Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Experiment This Weekend To Measure Speed Of Gravity

Posted by timothy on from the ch-ch-ch-changes dept.

An anonymous reader writes: "Is gravity an instantaneous phenomenon, as we were taught in high school, or is its speed, like all other Einsteinian phenomena, bounded by the speed of light? A radical new experiment, proposed by Sergei Kopeikin, and involving the Very Long Baseline Array, is set to occur this weekend, and results should be known within about two weeks."

42 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. If it's instantaneous... by crow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it's instantaneous, then that would provide a means of faster-than-light communication. Of course, it's probably impractical, as the amount of mass we would have to move to be detectable at a significant distance would be prohibitive. ...unless you had some way to implement gravity shielding, and turn it on and off like smoke signals.

    Fun to think about. Probably more practical for a science fiction story than reality.

    1. Re:If it's instantaneous... by melquiades · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the amount of mass we would have to move to be detectable at a significant distance would be prohibitive

      Well, perhaps a very finely-tuned vibration of a specific type could show up in a Fourier spread, even if the power were incredibly low. But even so.....

      Probably more practical for a science fiction story than reality.

      Undoubtedly! But fun to speculate.

    2. Re:If it's instantaneous... by inkfox · · Score: 2
      the amount of mass we would have to move to be detectable at a significant distance would be prohibitive
      Well, perhaps a very finely-tuned vibration of a specific type could show up in a Fourier spread, even if the power were incredibly low. But even so.....

      It goes both ways though. If you can move something large back and forth quickly to transmit via gravity, then you also endure resistance (energy loss) remotely.

      This would mean faster-than-light energy transmission. Again, though... at very low magnitude.

      --
      Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
    3. Re:If it's instantaneous... by crow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My understanding was that you don't convert between mass and energy. Mass and energy are one. It all depends on how you observe it. If my understanding here is correct, then energy produces gravity, just like any other mass. However, because of the huge c^2 factor, it would take a huge amount of energy to test this; sounds like another good experiment.

      Or is my understanding whacked?

    4. Re:If it's instantaneous... by Dannon · · Score: 2

      Fun to think about. Probably more practical for a science fiction story than reality.

      Definitely. The nearest place I can think of where faster-than-light communication might be useful would be Mars, and then, only for ultra-time-critical purposes. Like playing the stock market, perhaps. A market 'rise' could be a lessening of gravitational pull, a market 'fall' could be an increase.

      And a market 'crash'.... Oops. Scratch that, bad idea.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    5. Re:If it's instantaneous... by Consul · · Score: 2

      My first thought was:

      Imagine RFC10023: TCP/IP and IPv6 Over Gravity Waves. :o)

      --

      -----

      "You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."

    6. Re:If it's instantaneous... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2

      ``unless you had some way to implement gravity shielding, and turn it on and off like smoke signals.''
      Which would then have to be faster than light, too, or it wouldn't help much.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  2. Re:I thought by unDiWahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll bet that the current theories won't, and they'll have to invent something new to account for the difference, ala Tachyons or Dark Matter

  3. Re:Bound by Speed of Light by Frank+Grimes · · Score: 2, Interesting
    high school physics is wrong and the gravitational force is bound by the speed of light just like all other force fields.
    Of course, high school physics is wrong. The mark of a good high school physics teacher is that he will tell you when he's making a gross approximation that ignores relativity, friction, air resistance, or quantum mechanics.

    Of course, these type of gross approximations continue well into college physics, where they are refered to as "back of the envelope calculations." And still, a good teacher will let you know what approximations he is making.

    --
    CfkRAp1041vYQVbFY1aIwA== RV/hBCLKKcSTP5UFK3kqsg==
  4. Does it have a speed? by brejc8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was on the impression that gravity was instant.
    Imagine two balls spinning around eachother in space. each ball sees the other one a bit in the past. They will get faster and faster as they see eachother infront of themselves. Sortof surfing eachothers gravitational field.

    Or am I just wrong?

    --
    Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
    1. Re:Does it have a speed? by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      IANAP, but at the same time A sees B "a bit in front of itself", B, on the other side of the circle is seeing A "a bit in front of itself", so whether or not there is a time delay, it seems gravity is still conserved. This is not to say that we won't see these type of effects for instance when objects pass near each other (but are not in a steady orbit). In fact, that's exactly what this experiment is testing, if I read it correctly. The quasar's halo should be "delayed" as the gravity "travels" toward it (however you want to conceptualize this). Basically like red-shifting, but for gravity.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    2. Re:Does it have a speed? by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      Or maybe these situations are degenerative, since the gravity "vector" from A to B will be on an orbit of a larger radius, thus spinning the two further from each other??

