Does gravity sometimes get transmitted faster than the speed of light?
$begingroup$
Consider Earth moving around the Sun. Is the force of gravity exerted by Earth onto the Sun directed towards the point where Earth is "right now", or towards the point where Earth was 8 minutes ago (to account for the speed of light)?
If it's the former, how does the Sun "know" the current orbital position of Earth? Wouldn't this information have to travel at the speed of light first?
If it's the latter, it would force a significant slowdown of Earth's orbital motion, because the force of gravity would no longer be directed perpendicular to Earth's motion, but would lag behind. Obviously, this isn't happening.
So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this possible? Isn't this a violation of the principle that no information can travel above the speed of light?
orbital-motion relativity
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider Earth moving around the Sun. Is the force of gravity exerted by Earth onto the Sun directed towards the point where Earth is "right now", or towards the point where Earth was 8 minutes ago (to account for the speed of light)?
If it's the former, how does the Sun "know" the current orbital position of Earth? Wouldn't this information have to travel at the speed of light first?
If it's the latter, it would force a significant slowdown of Earth's orbital motion, because the force of gravity would no longer be directed perpendicular to Earth's motion, but would lag behind. Obviously, this isn't happening.
So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this possible? Isn't this a violation of the principle that no information can travel above the speed of light?
orbital-motion relativity
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is not limited to gravity. The same applies to electromagnetism.
$endgroup$
– safesphere
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101919/…
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5456
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider Earth moving around the Sun. Is the force of gravity exerted by Earth onto the Sun directed towards the point where Earth is "right now", or towards the point where Earth was 8 minutes ago (to account for the speed of light)?
If it's the former, how does the Sun "know" the current orbital position of Earth? Wouldn't this information have to travel at the speed of light first?
If it's the latter, it would force a significant slowdown of Earth's orbital motion, because the force of gravity would no longer be directed perpendicular to Earth's motion, but would lag behind. Obviously, this isn't happening.
So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this possible? Isn't this a violation of the principle that no information can travel above the speed of light?
orbital-motion relativity
$endgroup$
Consider Earth moving around the Sun. Is the force of gravity exerted by Earth onto the Sun directed towards the point where Earth is "right now", or towards the point where Earth was 8 minutes ago (to account for the speed of light)?
If it's the former, how does the Sun "know" the current orbital position of Earth? Wouldn't this information have to travel at the speed of light first?
If it's the latter, it would force a significant slowdown of Earth's orbital motion, because the force of gravity would no longer be directed perpendicular to Earth's motion, but would lag behind. Obviously, this isn't happening.
So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this possible? Isn't this a violation of the principle that no information can travel above the speed of light?
orbital-motion relativity
orbital-motion relativity
asked 4 hours ago
cuckoocuckoo
43416
43416
1
$begingroup$
This is not limited to gravity. The same applies to electromagnetism.
$endgroup$
– safesphere
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101919/…
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5456
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
This is not limited to gravity. The same applies to electromagnetism.
$endgroup$
– safesphere
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101919/…
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5456
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
This is not limited to gravity. The same applies to electromagnetism.
$endgroup$
– safesphere
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is not limited to gravity. The same applies to electromagnetism.
$endgroup$
– safesphere
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101919/…
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101919/…
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5456
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5456
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Cuckoo asked: So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed
directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without
accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this
possible?
If the motion is straight or circular the aberration cancels out, see Steve Carlip: Aberration and the Speed of Gravity:
Steven Carlip wrote: The observed absence of gravitational
aberration requires that "Newtonian'' gravity propagates at a speed
ς>2×10¹⁰c. By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating
mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly
canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting ς=c. This
cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole
nature of gravitational radiation.
or to quote the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Wikipedia wrote: Two gravitoelectrically interacting particle
ensembles, e.g., two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with
respect to each other, each feel a force toward the instantaneous
position of the other body without a speed-of-light delay because
Lorentz invariance demands that what a moving body in a static field
sees and what a moving body that emits that field sees be symmetrical.
In other words, since the gravitoelectric field is, by definition,
static and continuous, it does not propagate.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I would be thankful for any comments on my answer below. I kind of made an interpretation of your answer, but I'm not sure I said everything correctly.
