Does *electrical* *charge* distort spacetime?
Hugh O'Byrne
distort spacetime in much the same way as gravitational mass does. Is this
true? If so, I have some questions!
A generally-accepted model of spacetime distortion is the rubber-sheet
model, where spacetime is displaced along some dimension (or dimensions?)
orthogonal to the dimensions of 'unstretched' space. If so, is the
dimension along which positive charge displaces the same as the dimension
along which negative charge displaces? Is either or both the same as the
dimension in which gravity wells occur? - What is the relationship between
the functions, depth-of-gravity-well(mass) and depth-of-charge-well(charge)?
i.e. If an uncharged body of mass M makes a well of 'depth' D, how much
charge would another body of mass M require to make a well of 'depth' 2D (or
sqrt(2)D if the gravity-stretch dimension is orthogonal to the
charge-stretch dimension)?
If charge *does* stretch spacetime, then the neuton has a bigger 'well'
around it than would be explained by gravity alone. The neutron, though
neutrally charged, is made up of charged components (the up and down quarks,
if I remember right). These quarks will cause some stretching due to their
charge, quite independent of the gravitational stretching due to the mass of
the neutron as a whole.
Also, if charge stretches spacetime, how to model permittivity (or maybe
it's permeability I'm thinking of - I sometimes get the two mixed up)?
Would that be a kind of 'stiffness' of the 'rubber sheet', at least as
related to charge?
Hugh O'Byrne.
Nathan Urban
> I seem to remember reading, in this newsgroup, that electrical charge can
> distort spacetime in much the same way as gravitational mass does.
> Is this true?
Not in general relativity.
> If so, I have some questions!
Oh well. I'll correct one or two other things below.
> A generally-accepted model of spacetime distortion is the rubber-sheet
> model, where spacetime is displaced along some dimension (or dimensions?)
> orthogonal to the dimensions of 'unstretched' space.
The rubber-sheet model is often good for visualization but is deficient in
precisely this situation: it is not true that a curved space has to be
displaced in some dimension in some higher-dimensional space; you do not
need to embed a surface in a higher-dimensional space in order to discuss
its curvature, and its embedding is irrelevant to its intrinsic curvature.
[Cross-posted with followups to sci.physics.relativity.]
Larry Mead
: I seem to remember reading, in this newsgroup, that electrical charge can
: distort spacetime in much the same way as gravitational mass does. Is this
Surrounding charge is an electic (and magnetic, if the charge is moving).
There is energy in the fields, so in effect charge gravitates. All forms
of energy do.
: A generally-accepted model of spacetime distortion is the rubber-sheet
: model, where spacetime is displaced along some dimension (or dimensions?)
: orthogonal to the dimensions of 'unstretched' space. If so, is the
: dimension along which positive charge displaces the same as the dimension
: along which negative charge displaces? Is either or both the same as the
It is the same, as the energy does not depend on the *sign* of the charge.
[lots o questions snipped]
: Hugh O'Byrne.
If you are asking does a charged *massless* particle gravitate, the answer
is moot as there are no charged massless particles. Were there one, it
would constitute energy and that would gravitate; it would exhibit no
unusual properties gravitywise.
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html