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:Does it have a speed? by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      This effect is very small, as you would expect, since light is very fast. In fact it is so small that it gets mixed up with all the other small ways in which general relativity predict deviations from Newtonian gravity, like gravity waves. The net effect is that two spinning boies do VERY SLOWLY radiate their rotational energy away as gravity waves, and will eventually collide. For most reaosonable objects, however this will take longer than the lifetime of the universe. Only very dense objects rotating very fact (like binary neutron stars) actually show a measurable effect.

  5. Speed of anti-gravity by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not sure about the speed of gravity (the force reponsible for attraction between two bodies) but I've noticed that the speed of anti-gravity (the force responsible for repulsion between two bodies) is roughly the speed of light. Everytime I see some hot babe in a bar and start walking towards her, she turns and runs away in the opposite direction when she sees me coming.

    If independent verifcation of this experimental result is needed, I can get my buddies (who always guffaw when this happens) to pledge that these results are repeatble!

    GMD

    --
    watch this
    1. Re:Speed of anti-gravity by Phexro · · Score: 2

      I think you are observing Arrid's first law, which dictates the speed of body odor in a confined space. It appears that your body odor has a particularly strong force, which causes the repulsion you mention.

  6. gravity doesn't exist, per se by medcalf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK, that's a bit strong of a statement. My physics prof uncle taught me at a very young age that all of science is a best approximation of how things work, and that we sometimes realize that we were way off in cause, even though our theories do a good job of describing effect. A case in point is Newtonian physics vs. Relativity. Newtonian physics works until you get to very large or very small measurements, and then it breaks down completely.

    As I understand it, Quantum theory describes the very small very well, and Relativity describes the very large very well, and each describes the middle (our normal perception) fairly well (particularly relativity). There has been a search to unify these into a single theory, but it keeps breaking down, and my understanding is that it's gravity that generally gets in the way.

    As a result, I've come to the conclusion that we are very wrong about gravity at a fundamental level, though our understanding is certainly good enough to get from place to place in space. The problem is, I don't know what to replace that underlying understanding with. My cosmology isn't complete there.

    It seems that either way that this experiment turns out, it is going to be one of those events which is looked back on as pivotal in our understanding of the world.

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    1. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative
      Superstring or Membrane-theory attempt to join Newtonian and Quantum physics together, and so far seems to be doing so, at least to our admittedly weak understanding (we are just now creating the math to solve the equations).

      In Superstring theory, gravity is not a force, but more is due to a fundamental warping of the multi-dimensional space our universe exists in due to concentrations of matter/energy (yes, according to string theory, and as an outgrowth of relativity, concentrations of energy also create gravity). Thus, if the warping is instantaneous, so would the apparent effect of gravity... but if the warp takes time to propagate, then 'gravity' would travel at a slower speed.

      Interesting result of this, though, is that if gravity is instantaneous, we get an easy FTL communication method... But if gravity isn't instantaneous, then there are all sorts of conservation of energy questions (for example: take the sun away... if gravity is not instantaneous, then the Earth continues to orbit empty space for another 8 minutes... where does that energy come from?)

      Check out The Universe In A Nutshell by Hawking. There's also a _really_ in depth book called Supersymmetry, but I forget the author.

      -T

    2. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by nivedita · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's true that general relativity raises some thorny issues to do with conservation of energy, but your example isn't actually one of them, since according to GTR, it is impossible for the sun to "suddenly disappear". This was one of the most beautiful things about GTR which distinguishes it from other field theories: the equations of motion follow from the equations of the gravitational field, rather than being tacked on later. In electromagnetism, on the other hand, there are equations describing the field, and then the equation qE+qv\cross B = m dv/dt that follows from Newton's laws and describes the motion of the charges. Thus it's possible to have a consistent EM field with stationary charges, raising questions of what holds the charges stationary, whereas it is not possible to have a consistent gravitational field with stationary masses.

    3. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Interesting result of this, though, is that if gravity is instantaneous, we get an easy FTL communication method.

      For arbitrarily large values of "easy".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by jcoleman · · Score: 2

      Actually it was Einstein's theories that postulated gravity as a distortion of spacetime.

      Speaking of that...if gravity is a warping of spacetime, how is it that a body is ripped apart as it enters the event horizon of a black hole? Any of my physics professors that described black holes always said that a body would be ripped apart by the difference in gravitational forces as approaching a black hole. If gravity is a warping of spacetime, wouldn't mass in the warped space be warped as well, and therefore maintain its structural integrity?