$endgroup$
– Elias Riedel Gårding
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, gravitational influences never travel faster than the speed of light. However, a naive incorporation of a speed-of-gravity delay would actually lead to the Earth's orbital motion speeding up, not slowing down. (Think about the geometry carefully.) I explained here why that doesn't actually happen in general relativity.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Think of the gravitational field as curved space. Like a bump in space time. This bump will stay constant over time more or less. The planet then just looks at the bump and moves accordingly. However if the sun were to explode it might cause a small ripple in spacetime that would reach the earth in 8 minutes
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was going to write an incorrect answer at first, but having researched a bit
what Yukterez wrote, I think I may be able to offer some intuition.
First, let's look at the solar system in the centre-of-mass frame, where the
Sun is essentially stationary in the middle. Here, the force on the Earth is
directed towards the Sun's position 8 minutes ago, which conveniently is the
same as its current position. So this doesn't affect the Earth's position in
the way you say.
If the Sun and Earth were moving at a constant velocity to each other, they
would, like Yukterez wrote, still be attracted to the instantaneous position of
the other body. This is not because of a faster-than-light influence, but
because gravity is more than a simple attractive force between objects
(analogous to the electric field in electromagnetism). For moving sources,
there are other components of the gravitational field (roughly analogous to the
magnetic field). You can view this as the force travelling at the speed of
light, but being directed towards the position of the source "predicted" based
on its past linear motion.
However, if the source is accelerating, like the Earth around the Sun, the
effects are less obvious. Then, you really can't view it only as an attractive
force towards any position (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but you get
more complex things like gravitational waves. But still, nothing ever travels faster than
light.
As I am more familiar with electromagnetism, let's take an example from there.
If two oppositely charged bodies ($A$ and $B$) are moving with constant
velocity towards each other, we can view the system in the rest frame of $A$.
Here, it emits only a static electric field, given by the Coulomb formula, and
$B$ therefore feels an attraction directly towards it. In the rest frame of $B$,
this means that the attraction is towards the instantaneous position. But how
can this be since the electric field is propagating at a finite speed? The
answer is that since now $A$ is moving, it also emits a magnetic field. While
this doesn't affect $B$ directly (since $B$ is stationary here), it does affect
the electric field and makes it point in a different direction (towards the
instantaneous position).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458136%2fdoes-gravity-sometimes-get-transmitted-faster-than-the-speed-of-light%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Cuckoo asked: So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed
directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without
accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this
possible?
If the motion is straight or circular the aberration cancels out, see Steve Carlip: Aberration and the Speed of Gravity:
Steven Carlip wrote: The observed absence of gravitational
aberration requires that "Newtonian'' gravity propagates at a speed
ς>2×10¹⁰c. By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating
mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly
canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting ς=c. This
cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole
nature of gravitational radiation.
or to quote the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Wikipedia wrote: Two gravitoelectrically interacting particle
ensembles, e.g., two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with
respect to each other, each feel a force toward the instantaneous
position of the other body without a speed-of-light delay because
Lorentz invariance demands that what a moving body in a static field
sees and what a moving body that emits that field sees be symmetrical.
In other words, since the gravitoelectric field is, by definition,
static and continuous, it does not propagate.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I would be thankful for any comments on my answer below. I kind of made an interpretation of your answer, but I'm not sure I said everything correctly.
$endgroup$
– Elias Riedel Gårding
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Cuckoo asked: So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed
directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without
accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this
possible?
If the motion is straight or circular the aberration cancels out, see Steve Carlip: Aberration and the Speed of Gravity:
Steven Carlip wrote: The observed absence of gravitational
aberration requires that "Newtonian'' gravity propagates at a speed
ς>2×10¹⁰c. By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating
mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly
canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting ς=c. This
cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole
nature of gravitational radiation.
or to quote the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Wikipedia wrote: Two gravitoelectrically interacting particle
ensembles, e.g., two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with
respect to each other, each feel a force toward the instantaneous
position of the other body without a speed-of-light delay because
Lorentz invariance demands that what a moving body in a static field
sees and what a moving body that emits that field sees be symmetrical.
