- #106
PeterDonis
Mentor
- 45,906
- 22,788
kurros said:Sure, sure, whichever way you want to look at it :).
No; if the rope is being wound onto the spool, the spool has to be doing work on the rope, not the other way around.
kurros said:Sure, sure, whichever way you want to look at it :).
PeterDonis said:No; if the rope is being wound onto the spool, the spool has to be doing work on the rope, not the other way around.
kurros said:I meant wind the rope onto the spool to set up the experiment, then it can unwind as it is drawn off by the other mass.
PeterDonis said:We can't do that, because a rope with zero rest energy density and nonzero tension violates energy conditions; it would have to be made of exotic matter, which is not believed to exist.
However, it might be that the energy stored in the rope is small compared to the potential energy change in the mass. That's one of the things I want to check in the math.
I think Peter is right, but I haven't done the math either. Here is another way of looking at it. Let your nanotube chain be much longer than the distance between the two comoving masses (in a LCDM universe), so that both masses slide past it. Now extract some small amount of local energy from this relative motion by whatever means. The two masses will start to recede slower and the relative motion will eventually stop - that is unless the accelerated expansion can counter it. I think this is more or less what needs to be put into math form.kurros said:Oh sure, let us use an extremely lightweight but rigid rope, so that it basically doesn't stretch at all and stores basically none of the energy we are talking about in its internal elastic potential energy. Like a chain made out of carbon nanotubes or something :). We just want it to transfer energy from place to place.
PeterDonis said:You appeared to be describing something that's impossible, and then making a claim about what it would be like if that something happened. That doesn't make sense.
PeterDonis said:No, there isn't. Once again, you are implicitly assuming that the rope has to move at the same velocity, relative to the spool, as a free-falling, comoving observer at the rope's other end. That's not the case. The rate at which the rope pays out can be as slow as you like.
kurros said:
rede96 said:I've never seen any math or what physics prohibits the length of a rope from spanning further than our cosmological horizon
rede96 said:Each end of the cables are attached to 2 separate rocket ships
rede96 said:replace the rockets with distant galaxies that are moving away from the spool in opposite directions (ignoring what is causing them to move apart for the moment) and I imagine the effect on the spool would be exactly the same
Jorrie said:I think Peter is right, but I haven't done the math either. Here is another way of looking at it. Let your nanotube chain be much longer than the distance between the two comoving masses (in a LCDM universe), so that both masses slide past it. Now extract some small amount of local energy from this relative motion by whatever means. The two masses will start to recede slower and the relative motion will eventually stop - that is unless the accelerated expansion can counter it. I think this is more or less what needs to be put into math form.
The former effect also goes up with the product of the masses, whereas the latter is independent of them. So it "could work" (in some very theoretical sense) even over small distances, as long as the participating masses are small, and the rope's mass is even smaller. Right?kurros said:The whole point is to have this driven by the accelerated expansion. Whether or not this effect is large enough depends on its ratio compared to the mutual gravitational attraction of the masses. But that goes down with the square of the separation, whilst the dark energy acceleration increases linearly with separation, so the dark energy will win at large separations.
JMz said:The former effect also goes up with the product of the masses, whereas the latter is independent of them. So it "could work" (in some very theoretical sense) even over small distances, as long as the participating masses are small, and the rope's mass is even smaller. Right?
Well, I think this thread is well past the point of worrying about a mere few orders of magnitude. ;-)kurros said:I guess so, the only problem is that it gets swamped by other effects on small scales, like thermal motion. But maybe if you do it in some super-cold environment like a bose Einstein condensate then something could be measurable. I suspect that current condensates are still many orders of magnitude too hot though.
To follow on with some simple math:kurros said:The whole point is to have this driven by the accelerated expansion. Whether or not this effect is large enough depends on its ratio compared to the mutual gravitational attraction of the masses. But that goes down with the square of the separation, whilst the dark energy acceleration increases linearly with separation, so the dark energy will win at large separations.
JMz said:Well, I think this thread is well past the point of worrying about a mere few orders of magnitude. ;-)
Anyway, I envisioned some larger "local" region than an Earth-based lab.
Jorrie said:To follow on with some simple math:
When talking about both masses comoving (with the Hubble flow) at large scales, there is no gravity (potential gradient) involved. At the present time, with the cosmological constant, there will be a local coordinate acceleration between each mass and the local nano chain of**
$$dD^2/dt^2 = D H_0^2(\Omega_\Lambda-\Omega_m/2)/2$$
in opposite directions. ##D## is the comoving distance between the two masses, ##\Omega_\Lambda## the cosmo-constant and ##\Omega_m## the present matter density parameter. Some form of energy extraction at each mass will enter as another negative term inside the brackets. As long as the factor inside the brackets remains positive, there could in principle be continuous energy extraction, not so? If so, it can even increase as ##\Omega_m## decreases over long periods. Or is it all wishful thinking?
kurros said:So ok, back to two large masses, with a few hundred lightyear separation.
Jorrie said:In which case I will argue that the equation which I started with is far simpler to use. For a flat de-Sitter spacetime, ##\Omega_\Lambda = 1##, I think, so all you need is the Hubble constant and the proper separation (D) between the two ends of the cable at any time:
##dD^2/dt^2 = D H_0^2/2##.
