" in quotes?

    If you feel it, it is a force without quotes.


    [[Mod. note --
    In the context of general relativity (GR) you don't feel gravity as
    a force.

    In GR the apparent downward "force" which I feel right now (sitting in
    a chair in a room near the Earth's surface) is understood not as a gravitational "force", but rather as follows:
    (a) An inertial reference frame (IRF) at my location is by
    definition in free-fall, and therefore must be accelerating
    downwards at 9.8 m/s^2 with respect to the Earth's surface.
    (b) Therefore, my chair (which is stationary with respect to the Earth's
    surface) is accelerating *upwards* at 9.8 m/s^2 with respect to
    an IRF at my location.
    (c) Because my chair is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 with
    respect to an IRF, my chair must push up on my body in order
    to accelerate my body upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 with respect to an IRF.
    (d) More generally, because a coordinate system fixed to the Earth's
    surface is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 with respect to an
    IRF, every object feels an apparent "force" pointing downwards.
    -- jt]]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rock Brentwood@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Fri Oct 7 09:16:55 2022
    On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:22:46 AM UTC-5, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
    A geodesic passes from A and also from B.

    Is the direction from A to B fully equivalent to the direction from B
    to A?

    Or can it happen that one of the two directions prevails over the
    other?

    In any metric geometry, around each point is a neighborhood U,
    such that between any two points A and B in U
    lies a unique geodesic between A and B.
    Uniqueness means it's therefore the same regardless of direction.

    This even includes non-Riemannian geometries,
    like the chronogeometry of Newtonian gravity,
    which can be regarded as residing on a light cone
    of the 4+1 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian chronogeometry
    given by the metric whose line element is

    dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + 2 dt du - 2V dt^2

    where V = -GM/r (with r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2)
    is the gravitational potential per unit mass.

    This also works perfectly well for multi-body potentials,
    V = -sum_a (-GM_a/|r - r_a|).

    Its geodesics comprise the orbital motions of Newtonian gravity
    AND the geometrical instantaneous geodesics of space at any instant.

    You may be hard-pressed, in this case, to account for
    what the corresponding geodesic *distances* are,
    since everything is zero on a light cone!
    All the geodesics for Newtonian gravity
    are null curves in 4+1 dimensions.
    But it's the same in both directions.

    This may be compared to the Schwarzschild metric
    which is equivalently given as light cones
    in the 4+1 dimensional chronogeometry
    whose metric has the following line element

    dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + 2 dt du - 2V dt^2
    + alpha du^2 - 2 alpha V dr^2/(1 + 2 alpha V)

    where dr^2 = (x dx + y dy + z dz)^2/r^2 and alpha = (1/c)^2.

    This is a deformation of the Newtonian chronogeometry,
    from alpha = 0 to alpha > 0.
    Here, however, V = -GM/r is only for one body, not many.
    There may exist similar deformations for the many-body cases.

    The geodesic distances on the light cones
    in the (4+1)-dimensional chronogeometry are all 0,
    since all the curves on the light cones are null.
    The light cones, however (unlike the Newtonian case)
    comprise metric geometries in their own right -
    that is: the Schwarzschild chronogeometries,
    whose the metric yields - for time-like curves -
    a proper time equal to s = t + alpha u.
    It's the same in both directions.

    In the alpha = 0 case, which is Newtonian gravity,
    the (3+1)-dimensional chronogeometry continues to have
    s = t + alpha u as an invariant ... which is now just s = t.
    So, it can still be taken as a metric of sorts for time-like curves.
    Ordinary time is proper time for Newtonian gravity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Tue Jan 2 08:17:26 2024
    On 1/1/24 2:18 AM, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
    [...] But is it really like that?

    We humans have no hope of knowing "what is really happening". The best
    we can do is formulate models of what is happening, apply them to
    various physical situations, and improve them -- this is called science. Guessing "what is really happening" is the province of theology,
    astrology, and other arcane wastes of time.

    [... confused writing]

    If you want to understand General Relativity, you must STUDY it. Posting
    random questions in a newsgroup is outrageously inadequate. Get a good
    book and STUDY. You have never posted a question that could not be
    answered by yourself if you had STUDIED.

    Note in particular you must distinguish between various types of
    acceleration: proper acceleration, coordinate acceleration in different coordinate systems, and 4-acceleration. By just using the term
    "acceleration", and failing to distinguish among the different types,
    the PUNS destroy any argument you make.