In other words, since the gravitoelectric field is, by definition,
static and continuous, it does not propagate.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I would be thankful for any comments on my answer below. I kind of made an interpretation of your answer, but I'm not sure I said everything correctly.
$endgroup$
– Elias Riedel Gårding
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Cuckoo asked: So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed
directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without
accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this
possible?
If the motion is straight or circular the aberration cancels out, see Steve Carlip: Aberration and the Speed of Gravity:
Steven Carlip wrote: The observed absence of gravitational
aberration requires that "Newtonian'' gravity propagates at a speed
ς>2×10¹⁰c. By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating
mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly
canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting ς=c. This
cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole
nature of gravitational radiation.
or to quote the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Wikipedia wrote: Two gravitoelectrically interacting particle
ensembles, e.g., two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with
respect to each other, each feel a force toward the instantaneous
position of the other body without a speed-of-light delay because
Lorentz invariance demands that what a moving body in a static field
sees and what a moving body that emits that field sees be symmetrical.
In other words, since the gravitoelectric field is, by definition,
static and continuous, it does not propagate.
$endgroup$
Cuckoo asked: So it appears that the force of gravity is indeed
directed towards the current orbital position of Earth, without
accounting for the delay caused by the speed of light. How is this
possible?
If the motion is straight or circular the aberration cancels out, see Steve Carlip: Aberration and the Speed of Gravity:
Steven Carlip wrote: The observed absence of gravitational
aberration requires that "Newtonian'' gravity propagates at a speed
ς>2×10¹⁰c. By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating
mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly
canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting ς=c. This
cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole
nature of gravitational radiation.
or to quote the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Wikipedia wrote: Two gravitoelectrically interacting particle
ensembles, e.g., two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with
respect to each other, each feel a force toward the instantaneous
position of the other body without a speed-of-light delay because
Lorentz invariance demands that what a moving body in a static field
sees and what a moving body that emits that field sees be symmetrical.
In other words, since the gravitoelectric field is, by definition,
static and continuous, it does not propagate.
answered 3 hours ago
YukterezYukterez
4,47911135
4,47911135
$begingroup$
I would be thankful for any comments on my answer below. I kind of made an interpretation of your answer, but I'm not sure I said everything correctly.
$endgroup$
– Elias Riedel Gårding
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would be thankful for any comments on my answer below. I kind of made an interpretation of your answer, but I'm not sure I said everything correctly.
$endgroup$
– Elias Riedel Gårding
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would be thankful for any comments on my answer below. I kind of made an interpretation of your answer, but I'm not sure I said everything correctly.
$endgroup$
– Elias Riedel Gårding
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would be thankful for any comments on my answer below. I kind of made an interpretation of your answer, but I'm not sure I said everything correctly.
$endgroup$
– Elias Riedel Gårding
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, gravitational influences never travel faster than the speed of light. However, a naive incorporation of a speed-of-gravity delay would actually lead to the Earth's orbital motion speeding up, not slowing down. (Think about the geometry carefully.) I explained here why that doesn't actually happen in general relativity.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, gravitational influences never travel faster than the speed of light. However, a naive incorporation of a speed-of-gravity delay would actually lead to the Earth's orbital motion speeding up, not slowing down. (Think about the geometry carefully.) I explained here why that doesn't actually happen in general relativity.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, gravitational influences never travel faster than the speed of light. However, a naive incorporation of a speed-of-gravity delay would actually lead to the Earth's orbital motion speeding up, not slowing down. (Think about the geometry carefully.) I explained here why that doesn't actually happen in general relativity.
