• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Relation between acceleration and gravity...

apparently scientists are testing whether the equivilence principle holds at the quantum level.....

Dimopoulos and others proposed in 1998 that gravity operates in extra dimensions of space beyond the three we can see, and that this dilutes its apparent strength in the everyday world. The idea came from string theory, the leading approach to quantum gravity, in which extra dimensions of space contain vibrating loops of "string" that give rise to all the familiar forces and particles. Trouble is, this idea can only be tested if we probe at suitably small scales - something that is technically difficult, to say the least.

Enter Kasevich, who has built up considerable expertise in a technique called atom interferometry, which he has used to measure the acceleration of atoms due to gravity, among other things. This high-precision method became feasible in the mid-1990s, thanks to major advances in the cooling of atoms. In 2002, Kasevich happened to run into Dimopoulos in the departmental coffee room, and the two hatched a plan to use the technique to push general relativity as far as it would go - and possibly discover new physics.

Zero in on gravity
Most tests of relativity have taken the form of observations of what goes on in outer space. This makes them difficult if not impossible to control. "You can't change the orbital velocity of Mercury," points out Jason Hogan, a graduate student in Kasevich's lab. With atom interferometry, more control is possible. "You can change the launch velocity of the atoms in our experiment," Hogan says. There are other inherent advantages too. "The atom is a very clean system, easily isolated from outside forces," Kasevich says. That enables the researchers to zero in on the effects of gravity.

Not that atoms are easy to work with. The experiment taking shape at Stanford blends the Tower of Pisa method with ultra-modern technology (www.arxiv.org/gr-qc/0610047). In the interferometer shaft, a few million rubidium atoms will be cooled by lasers to a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero. Then they will be launched upwards by a precisely tuned blast of laser light from below. This is already impressive - imagine trying to kick a cloud - but the really mind-bending part of the story is what happens next.

According to the weird laws of quantum physics, each rubidium atom is in two places at once. If you tune the laser just right, "half" of the atom is launched upwards rapidly by the laser blast, and "half" of it is launched more slowly. While the atom is in this strange combination state, it is hit by a second blast of laser light that acts like the mirror image of the first: it excites the slow half of each atom's split personality, and slows down the fast half. After 1.3 seconds - the time it takes for the atom to rise to the top of the 10-metre vacuum chamber and fall back down again - the two halves catch up with each other and merge, thanks to a third, coordinating laser blast (see Diagram).

Except that they don't exactly merge - they interfere with each other, and hence the instrument is an interferometer. According to quantum physics, each atom behaves like a wave as well as a particle, and its history is encoded in its "phase", the exact timing of the wave's vibrations in space. When a wave interacts with itself after taking two different paths, it produces a distinctive pattern of bands called interference fringes.

Red balls, green balls
How will these show up in the experiment? Imagine, for simplicity, that each half of each rubidium atom's split personality is a ball of a different colour: green for the ones that started out fast and then slowed down, and red for those that started out slow and then speeded up. It looks as if you have launched a million red balls and a million green balls, and you might think you would see a million red balls and a million green balls coming back down. But that's not what happens. Each atom's quantum oscillations make it appear to change from red to green and back many times per second. Because of the interference, the researchers might detect two million red balls in one place, and two million green balls in another. According to general relativity, gravity will slow down these oscillations by millions of cycles over the course of one second. Any discrepancies due to violations of the equivalence principle, if they exist, will be much smaller - a shift of less than a millionth of a cycle - but still detectable.

What this means is that Kasevich and Dimopoulos can take two isotopes of rubidium with different atomic masses - rubidium-85 and rubidium-87, directly analogous to Galileo's light cannonball and heavy cannonball - and see whether gravity acts upon them in exactly the same way. If it doesn't, it would shake the foundations of relativity and perhaps usher in the era of quantum gravity. If the equivalence principle holds up, the researchers plan to test several unconfirmed predictions of relativity (see "What Einstein knew").
http://www.newscientist.com/channel...timate-free-fall.html;jsessionid=MMDBKIFLPJDB

Now, whilst i'm (kind of :) ) happy with the concept of superposition - "each rubidium atom is in two places at once" doesn't really make sense to me....why 2 places? Why only 2 places? Are rubidium isotopes (or other radioactive isotopes) special cases?

Still.....sounds like an interesting experiment, even if i don't quite understand it :)
 
Last edited:
Spacetime does not need to push against anything. One of the best, and most common, explanations is the rubber sheet analogy. Imagine spacetime as a rubber sheet. Place a weight on it. The sheet will have a debt with the weight at the bottom. Now what happens if you place a ball somewhere else on the sheet? It rolls towards the weight due to the slope. If you push the ball it will not travel straight towards the weight but will follow a curved path. If you eliminate friction (as is effectively the case in space) you can cause the ball to roll around the weight, in essence it will orbit it.

That's not quite right. With a flat rubber sheet, the reason the ball moves towards the mass on the sheet is due to gravity. However we're using it as an explanation for gravity. Not only that but rubber sheets are 2 dimensional and space is 3 dimensional.