      I must be missing part of the picture here...I do actually have a bachelor's in physics, but this is something that I've wondered about for a long time.

    5. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by jcoleman · · Score: 2

      And what exactly is that FTL communication method? We haven't quite mastered control of gravity yet. If concentration of matter or energy is required for these instantaneous gravitational changes, then we're required to break some thermodynamic laws to communicate FTL.

    6. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by Theaetetus · · Score: 2
      Speaking of that...if gravity is a warping of spacetime, how is it that a body is ripped apart as it enters the event horizon of a black hole? Any of my physics professors that described black holes always said that a body would be ripped apart by the difference in gravitational forces as approaching a black hole. If gravity is a warping of spacetime, wouldn't mass in the warped space be warped as well, and therefore maintain its structural integrity?

      It's not so much dependent on the event horizon, but rather the gradient of gravity change (tidal effects)...
      For instance - here on Earth, there's a very slightly greater force pulling your feet towards the ground than is pulling your head, because your head is an additional ~1.5 meters away (miniscule difference compared to the radius of the earth, which is why it's barely measurable).

      However, if you have something as dense as a black hole, with such a tiny radius, then the 1.5 meter difference (or 100 meter for your spaceship) starts to really matter... Though the whole ship is being pulled in, the nose is being pulled in a lot harder than the tail. In fact, eventually, the atoms are getting pulled in with enough of a gradient that they get ripped apart from each other.

      As another example, think of a drop of water, rolling over something spherical, like a ball... It starts to elongate as the tip of it goes onto a more vertical section than the back of it. If it were an even more pronounced curve, then the tip of the drop would break off, leaving the back to slowly roll after it.

      -T

    7. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by Theaetetus · · Score: 2
      And what exactly is that FTL communication method? We haven't quite mastered control of gravity yet. If concentration of matter or energy is required for these instantaneous gravitational changes, then we're required to break some thermodynamic laws to communicate FTL.

      Well, the easiest theorized one (blame Robert L. Forward... see the book "Indistinguishable from Magic") is to take a really dense and small mass (such as a quantum black hole... real dense, real small, no Swartzchild radius), spin it up and charge it by shooting electrons at it, and then use big, powerful magnets to move it back and forth very quickly. The oscillations, provided gravity is instantaneous, would be measureable at a long distance (the bigger the mass, and the more you move it, the farther away you could measure it).

      Then, just move it in a sine wave as a carrier, and do some FM modulation on top of that carrier. Easy FTL device, provided gravity is FTL.

      -T

    8. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by Cyberllama · · Score: 2

      Where does the energy come from? That's like asking where the light comes from. It's already on it's way. Its in space en reute to its destination, earth.

    9. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by Theaetetus · · Score: 2
      Well, more to the point - F=GMsMe/r^2, where Ms=Mass of the Sun, and Me=Mass of the Earth... If Ms=0, then F=0... But not for 8 minutes?

      -T

    10. Re:gravity doesn't exist, per se by Cyberllama · · Score: 2

      Well thats not so much a question of "where is the energy" as it is a problem reconciling newtonian physics with relativity. The sun exploding would be an event too far away to be accurately depicted by newtonian physics alone.

  7. Press Release by greenhide · · Score: 2, Informative

    The University of Missouri has also released a press release concerning the experiment.

    --
    Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
  8. A copy of the actual paper by MarkusH · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is Mr. Kopeikin's actual paper in PDF format. You can go to this site for other formats.

    Warning: The paper contains some very seriously heavy math. It uses things like the Euler Gamma function, Lorentz factors and stuff like that. You have been warned.

  9. USENET sci.physic FAQ by g4dget · · Score: 5, Informative

    The USENET sci.physics FAQ has a pretty readable explanation of some of the speculation surrounding the speed of gravity.

  10. conclusion is overstated by g4dget · · Score: 2
    If the experiment is successful it will provide a new independent test of general relativity in the solar system.

    If the experiment showed infinite propagation velocity, it would invalidate GR. But it is a common fallacy among physicists to claim that conducting an experiment that can invalidate a theory "tests" that theory. The problem with that view is that there are many other possible theories of gravity that differ substantially from GR but still have finite speeds of gravitational interactions. In fact, merely imposing finite speed on Newtonian gravity (and doing some fixing up to make the result consistent) gives you an interesting theory that is quite similar to the experimental predictions of GR in many ways.

