This website uses cookies for user login, personalised content and statistics.

By
continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies - if you wish to opt-
out of non-essential cookies, you may do so below.

Essential

Analytics

Marketing

M O R E D E TA I L S OK
Introducing the amazing concept of
gravito-electromagnetism
Robyn Arianrhod explores the world where mathematical analogies shed
light on physical reality.

Mathematician and poet James Clerk Maxwell.

CREDIT: SIR GODFREY KNELLER / GETTY IMAGES / (BACKGROUND) SOLA

In some ways, mathematics is like literature. It has its own definitions and
grammatical rules – although unfortunately these are the bane of too many
students’ lives. Which is a great pity, because when used elegantly and clearly,
mathematical language can help readers to see things in entirely new ways. Take
analogies, for example. They’re obviously powerful in literature – who doesn’t
thrill to a creative, well-aimed metaphor? But they can be even more powerful in
mathematical physics.

Making physical analogies is fundamental in the process of physics, because it

helps physicists to imagine new physical phenomena. We still speak of the “flow”
of an electric “current”, using liquid metaphors that physicists coined before they
knew that electrons existed. On the other hand, the old concept of “ether” – a
hypothetical light-carrying medium analogous to water or air – has long passed
its use-by date. Physical analogies can be creative and useful, but sometimes they
can lead one astray.
The same is true of mathematical analogies applied to
physical reality – and especially of the interplay between
mathematical and physical analogies. An analogy that has
tantalised mathematicians and physicists for a century, and
which is still a hot if much-debated topic, is that between
Albert Einstein’s equations [1] of gravity and James Clerk
Maxwell’s equations [2] of electromagnetism. It’s led to an
exciting new field of research called “gravito-
electromagnetism” – and to the prediction of a new force,
Albert Einstein
“gravito-magnetism”. CREDIT: BETTMANN/GETTY
IMAGES

The surprising idea of comparing gravity and

electromagnetism – two entirely different kinds of
phenomena – began with the intriguing mathematical
analogy between the equations of Newtonian gravity [3] and Coulomb’s law of
electrostatics [4]. Both sets of equations have exactly the same inverse-square
form.

In 1913, Einstein began exploring the much more complex idea of a relativistic
gravitational analogue of electromagnetic induction – an idea that was developed
by Josef Lense and Hans Thirring in 1918. They used Einstein’s final theory of
general relativity (GR [5]), which was published in 1916.

Today this so-called “gravito-electromagnetism”, or GEM for short, is generally

treated mathematically via the “weak field” approximation to the full GR
equations – simpler versions that work well in weak fields such as that of the
earth.

It turns out that the mathematics of weak fields includes quantities satisfying
equations that look remarkably similar to Maxwell’s. The “gravito-electric” part
can be readily identified with the everyday Newtonian downward force that
keeps us anchored to the earth. The “gravito-magnetic” part, however, is
something entirely unfamiliar – a new force apparently due to the rotation of the
earth (or any large mass).

It’s analogous to the way a spinning electron produces a magnetic field via
electromagnetic induction, except that mathematically, a massive spinning object
mathematically “induces” a “dragging” of space-time itself – as if space-time were
like a viscous fluid that’s dragged around a rotating ball. (Einstein first identified
“frame-dragging”, a consequence of general relativity elaborated [6] by Lense
and Thirring.)
But how far can such mathematical analogies be pushed? Is “gravito-magnetic
induction” real? If it is, it should show up as a tiny wobble in the orbit of
satellites, and – thanks also to the “geodetic” effect, the curving of space-time by
matter – as a change in the direction of the axis of an orbiting gyroscope. (The
latter is analogous to the way a magnetic field generated by an electric current
changes the orientation of a magnetic dipole.)

Finally, after a century of speculation,

answers are unfolding. Independent
results from several satellite missions –
notably Gravity Probe B, LAGEOS,
LARES, and GRACE – have confirmed the
earth’s geodetic and frame-dragging
effects to varying degrees of precision.
For frame-dragging, the best agreement
with GR has been within 0.2%, with an
Results from satellite missions such as Gravity Probe B
accuracy of 5%, but astronomers expect have confirmed the Earth's geodetic and frame-
that a new satellite (LARES 2), to be dragging effects.
CREDIT: GRAVITY PROBE B TEAM/STANFORD/NASA
launched at the end of 2019, will, with
data from LAGEOS, give an accuracy of
0.2%.

More accurate results will provide more stringent tests of GR, but astrophysicists
have already taken gravito-magnetism on board. For instance, it suggests a
mechanism to explain the mysterious jets of gas that have been observed spewing
out of quasars and active galactic nuclei. Rotating supermassive black holes at the
heart of these cosmic powerhouses would produce enormous frame-dragging and
geodetic effects. A resulting gravito-magnetic field analogous to the magnetic field
surrounding the two poles of a magnet would explain the alignment of the jets
with the source’s north-south axis of rotation.

Making analogies is a tricky business, however, and there are some interpretive
anomalies still to unravel. To take just one example, questions remain about the
meaning of analogical terms such as gravitational “energy density” and “energy
current density”. Things are perhaps even more problematic – or interesting –
from the mathematical point of view.

For example, there is another, purely mathematical analogy between Einstein’s

and Maxwell’s equations, which gives rise to a very different analogy from the
GEM equations. To put it briefly, it’s a comparison between the so-called Bianchi
identities in each theory.
The existence of two (and in fact several) such different mathematical analogies
between the equations of these two physical phenomena is incredibly suggestive
of a deeper connection. At present, though, there are some apparent physical
inconsistencies between the “electric” and “magnetic” parts in each mathematical
approach.

Still, the formal analogies are useful in helping mathematicians find intuitively
familiar ways to think about the formidable equations of GR. And there’s always
the tantalising possibility that this approach will prove as physically profound as
the prediction of gravito-magnetism.

This is an abridged version of the story that appears in Cosmos 84. To read the full
version, subscribe here [7].

ROBYN ARIANRHOD is a senior adjunct research fellow at the School of Mathematical

Sciences at Monash University. Her research fields are general relativity and the history
of mathematical science.

LOOKING FOR MORE SCIENCE?

CLICK HERE TO SEE OUR SUBSCRIPTION
OPTIONS.

1. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einsteins-genius-changed-sciences-
perception-gravity
2. http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/about_maxwell.html
3. https://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics/Newtons-law-of-
gravity
4. https://www.britannica.com/science/Coulombs-law
5. https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html
6. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03007
7. https://cosmosmagazine.com/subscribe?loc=h