    Hint: observer A at the center of the earth would have zero
    proper acceleration, as the earth is in freefall [@]. Observer
    B on the surface has a proper acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 upward,
    due to the force exerted on them by the surface. If either
    observer extends their coordinates to the other [#], each would
    say the other observer has zero acceleration in their
    coordinates.

    [@] This is really an approximation in GR, valid only
    for "small" objects. Compared to the sun, the earth is
    indeed small, and this is an excellent approximation.

    [#] extending such coordinates is problematical,
    so just assume it can be done without distortions.

    Note that "all physics is local" [Einstein and others], so these various descriptions of accelerations of distant objects never appear in the
    laws of physics. They are useful only for personal amusement.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color t@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Tue Jan 9 08:37:45 2024
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> wrote:
    In my drawing
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/nnghqpg6
    there is spaceship A stopped at the Earth's surface, spaceship B stopped at the center of the Earth and spaceship C in free fall.

    I study Newton's physics and I learn that the two spaceships A
    and B are inertial reference systems because they are not accelerating anywhere and this convinces me because, in fact, neither of the 2
    spaceships is accelerating.

    I also learn that spaceship C (in free fall) is an accelerated reference system because it is accelerating and this also convinces me.

    Then I study Einstein's physics and learn that only spaceship B maintains
    its inertial status, while spaceship A (despite being stationary) becomes
    an accelerated reference system and spaceship C (despite accelerating) becomes a reference system inertial.

    And all this generates an inconsistency: how can the 2 spaceships A and B
    be one accelerated and the other inertial if they never move away or get closer to each other?

    The answer is that in general relativity, inertial reference frames in a
    curved spacetime (i.e., one that's not completely empty) are only *local*. Spacetime curvature (a.k.a "gravitation") is what prevents us from extending local inertial reference frames to larger ("global") sizes. So in this
    case, the fact that the A-B distance doesn't change despite B being inertial and A not being inertial is a reflection of spacetime curvature (caused by
    the Earth's mass).



    Recalling the ships-moving-on-the-Earth's-surface analogy for general relativity which I posted on 2023-12-21, Luigi's question is analogous to
    the following situation: We have ships P and Q (each with perfectly symmetrical hull forms) moving on the (idealised, spherical and entirely oceanic) Earth's surface. P moves westward at fixed speed (relative to
    the Earth's rotating surface -- the fact that the Earth rotates is irrelevant here) along the equator. Q moves westward at half of P's speed at a *fixed latitude* of 60 degrees north latitude. Initially Q is directly north of P.

    By symmetry we can see that P's rudder must be centered in order to stay
    on the equator. By what about Q? If Q (initially moving westward at
    latidude 60 degrees north) were to center its rudder, it would follow a
    great circle, so it wouldn't stay at latitude 60 degrees north: its latitude would start decreasing. We thus see that in order to *stay* at latitude
    60 degrees north, Q must have its rudder set for a steady turn to the right.

    (This may be easier to follow if you imagine yourself in space looking
    down at the earth from above the north pole: Q is now going in a circular
    path around the north pole, at a constant latitude of 60 degrees north.
    Since the cosine of 60 degrees is 0.5, this path has a circumference of
    1/2 of the Earth's equatorial circumference.)

    Luigi's question is now analogous to this: How is it that the distance
    between P and Q stays fixed (it's equal to the distance between the
    equator and the circle of constant latitude 60 degrees north, which is
    ~6700 km measured along the Earth's surface), despite
    (a) P steaming along with rudder centered while Q is continually holding
    right rudder in order to stay at that fixed latitude of 60 degrees
    north, and
    (b) Q only steaming at half the speed of P?
    In this context, the answer is obvious: the Earth's surface is curved,
    i.e., it doesn't follow the axioms of Euclidean geometry. It's only our intuition about flat surfaces that gives the mistaken impression that
    two ships steaming at different speeds, one with rudder centerd and the
    other with rudder set for a steady turn, can't stay the same distance
    apart.



    One final point to ponder: Returning to the three spaceships, let's
    imagine (gedanken) reducing the Earth's density to zero. This means that (ignoring the gravitational fields/spacetime curvature from the rest of
    the universe) all three of the spaceships would be local inertial reference frames. And, because we'd no longer have the spacetime curvature of the Earth's mass, we could in fact extend those local inertial reference
    frames to a single *global* inertial reference frame spanning the entire
    Earth. In a flat spacetime you can do that, but in a curved spacetime
    inertial reference frames are only local.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)