    1. Re:conclusion is overstated by hubie · · Score: 2
      You can indeed say that conducting an experiment that can invalidate a theory tests that theory. If the theory cannot explain the experimental results, then if the experiment was done carefully the theory failed the test and needs to either be modified or thrown out. That is a pretty good test. If the theory is in agreement with the experiment, then it passed the test, but that is about all you can say about it. That is pretty much the basis of science (physical, at least), not just physics.

      Maybe it is a semantic problem, but I guess I don't understand your point. If the experiment says that GR needs to be changed, what does that have to do with the other theories of gravity you mentioned? If the experiment showed infinite propagation velocity (though I don't know how you show that given experimental uncertainties), then I think the finite-velocity theories you allude to also take a hit, and I would say those theories didn't "pass the test." If the experiment shows a finite velocity, then those other theories pass the test and they get to stay on the island for another week.

    2. Re:conclusion is overstated by jareds · · Score: 2

      But it is a common fallacy among physicists to claim that conducting an experiment that can invalidate a theory "tests" that theory.

      No, tests can have false positives or false negatives and still be "tests". Do you think the Miller-Rabin primality test is not a test because it is possible for composites to pass it? Where did you get this use of the word "test"?

      In fact, merely imposing finite speed on Newtonian gravity (and doing some fixing up to make the result consistent) gives you an interesting theory that is quite similar to the experimental predictions of GR in many ways.

      And if this theory makes predictions that differ from GR, one could use them to test GR. What's your point? No one's claiming that a theory cannot be wrong as long as it passes at least one test.

  11. Re:Bound by the speed of light by g4dget · · Score: 2

    Einstein didn't "show" that. Einstein developed a mathematical theory that makes certain experimental predictions. Whether those predictions are correct or not needs to be verified experimentally. Just because a few predictions have been verified doesn't mean that the whole theory is true. In fact, we already know that the whole theory cannot be true--at best, it can be an approximation.

  12. Results timeframe off by VisualStim · · Score: 3, Informative

    "... and results should be known within about two weeks."

    The articles says two months.

    1. Re:Results timeframe off by Idarubicin · · Score: 2
      "... and results should be known within about two weeks."

      The articles says two months.

      It's a relativistic effect. Data moves really fast over the internet, so there is a time dilation.

      Obviously.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  13. Re:Bound by the speed of light by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 2

    Given the complexity of the topic of discussion, I think nit-picking is appropriate.

  14. Re:Bound by the speed of light by g4dget · · Score: 2

    Yes, it does invalidate the point you made. Your point was that "Einstein showed something". But he didn't. One can show (=prove) that pi must be irrational, but one can't show that objects can't accelerate faster than light (even if it seems plausible and likely). The distinction is particularly important for physicists to keep in mind; too bad that it is lost on many of them.

  15. Re:Bound by the speed of light by AJWM · · Score: 2

    how do you move from the speed of light without accelleration?

    Magic. Or rather, "it's just created that way". Consider an electron changing energy levels and emitting a photon. That photon does not accelerate from whatever speed the electron has up to the speed of light, it's created going at the speed of light. A hypothetical tachyon is created going faster than light. Such a tachyon also has an imaginary rest mass, but it's never at rest.

    --
    -- Alastair
  16. What is this 10-20% accuracy business??? by Schwarzchild · · Score: 2

    that doesn't seem very accurate at all for c(gravity).

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  17. Er, what does "speed" mean? by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps I've missed something, but didn't Bell's theorem, with the help of Clauser and Freedman's experimental work, demonstrate that the entire concept of "locality" fails?

    In which case, the idea of a cosmic speed limit fails as well, since we measure velocities in terms of displacement per unit of time. Without the idea of locality, the first of those units ceases to exist, and the second comes under some serious suspicion...

  18. Re:Bound by the speed of light by MeerCat · · Score: 2

    Einstein's theory says that nothing with mass can be accelerated beyond the speed of light, true, and this doesn't stop the idea of items that always travel faster than the speed of light.

    But AFAIK it also says (or this may be deduced from above) that "information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light", and if gravity acts simultaneously then I could transmit information by moving an object and letting you detect the change in the gravitational field. OK, me moving a rock might be hard to distinguish from a couple of light years away (anyone care to work out what the hamming distance would be, how many correction bits you'd need) but it is something I've always wondered about.

    --
    I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
  19. Speed of light by Cyberllama · · Score: 2

    Strange, I don't recall thier even being any sort of debate on the subject. Gravity travels at the speed of light.