PHYSICA L R EVI EW

VO LU ME

8, NUMB ER 12
.

15 DECEMBER 1973
Field

Comment

on the Definition
Department

of Particle Velocity in a Schwarxschild

Jack Jaffe
02167

of Physics, Boston College, %craton, Massachusetts and Weston Observatory, Weston, Massachusetts 02193

Department

Irwin I. Shapiro' of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Department of Physics, Massachusetts Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (Received 15 October 1973)

Institute of Technology,

The definition we previously introduced to describe the velocity of a test particle in a Schwarzschild field, as measured by a distant observer, is shown to be complete. As we desired, this definition reflects the fact that round-trip times of flight of fast test particles will be longer when governed by general relativity than when governed by a Minkowskian or Newtonian theory. In this sense, particles obeying general relativity appear to slow down. The alternate definition of particle velocity propose'd by Baierlein does not have this property and is shown to be more appropriate for a local observer than for a distant observer.

article, ' we defined the velocity of a test particle, as determined by a distant observer, in a manner equally applicable for light; we then discussed briefly some consequences of this definition. Baierlein' has questioned our definition and proposed an alternate. It is not fruitful to attempt to prove one definition "right" and another "wrong, " but it is appropriate to discuss the completeness and usefulness of particular definitions. It is in this spirit that we devote the remainder of this note to a discussion of the motivations for our definition, omitted in the original article for brevity, and to comments both on Baierlein's remarks and
In a recent

we do wish to emphasize that this "defined behavior" is meant as an interpretation of the undisputed

on his proposed alternate definition. Our main motivation was to introduce a velocity that would exhibit properties that reflect results from global experiments. Thus, for the Schwarzschild field, general relativity predicts that light signals, traveling back and forth between two distant points, will be observed to have taken longer to traverse the path than would be expected on the basis of, say, a Minkowskian or Newtonian theory. In this case, the increment varies logarithmically with the decrease in distance of closest approach of the signal path from the central mass. As shown in the Appendix, a similar variation in the incremental delay governs the round trips of test particles. Such increments may be looked upon by the observer at the distant point as a "slowdown, on average, of the speed of propaga-

general-relativistic predictions of increases in round-trip travel times which, for light rays at least, have been verified in several independent experiments. Our definition for particle velocity was further questioned by Baierlein, ' who deemed it incomplete, primarily because he was unable to understand the connection between the events at the particle and those at the distant observer. This connection can easily be made: In the sense discussed by Landau and Lifshitz, ' all coordinate clocks can be synchronized to read the same time for simultaneous events, appropriately defined, ' provided the time-space cross terms, g(i =1-3), in the metric vanish; for such coordinate systems, which are always possible to define in the Schwarzschild case, the intervals of the distant observer's proper time are identical to the intervals of the universal coordinate time. Thus the "events" that are involved in the particle velocity we introduced are well defined through the synchronization of the distant observer's clock with
the coordinate

"clocks" on

the world line of the

particle. It might be concluded from the above discussion

that our definition of velocity, more properly speed, is restricted to a special class of coordinate systems. Such is not the case; the definition can be implemented solely in terms of observables. ' However, if one wishes to express this velocity in terms of a particular set of coordinates, then it is easy to do so only if the time-space cross terms of the metric vanish in that system. Vfe complete our discussion with a comment on

"

tion. This interpretation prompted the particular definition we introduced for the velocity of particles and light. Baierlein stated' that it is "surprising" for a particle to appear to slow down. Although it is certainly true that one man's surprise is another's expectation, and vice versa,

4642

COMMENT

ON

THE DEFINITION

OF PARTICLE VELOCITY. . .

4643

Baierlein's definition' of particle velocity, denoted is not surprising that v, increases monotonically with decreasing r: v, is the instantaneous velocity of a particle as measured by an observer at rest at the particle's position. For the. Schwarzschild field, v, (r) = dl/(g o)o'~ 'dt, where dl is the spatial displacement of the particle, and ( goo)'~'dt is the proper time measured by a local observer at rest at r.' Such a characterization for the definition of particle velocity is, of course, different from ours, and, in fact, seems to differ from the initial starting point of Baierlein's paper, the definition of a particle velocity appropriate. for a distant observer.
by v, . It
APPENDIX

time between nearest-neighbor test particles, will be the same for both Newtonian theory and general relativity to within a fractional error of order mr 'N Then, if we use standard

'.

Schwarzschild

coordinates,

for example, for

which Kepler's third law holds, we will obtain the same numerical results for m and r in terms of the observables in general relativity as in Newtonian theory. Neglecting recoil effects and
we find

assuming purely ballistic travel for all particles, after some computation that (c = 1)
4m
Vp

Sls,
ln,
cos
~z8

1+ sin(-,'8) [2+sos( S)]tss(', ~ cos ;8

(m

)I

d, v, ')
d,

Consider (i) a set of N (1) equispaced test particles, in circular orbit about a massive primary, P, and (ii) an additional test particle, P, launched from one member of the set and "reflected" by another so as to return to the first. For a given theory of gravity, we can express the round-trip time, v, of P solely in terms of observables. In particular, we will calculate, as an illustration, the difference b v between the prediction for T from general relativity and from Newtonian theory. The results are not altered significantly by the use of Minkowskian in place of Newtonian theory. The measurement of the common orbital period for the test particles, if based on successive alignments of primary, particle, " and and "distant fixed star, is theory-independent will, of course, yield exactly the same numerical result with either theory. For the radius r of the circular orbit very large compared to the gravitational radius, m, of P, it is easy to show that the circumference of the orbit, exoressed in terms of the measurement of the round-trip light travel

4m ( 2
vo

-2

(m

d, v, ',

r)
(A1)

where v, is the speed of P, at spatial infinity, and 6)'is the angular separation between the launch and reflection points, each being the same for both theories. The distance of closest approach, dp, in Newtonian theory, between P and P is given by

18 ' , 28 d, =r cos(-,8) cos ', vo

(m

d, v, ').

(A2)

From Eqs. (A1) and (A2) we see that, as for light propagation according to general relativity, the travel time for fast particles is predicted to increase logarithmically with the decrease in closest-approach distance to the primary, relative to the behavior predicted by Newtonian theory. In this sense, if general relativity were correct, the particle would appear to the distant observer to slow down as it approached the primary.

2R. Baierlein, preceding paper,

~J. Jaffe and I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 6, 405 (1972). Phys. Rev. D 8, 4639 (1973).

3L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (Addison-wesley, Reading, Mass. , 1962), 2nd ed.