$endgroup$
No, gravitational influences never travel faster than the speed of light. However, a naive incorporation of a speed-of-gravity delay would actually lead to the Earth's orbital motion speeding up, not slowing down. (Think about the geometry carefully.) I explained here why that doesn't actually happen in general relativity.
answered 1 hour ago
tparkertparker
22.9k147122
22.9k147122
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Think of the gravitational field as curved space. Like a bump in space time. This bump will stay constant over time more or less. The planet then just looks at the bump and moves accordingly. However if the sun were to explode it might cause a small ripple in spacetime that would reach the earth in 8 minutes
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Think of the gravitational field as curved space. Like a bump in space time. This bump will stay constant over time more or less. The planet then just looks at the bump and moves accordingly. However if the sun were to explode it might cause a small ripple in spacetime that would reach the earth in 8 minutes
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Think of the gravitational field as curved space. Like a bump in space time. This bump will stay constant over time more or less. The planet then just looks at the bump and moves accordingly. However if the sun were to explode it might cause a small ripple in spacetime that would reach the earth in 8 minutes
$endgroup$
Think of the gravitational field as curved space. Like a bump in space time. This bump will stay constant over time more or less. The planet then just looks at the bump and moves accordingly. However if the sun were to explode it might cause a small ripple in spacetime that would reach the earth in 8 minutes
answered 3 hours ago
zoobyzooby
1,319514
1,319514
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was going to write an incorrect answer at first, but having researched a bit
what Yukterez wrote, I think I may be able to offer some intuition.
First, let's look at the solar system in the centre-of-mass frame, where the
Sun is essentially stationary in the middle. Here, the force on the Earth is
directed towards the Sun's position 8 minutes ago, which conveniently is the
same as its current position. So this doesn't affect the Earth's position in
the way you say.
If the Sun and Earth were moving at a constant velocity to each other, they
would, like Yukterez wrote, still be attracted to the instantaneous position of
the other body. This is not because of a faster-than-light influence, but
because gravity is more than a simple attractive force between objects
(analogous to the electric field in electromagnetism). For moving sources,
there are other components of the gravitational field (roughly analogous to the
magnetic field). You can view this as the force travelling at the speed of
light, but being directed towards the position of the source "predicted" based
on its past linear motion.
However, if the source is accelerating, like the Earth around the Sun, the
effects are less obvious. Then, you really can't view it only as an attractive
force towards any position (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but you get
more complex things like gravitational waves. But still, nothing ever travels faster than
light.
As I am more familiar with electromagnetism, let's take an example from there.
If two oppositely charged bodies ($A$ and $B$) are moving with constant
velocity towards each other, we can view the system in the rest frame of $A$.
Here, it emits only a static electric field, given by the Coulomb formula, and
$B$ therefore feels an attraction directly towards it. In the rest frame of $B$,
this means that the attraction is towards the instantaneous position. But how
can this be since the electric field is propagating at a finite speed? The
answer is that since now $A$ is moving, it also emits a magnetic field. While
this doesn't affect $B$ directly (since $B$ is stationary here), it does affect
the electric field and makes it point in a different direction (towards the
instantaneous position).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was going to write an incorrect answer at first, but having researched a bit
what Yukterez wrote, I think I may be able to offer some intuition.
First, let's look at the solar system in the centre-of-mass frame, where the
Sun is essentially stationary in the middle. Here, the force on the Earth is
directed towards the Sun's position 8 minutes ago, which conveniently is the
same as its current position. So this doesn't affect the Earth's position in
the way you say.
If the Sun and Earth were moving at a constant velocity to each other, they
would, like Yukterez wrote, still be attracted to the instantaneous position of
the other body. This is not because of a faster-than-light influence, but
because gravity is more than a simple attractive force between objects
(analogous to the electric field in electromagnetism). For moving sources,
there are other components of the gravitational field (roughly analogous to the
magnetic field). You can view this as the force travelling at the speed of
light, but being directed towards the position of the source "predicted" based
on its past linear motion.
However, if the source is accelerating, like the Earth around the Sun, the
effects are less obvious. Then, you really can't view it only as an attractive
force towards any position (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but you get
more complex things like gravitational waves. But still, nothing ever travels faster than
light.
As I am more familiar with electromagnetism, let's take an example from there.
If two oppositely charged bodies ($A$ and $B$) are moving with constant
velocity towards each other, we can view the system in the rest frame of $A$.