This is not really related to the previous point, but is also interesting. The simple answer is yes, if something travels faster it gains more mass and therefore has a stronger gravitational field. This is because of the mass-energy equivalence from the popular equation E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 (commonly written as E = mc2, but this misses the term that is actually important). In fact, anything with more energy will have stronger gravity. If you heat a cake in the oven it will weigh more when you take it out than when you put it in.

The reason a speedy object has more mass is because it's speed is bending space time more than if it were stationary. Why would a "hot" object bend space time more than a cold object?

As already said by someone else, this is not why astronauts feel weightless. Apparent weightlessness is a consequence of freefall, where you are travelling at the same speed as everything around you. If you jump out of a plane you will experience freefall and will feel as though you don't weigh anything, even though you are very obviously still within the Earth's gravity and not travelling especially fast. In fact, this is how many zero-G experiments are carried out, rather than travel all the way out to space you can simply nose-dive a plane towards the ground and have exactly the same effect for a short time.

What if an astronaut is floating in his space ship in the middle of space and in a universe where there are no planets? Would he feel weightless then? Even if there is nothing to 'fall' towards?
 
What if an astronaut is floating in his space ship in the middle of space and in a universe where there are no planets? Would he feel weightless then? Even if there is nothing to 'fall' towards?

Yes, as long as he keeps the spaceships engines shut off.

/Hans
 
What if an astronaut is floating in his space ship in the middle of space and in a universe where there are no planets?

"Oh, crap. Now what have I gotten myself into?"
 
The reason a speedy object has more mass is because it's speed is bending space time more than if it were stationary. Why would a "hot" object bend space time more than a cold object?

Because it has added heat energy jiggling its molecules around, and energy has mass: m = E/c^2. Granted, if we're talking about a red-hot lump of iron, the increase in mass is negligible. However, it's still there.
 
What if an astronaut is floating in his space ship in the middle of space and in a universe where there are no planets? Would he feel weightless then? Even if there is nothing to 'fall' towards?

Since there's no external gravity to act on him, there's no force, therefore no acceleration. Therefore, he floats. Weightlessness from falling in a gravitational field only applies when the person reaches a steady terminal velocity, i.e. no acceleration.

I believe the conundrum about "accelerating with regard to what?" is supposed to be explained up by "frame dragging", where a moving body actually lugs spacetime around with it as it moves, leaving ripples in its wake. Therefore, no other masses are needed to accelerate towards or from. Whether it's been confirmed or it's still a conjecture, I don't know.
 
I believe the conundrum about "accelerating with regard to what?" is supposed to be explained up by "frame dragging", where a moving body actually lugs spacetime around with it as it moves, leaving ripples in its wake. Therefore, no other masses are needed to accelerate towards or from. Whether it's been confirmed or it's still a conjecture, I don't know.

Apparently, observational evidence has been obtained that supports frame dragging: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/frame_dragging_confirmed.html
 
That's not quite right. With a flat rubber sheet, the reason the ball moves towards the mass on the sheet is due to gravity.

That's true if you try to reproduce that analogy physically, but on an abstract level, it's actually not necessary. Are you familiar with the term geodesic? Basically, it's a generalization of the concept of straight lines to curves spaces. For example, a geodesic on the surface of a sphere is always a great circle. Longitude lines on the earth, as well as the equator, are all geodesics. Lattitude lines (except for the equator) are not. Well, if you have a stretched rubber sheet, that warping of the sheet changes geodesics from straight lines to curved lines, and they will curve around the marble that's stretching the sheet. Objects not experiencing any other force do not move in "straight lines" (which we cannot really define on our curved space), they move along geodesics, and that curving of the geodesic around the mass is indeed analogous to the trajectory of objects in a gravitational field.

Not only that but rubber sheets are 2 dimensional and space is 3 dimensional.

That's why it's an analogy. Of course, it's worse than that because space-time is 4 dimensional. But the basic idea is the same: free-falling objects follow geodesics in space-time, and the warping of space-time by gravity curves those geodesics and produces an apparent acceleration.

The reason a speedy object has more mass is because it's speed is bending space time more than if it were stationary.

To some degree this is a matter of how you want to define mass, and the decision is somewhat arbitrary. One way to define mass is as a reference-frame invariant (and therefore velocity independent) quantity. Another way is to make mass depend on reference frame (and therefore velocity). While you can get all the math to work out the same with either definition, I think the later is, conceptually, a TERRIBLE choice, and I am continually amazed that people choose to make it. I think it's far more preferable to have mass a frame-invariant quantity.

Why would a "hot" object bend space time more than a cold object?

Because it has more mass, because it has more energy. The additional energy a hot object has, UNLIKE the kinetic energy a moving object has, is reference frame invariant.

What if an astronaut is floating in his space ship in the middle of space and in a universe where there are no planets? Would he feel weightless then? Even if there is nothing to 'fall' towards?

An astronaut (or anyone else) will feel weightless whenever they are following a geodesic through space-time. Near a massive object like a planet, a geodesic line will curve towards that large mass, in a flat space-time (your empty universe), a geodesic will be a straight line through space-time. If you stand on a planet, you are not following a geodesic, and you feel weight. If you accelerate in deep space, you are not following a geodesic (your line through space-time will be curved, even if your line through space is straight), and you will feel weight.
 