Actually, we observe ##H_0##, and a flat expanding spacetime always has ##\Omega_{total} =1##. But yea, the two methods are equivalent and it's a matter of preference.kurros said:Actually maybe you are right and it works out that ##\Omega_\Lambda## is 1... well anyway they are pretty equivalent. It seems more physically intuitive to use ##\Lambda## to me, since you would just have to use that to calculate ##H_0## anyway.
Jorrie said:Actually, we observe ##H_0##, and a flat expanding spacetime always has ##\Omega_{total} =1##. But yea, the two methods are equivalent and is a matter of preference.
I do not think we measure ##\Lambda##, cosmologically speaking. We measure the present and past expansion rates (the history), with many other parameters as well, and then we can easily calculate H(t). But for the present epoch, using ##H_0## and the (independently) deduced normal + dark matter density, is really all we need to calculate accelerating expansion to a close approximation.kurros said:Is it actually ##H_0## though? Surely it should be ##H(t)## for some far future ##t##, or some such? I don't see why the present-day Hubble constant would be the right number to use if we are looking at the future dark-energy dominated scenario. In which case we have to calculate what ##H(\infty)## will be, from the measured ##\Lambda##. Or do you think that just using ##H_0## should give an ok answer for the present-day acceleration?
Jorrie said:I do not think we measure ##\Lambda##, cosmologically speaking. We measure the present and past expansion rates (the history), with many other parameters as well, and then we can easily calculate H(t). But for the present epoch, using ##H_0## and the (independently) deduced normal + dark matter density, is really all we need to calculate accelerating expansion to a close approximation.
JMz said:I think if you measure the stretching of the rope, instead of its tension, you will find that you don't need large masses. Of course, you can't get much work out of infinitesimal tension, but if we've moved on to trying to see how big a rope you'd need, then that doesn't matter.
PeterDonis said:Not if you're also replacing flat spacetime with an expanding universe containing dark energy. In an expanding universe containing dark energy, the galaxies are in free fall; no rocket engines are attached to them pushing them apart. What makes them move apart is the geometry of spacetime. That is why you can't just assume that the results will be the same.
rede96 said:if we are modelling dark energy as something that warps spacetime in the opposite direction to gravity (excuse any poor terminology) then the galaxies will act on the super size spool in exactly the same way. As they ‘fall’ away from the spool in opposite directions they will pull out the cable and turn the spool
rede96 said:this might (I haven’t worked it out) create a situation where the rotation of the outer edges of the spool start to approach c before the cable snaps
rede96 said:If that is the case there must be something that gives in the system to stop it before the rotation passes c.
rede96 said:the laws of physics that would stop the spool rotating > c are different than the laws of physics that prevent something traveling locally to me at speeds >c
PeterDonis said:This is all true if everything is in free fall. But if everything is in free fall, no work can be done.
rede96 said:I guess this is obviously that part I don’t understand.
rede96 said:Does the spring stretch as the galaxies move apart from each other?
PeterDonis said:In the case of the two galaxies, there is nothing corresponding to the extra "push" provided by the Earth's surface. You might still be able to extract work if you arrange things so that the center of the rope connecting the two galaxies is at the "cliff top" (i.e., the point of maximum potential energy in the de Sitter spacetime potential energy calculation I posted earlier). But at that point the rope is in free fall (zero proper acceleration), so you can't just wave your hands and say it's all the same as the Earth scenario. It isn't. It can still be true that work can be extracted, but you have to actually show that it can; you can't just assume it.
kurros said:You don't have to carefully position anything, de Sitter space-time is translation symmetric.
kurros said:The potential you derived also shows that it doesn't matter, because it gets steeper and steeper with increasing r^2
kurros said:the mass at larger r^2 sees a steeper potential, so it "falls" outward with larger acceleration than the mass at smaller r^2
PeterDonis said:If we assume that the spring is at its unstressed length at the instant it is attached at each end, then the system will reach an equilibrium in which the spring is stretched just enough that its inward pull on each galaxy keeps the two galaxies at a constant distance apart.
PeterDonis said:I was not making a completely general statement. I was talking about the specific setup you described.
PeterDonis said:That's true, but if you have two galaxies--or two test objects, to use the formulation I would prefer, since we're pretending that these "galaxies" have zero gravity--the "maximum potential" point is halfway between them, so that's where the center of the rope has to be. More precisely, it's where the center of the rope has to be at the start of the scenario; see below.
That assumes that ##r = 0## is a comoving worldline that's halfway between the test objects at the start of the scenario. But the worldline also has to be comoving; otherwise the potential I derived is not valid. That fully determines how the center of the rope must move once the scenario starts.
But without anything to hold either mass in place, they'll just keep falling. The only place where anything will stay static without being held in place (i.e., without having something like a rocket or a structure holding it in place) is at ##r = 0##.
kurros said:The potential shape comes from dark energy, it has nothing to do with the positions of the galaxies.
kurros said:I'm not really sure what you think is important about this though.
kurros said:I'm really not sure why you think r=0 is special.
Is it supplied free of charge by the vacuum energy which is constant?kurros said:I agree also that it isn't clear where the energy comes from, but I think the existence of tension in the tether makes it crystal clear that energy is indeed able to come from somewhere.
timmdeeg said:Is it supplied free of charge by the vacuum energy which is constant?
All right, so doesn't this mean that if I bring something up to the fourth floor and let it fall is equivalent to bring something in accelerating spacetime and let it stretch?kurros said:I don't think so.
timmdeeg said:doesn't this mean that if I bring something up to the fourth floor and let it fall is equivalent to bring something in accelerating spacetime and let it stretch?