Talk:Supplee's paradox: Difference between revisions
Question |
comments on recent edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Pardon my density (pun intended), but I don't understand what "... the geodesic in the far-field limit is consistent with the object sinking" means in a practical observable sense. If I were to actually watch a bullet passing through the fluid, would I see it rise or fall? [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 01:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
Pardon my density (pun intended), but I don't understand what "... the geodesic in the far-field limit is consistent with the object sinking" means in a practical observable sense. If I were to actually watch a bullet passing through the fluid, would I see it rise or fall? [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 01:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
||
Hi Corvus. |
|||
I'm afraid I didn't understand the paragraph either. I've removed the paragraph from the page and pasted it here (below). I've done done my best to explain the essense of Supplee and Matsas's papers in the article itself. |
|||
[[User:Robinh|Robinh]] 11:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The full resolution of this paradox was offered by George Matsas of the State University of São Paulo in Brazil. It involves taking into account the [[general relativity|general relativistic]] effects of a fluid with a non-zero [[energy-momentum tensor]] that necessarily affects the [[Riemann curvature tensor|Riemannian curvature]] of [[spacetime]]. While from the perspective of the bullet, the buoyant force is exerting an upward acceleration on the bullet, due to the pecularities of the [[metric|spacetime metric]] the [[geodesic]] in the far-field limit is consistent with the object sinking. This is a similar effect to the classic [[equivalence principle]] [[thought experiment]] that showed there was no difference between an [[accelerating]] reference frame and a reference frame subject to a metric that is not [[Minkowski]]. At a great enough speed, relativistic effects will ultimately cause the object to pass through an [[event horizon]]. |
|||
Revision as of 11:58, 11 April 2005
Pardon my density (pun intended), but I don't understand what "... the geodesic in the far-field limit is consistent with the object sinking" means in a practical observable sense. If I were to actually watch a bullet passing through the fluid, would I see it rise or fall? Corvus 01:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Corvus.
I'm afraid I didn't understand the paragraph either. I've removed the paragraph from the page and pasted it here (below). I've done done my best to explain the essense of Supplee and Matsas's papers in the article itself.
Robinh 11:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The full resolution of this paradox was offered by George Matsas of the State University of São Paulo in Brazil. It involves taking into account the general relativistic effects of a fluid with a non-zero energy-momentum tensor that necessarily affects the Riemannian curvature of spacetime. While from the perspective of the bullet, the buoyant force is exerting an upward acceleration on the bullet, due to the pecularities of the spacetime metric the geodesic in the far-field limit is consistent with the object sinking. This is a similar effect to the classic equivalence principle thought experiment that showed there was no difference between an accelerating reference frame and a reference frame subject to a metric that is not Minkowski. At a great enough speed, relativistic effects will ultimately cause the object to pass through an event horizon.