Here, it emits only a static electric field, given by the Coulomb formula, and
$B$ therefore feels an attraction directly towards it. In the rest frame of $B$,
this means that the attraction is towards the instantaneous position. But how
can this be since the electric field is propagating at a finite speed? The
answer is that since now $A$ is moving, it also emits a magnetic field. While
this doesn't affect $B$ directly (since $B$ is stationary here), it does affect
the electric field and makes it point in a different direction (towards the
instantaneous position).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was going to write an incorrect answer at first, but having researched a bit
what Yukterez wrote, I think I may be able to offer some intuition.
First, let's look at the solar system in the centre-of-mass frame, where the
Sun is essentially stationary in the middle. Here, the force on the Earth is
directed towards the Sun's position 8 minutes ago, which conveniently is the
same as its current position. So this doesn't affect the Earth's position in
the way you say.
If the Sun and Earth were moving at a constant velocity to each other, they
would, like Yukterez wrote, still be attracted to the instantaneous position of
the other body. This is not because of a faster-than-light influence, but
because gravity is more than a simple attractive force between objects
(analogous to the electric field in electromagnetism). For moving sources,
there are other components of the gravitational field (roughly analogous to the
magnetic field). You can view this as the force travelling at the speed of
light, but being directed towards the position of the source "predicted" based
on its past linear motion.
However, if the source is accelerating, like the Earth around the Sun, the
effects are less obvious. Then, you really can't view it only as an attractive
force towards any position (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but you get
more complex things like gravitational waves. But still, nothing ever travels faster than
light.
As I am more familiar with electromagnetism, let's take an example from there.
If two oppositely charged bodies ($A$ and $B$) are moving with constant
velocity towards each other, we can view the system in the rest frame of $A$.
Here, it emits only a static electric field, given by the Coulomb formula, and
$B$ therefore feels an attraction directly towards it. In the rest frame of $B$,
this means that the attraction is towards the instantaneous position. But how
can this be since the electric field is propagating at a finite speed? The
answer is that since now $A$ is moving, it also emits a magnetic field. While
this doesn't affect $B$ directly (since $B$ is stationary here), it does affect
the electric field and makes it point in a different direction (towards the
instantaneous position).
$endgroup$
I was going to write an incorrect answer at first, but having researched a bit
what Yukterez wrote, I think I may be able to offer some intuition.
First, let's look at the solar system in the centre-of-mass frame, where the
Sun is essentially stationary in the middle. Here, the force on the Earth is
directed towards the Sun's position 8 minutes ago, which conveniently is the
same as its current position. So this doesn't affect the Earth's position in
the way you say.
If the Sun and Earth were moving at a constant velocity to each other, they
would, like Yukterez wrote, still be attracted to the instantaneous position of
the other body. This is not because of a faster-than-light influence, but
because gravity is more than a simple attractive force between objects
(analogous to the electric field in electromagnetism). For moving sources,
there are other components of the gravitational field (roughly analogous to the
magnetic field). You can view this as the force travelling at the speed of
light, but being directed towards the position of the source "predicted" based
on its past linear motion.
However, if the source is accelerating, like the Earth around the Sun, the
effects are less obvious. Then, you really can't view it only as an attractive
force towards any position (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but you get
more complex things like gravitational waves. But still, nothing ever travels faster than
light.
As I am more familiar with electromagnetism, let's take an example from there.
If two oppositely charged bodies ($A$ and $B$) are moving with constant
velocity towards each other, we can view the system in the rest frame of $A$.
Here, it emits only a static electric field, given by the Coulomb formula, and
$B$ therefore feels an attraction directly towards it. In the rest frame of $B$,
this means that the attraction is towards the instantaneous position. But how
can this be since the electric field is propagating at a finite speed? The
answer is that since now $A$ is moving, it also emits a magnetic field. While
this doesn't affect $B$ directly (since $B$ is stationary here), it does affect
the electric field and makes it point in a different direction (towards the
instantaneous position).
answered 2 hours ago
Elias Riedel GårdingElias Riedel Gårding
35318
35318
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f458136%2fdoes-gravity-sometimes-get-transmitted-faster-than-the-speed-of-light%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
This is not limited to gravity. The same applies to electromagnetism.
$endgroup$
– safesphere
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101919/…
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5456
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
1 hour ago