OK Greg, thanks again and I hope you had/have a great Thanksgiving (well maybe you’re in Hawaii for all I know.)

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.

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?”

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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])]