What if an astronaut is floating in his space ship in the middle of space and in a universe where there are no planets? Would he feel weightless then? Even if there is nothing to 'fall' towards?
I am so confused.

Even if there's nothing to fall towards?!

Because there's nothing to fall towards!!

The "natural" state of things is to feel weightless. If you happen to be on the surface of a planet, then you feel weight because the planet's gravity is pulling on you.
 
That's not quite right. With a flat rubber sheet, the reason the ball moves towards the mass on the sheet is due to gravity. However we're using it as an explanation for gravity. Not only that but rubber sheets are 2 dimensional and space is 3 dimensional.
Ha. Yes. Very good. You are right not to take the analogy literally.

It's not a bad analogy if you really understand it. Of course, the problem is, it's mostly used to try to explain relativity to those who don't already really understand it...

The reason a speedy object has more mass is because it's speed is bending space time more than if it were stationary.
You're not thinking relatively enough.

Suppose two identical objects move past each other. Which is "bending space time" more than the other? The question is meaningless. Motion is relative. I can think of object A as still and object B as moving, or just as easily I can think the opposite.
 
I've never understood this. In a lab experiment, it's possible to have two objects moving relative to one another at uniform velocity, but in reality that's an impossible situation. At least one of them has to be accelerated at some point in (space)time. There has to be a history. If a train pulls away from a platform , we can arbitrarily start paying attention either when the relative velocity is zero, or during the acceleration phase, or once the train reaches a constant velocity, but the fact remains it was the train that burned the fuel, not the platform.
Where's the fuel for the London Underground?

:p
 
That's true if you try to reproduce that analogy physically, but on an abstract level, it's actually not necessary.

So imagining a flat rubber sheet and a ball at the center of it. What force makes that ball put pressure on the sheet in such a way it causes it to warp?
 
Nope. It's just the opposite, in fact.

Errr... no! Imagine you're in a lift (elevator), and all the safety mechanisms fail, so it starts to descend in an uncontrolled manner.

During the acceleration phase, you will be propelled towards the roof of the lift, or, more correctly, the left roof will fall faster than you do. With a vicious enough acceleration, you will be squashed against the roof. You'll feel anything but weightless.

When the lift reaches terminal velocity, this will end. Because you are in free fall, there's nothing pushing you towards the roof or the floor. You are weightless. At the end of your trip, the deceleration will increase your weight so much that they'll have to scrape you off the floor with a palette knife.
 
So imagining a flat rubber sheet and a ball at the center of it. What force makes that ball put pressure on the sheet in such a way it causes it to warp?

It's only an analogy, Dustin. You're spending entirely too much time trying to figure it out.
 
Errr... no!

I'm afraid you screwed this up badly.

During the acceleration phase, you will be propelled towards the roof of the lift, or, more correctly, the left roof will fall faster than you do.

Why would the roof fall faster than you? It won't unless something OTHER than gravity is pulling (or pushing) it downward faster than you, in which case it's not in an inertial reference frame. The only way what you describe could happen with gravity alone is if the acceleration of gravity (NOT just the force) depended upon the mass of the object. But it doesn't, and that's been known for hundreds of years (starting with Galileo's experiment dropping things from the leaning tower of Pisa). Gravity accelerates everything the same.

With a vicious enough acceleration, you will be squashed against the roof. You'll feel anything but weightless.

Yes, but you can only get a "vicious enough acceleration" by applying a force in addition to gravity, in which case you're not in a free-falling inertial reference frame, but in an accelerating reference frame.

When the lift reaches terminal velocity, this will end. Because you are in free fall, there's nothing pushing you towards the roof or the floor. You are weightless.

Wrong again. Terminal velocity is due to air resistance: without it, there is no terminal velocity. If the elevator reaches terminal velocity, that means the air resistance is keeping it from accelerating - this additional force means that the elevator is no longer in a freefalling inertial reference frame. You, being inside the elevator, will feel no air resistance, and gravity will continue to try to accelerate you downwards with no compensating force from air resistance. You will therefore feel your full weight against the floor of the elevator.
 
:covereyes Please excuse my ignorance there, everyone. I must have been doing too much inertial frame dragging recently. It's kinda hard to lug the Universe around with you everywhere...

Think I'll go and jump in a free-falling lift for the duration. :o
 
:covereyes Please excuse my ignorance there, everyone.

No problem. Most people have at least a few conceptual understandings that are backwards from the way reality works (though I find I have selective amnesia about remembering my own past such mistakes :blush:). It's only when people won't budge from those notions despite being shown where they break down that I ever get annoyed.
 
I prefer thinking of two big bedsheets with a basketball in the middle of them. The bedsheets when pulled will put pressure on both sides of the basketball even in absence of gravity so that the bedsheets are actually doing the pushing sort of like space time.
 
Whatever turns you on, Dustin...

This is all getting like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy explanation of the beginning of the universe.
 

Back
Top Bottom