Speed of Gravity/Light

Discussion in 'Physics' started by tbinder3, Nov 26, 2013.

  1. tbinder3

    Thread Starter Member

    Jun 30, 2013
    30
    1
    For the past couple years, I have been extremely curious as to whether the speed of gravity is faster/slower/= to the speed of light. Even though theoretically the speed of light is the fastest speed at which energy/matter/etc. can travel.

    But what about the speed of gravity? Is the speed of gravity related to speed of light? Is the speed of gravity a measurable constant?

    Haven't done any research at all, and if someone can point me to a nice article debating a similar issue, that would be TERRIFIC. Also kinda curious what others thoughts are on this issue.

    EDIT: Hope this is in the right section.
     
  2. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Close enough. My understanding is the speed of gravity is that of light. Of course, I don't really know. We don't have any way of turning gravity on / off.
     
  3. tbinder3

    Thread Starter Member

    Jun 30, 2013
    30
    1
    Your saying speed of light = to speed of gravity? Interesting, cause I did a quick Goggle and thats what most theories are concluding as well.

    Any good articles/experiments/debates someone can point me to?
     
  4. mattbullet

    Member

    Nov 29, 2008
    20
    12
    The way I see it is this. If it was raining straight down and I was running forward, the drops would be hitting me more in the face then the back of my head. The raindrops have a certain speed and so do I.
    If I was orbiting a star photons would do the same thing. If I was traveling fast enough I would only see light from the front. The photons have a certain speed.
    Now let's say I'm orbiting a black hole. If gravity was particles traveling at some speed I should feel more gravity from my front than my back. I would be accelerating and spiral away from the black hole. That is if gravitrons convey gravity the way photons convey electromagnetism or raindrops convey wetness.
    It seems more like warped space then something moving at a speed.
     
  5. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,743
    4,795
    Though I think there are a number of experiments you could perform if we had sensitive enough instruments; but the gravitational force is so weak compared to the electromagnetic force that getting there is a challenge.

    But I was just reading the other day that relativistic time dilation effects have now been measured at speeds as low as 10m/s. Now THAT'S pretty impressive! That puts them in the range where they could measure and report the time dilation experienced by world class sprinters, though I don't know if they could work with an experiment that was that short in duration.

    Anyway, we may get there (to where we can measure speed of gravity). It would be interesting to know which experiment to get a reasonably definitive answer is the closest to being realizable and just how far away (in resolution, not in time before getting that resolution) it is.
     
  6. Alec_t

    AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 17, 2013
    5,797
    1,103
    That's the way it seems to me, too.
    Can gravity exist in the total absence of mass? Is gravity a consequence of the existence of mass?
     
  7. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    It is also a consequence of linear acceleration. The famous elevator thought experiment by Einstein shows that in a truly closed system it is not possible to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration. As far as I know this is still the case.
     
  8. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,743
    4,795
    Of course, in the total absence of mass, what is accelerating? :eek:

    But, if we could postulate a massless particle that did not move at the speed of light, then it would be unable to distinguish gravity from a uniformly accelerating reference frame.
     
  9. Markd77

    Senior Member

    Sep 7, 2009
    2,803
    594
    Light isn't like rain, you will always see light coming from all around, whatever speed you are travelling, and it will appear to you to be travelling towards you from all directions at the speed of light - even if you are travelling at some measurable fraction of it. It's called "Special Relativity".
     
  10. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    If the particle were truly massless, how could it not move at the speed of light? It would be an all or nothing process, where Neuton's Laws do not apply.
     
  11. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,743
    4,795
    It couldn't. Which is why I said "if we could postulate" such a particle.
     
  12. #12

    Expert

    Nov 30, 2010
    16,284
    6,797
    Somebody did a proof of this on TV. The answer was, "speed of light" IIRC. Darn senior moments!

    The setup: Our star vanishes.
    Do the planets begin straight line motion when the sun vanishes or wait until the moment when the lack of light reaches us?
    This depends on whether the warp of space-time flattens immediately or takes time. If it flattened immediately, we could send messages by gravity wave instantaneously.
    The Answer: wait
     
  13. morrobay

    New Member

    Nov 7, 2013
    11
    2
    Then with t = t'/√ 1- v^2/c^2 Where t' is the proper time in the moving frame and t is the elapsed time for stationary observer.
    We have: t = t'/√ 1- 100/9*10^16
    Then if the runner records 1 hr on his/her clock (proper time). The clock with the stationary observer will show
    1.00000000000000555 hr.With 3600sec/hr thats one hour and .00000000001998 seconds
    So the stationary observer concludes that the moving clock is running slow by that amount of time.
     
  14. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,743
    4,795
    It's hard to follow your equations. It would really help if you used some parens.

    t = t'/√(1 - (v^2/c^2))

    With the timing resolution being taken to increasing absurd levels in some sporting events, it may not be too long before we see claimed resolutions overlapping relativistic effects. :eek:
     
  15. tbinder3

    Thread Starter Member

    Jun 30, 2013
    30
    1
    Telling us what #12?

    The planet falls into a straight line motion, leaving its gravitational rotation, and when the last of light reaches our planet, we will leave our "original" orbit…

    But what does this mean, for the gravity/light relations? There =?

    Great friggen example!
     
  16. Alec_t

    AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 17, 2013
    5,797
    1,103
    Eliminating the mass of our sun would release so much energy that our planets would probably be vapourised. So their paths post-elimination is academic :D.
     
  17. adam555

    Active Member

    Aug 17, 2013
    858
    39
    Since the hypothetical elementary particle that carries gravity (the graviton) would have 0 mass, gravity must travel at the the speed of light.
     
  18. Alec_t

    AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 17, 2013
    5,797
    1,103
    Why does having zero mass mean it must travel at the speed of light?
     
  19. adam555

    Active Member

    Aug 17, 2013
    858
    39
    Because according to Einstein's E=m c^2 it is mass that prevents a particle from reaching the speed of light. Therefore, the lower the mass the faster it travels; and since gravitons supposedly have 0 mass, they travel at the speed of light.
     
  20. Alec_t

    AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 17, 2013
    5,797
    1,103
    I don't see how that follows. The Einstein equation just means that a lower mass will have lower energy.
    I accept that the maximum velocity would be c, but see no reason why a mass-less entity couldn't have an arbitrary lower velocity.
     
Loading...