Defining Special Relativity & General Relativity

[Mattara]

The other day, I was trying to explain what SR & GR were for some non-science friends of mine. I started speaking of motion with constant speed, the postulates of SR, the spaceship and the ball, time dilatition, twin paradox and so on. Needless to say, they didn't understand what I was talking about and that wasn't only because they wern't interested in science (I might not be able to explain this so good).

So I turn to you, the users of PF, who I'm convinced can help me. Can you clearly define SR(T) and GR(T) only using no more than, say 5 lines so that I better can explain it to my friends?

Cheers,

 

[Severian596]

I think I would use four sentences to describe SR, then say that GR is basically SR as it exists "in real life" because it takes gravity and acceleration into account. SR usually relies on strict, specific circumstances for its equations to yield correct results (as the results would appear in real life). Due to its complexity and the fact that it takes gravity and acceleration into account (aka, curvature of spacetime), GR yields results that apply to our real world instead of to the "special world" of flat spacetime.

I spent my 5 sentences talking about how I think you should use 5 sentences...sorry!

 

[Mattara]

Severian596, thanks for the moving over from SR to GR idea. Great!

With the definition, I was more thinking like:

Special & General Relativity is the...

 

[RandallB]

Mattara
To avoid letting SR & GR seem to be the same thing I’d suggest:

1) Special Relativity & General Relativity are not the same thing, with SR being more compatible with QM while GR is in conflict with GM.

2) Special Relativity is considered classical with a speed limit, set as “c”; where the speed of “infinity” is defined as 1 or “c”.

3) Defining infinite speed as the limit “c”, requires non-linear formulas for adding or “combining” speeds and factors for “dilation” and “gamma”.

4) An analogy of classical 3-D Special Relativity can be created in an imaginary 4-D Minkowski “Space-time”; but any complete solution there can also be solved with a detailed classical 3-D Special Relativity solution.

5) General Relativity is not classical, using as many as 10 parameters to create what physicists call an “independent background”, indeterminate and can be curved, to hold what we understand to be our 3-D reality.

But you should be sure you understand all 5 completely yourself as I cannot imagine they would not each generate more questions like “Why?”.

 

[Mattara]

Okay.

How about this:

Special Relativity is the area within physics which is based on the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial systems. General Relativity is a generalization of Special Relativity to include gravity.

Is this correct? Do you think it will not generate many (if any) questions?

 

[Severian596]

Holy Crap RandallB! Although your well thought out explanations are no doubt correct (I can't personally grade them though, you know way more than I do), if Mattara's friends are anything like mine their eyes would glaze over half way through #1. I personally think the language invovled in these definitions is too advanced for most audiences.

I recommend trying to achieve that Hawking-like ability to communicate in terms of things that non-physics oriented people understand. If you compare things in terms of QM, be prepared to explaine Quantum Mechanics, and that's just no help at all! :D

"Special & General Relativity is the theory that time and space are not absolute. Contrary to cartesean coordinate systems where the X, Y, and Z axes are always rigid, SR & GR assert that the "scale" we use to measure these aspects of reality change for two observers who are traveling at some velocity relative to each other. Don't forget to consider time as the "fourth" axis! The idea that there's a point in the universe that could be considered the origin of a huge XYZ grid to describe the universe is false."

 

[Severian596]

Okay.

How about this:

Special Relativity is the area within physics which is based on the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial systems. General Relativity is a generalization of Special Relativity to include gravity.

Is this correct? Do you think it will not generate many (if any) questions?

You know, that's not bad, but it may leave them saying, "So a ball always falls down? Duh! And what does the speed of light have to do with falling balls anyway?" But I'm just trying to prep you for their possible responses!

 

[Mattara]

Every bit of help is greatly appreciated. Thank you Severian596 for your reply!

 

[Severian596]

Sure man, I hope you find at least some of it helpful. I just know that if I brought RandallB's list to my wife she'd rather not hear it. It would be like explaining the rules of one game which she doesn't know how to play in terms of another game which she doesn't know how to play. I don't think it would work.

 

[RandallB]

General Relativity is a generalization of Special Relativity to include gravity.
Is this correct? Do you think it will not generate many (if any) questions?

No it’s not ---- But if you don’t want any questions, and they don’t really care about it any more than you probable do about the details of say a household budget and time management. Then you might reach your objective of no questions.

 

[Severian596]

No it’s not ---- But if you don’t want any questions, and they don’t really care about it any more than you probable do about the details of say a household budget and time management. Then you might reach your objective of no questions.

I can't tell by your text tone what you mean here. Mattara's initial question was: "Can you clearly define SR(T) and GR(T) only using no more than, say 5 lines so that I better can explain it to my friends?"

So is your answer to this question no? Because your explanation was not oriented towards a non-science audience, and your second comment made it sound like Mattara either has to throw the college textbook at his friends or he'll have to shoot for the non-too-noble sounding objective of "no questions in response." I think there's a happy medium where he can stimulate their interest using everyday words. Do you?

 

[Ich]

Can you clearly define SR(T) and GR(T) only using no more than, say 5 lines so that I better can explain it to my friends?

You could either clearly define it or explain it to your friends. You can´t have both.

 

[Mattara]

Okay, that is true. What would the clear defintion be then?

 

[pmb_phy]

The other day, I was trying to explain what SR & GR were for some non-science friends of mine. I started speaking of motion with constant speed, the postulates of SR, the spaceship and the ball, time dilatition, twin paradox and so on. Needless to say, they didn't understand what I was talking about and that wasn't only because they wern't interested in science (I might not be able to explain this so good).

So I turn to you, the users of PF, who I'm convinced can help me. Can you clearly define SR(T) and GR(T) only using no more than, say 5 lines so that I better can explain it to my friends?

Cheers,

Einstein was the one to define these terms. He defined SR as relativity in inertial frames and GR as relativity to general frames of reference, including that of the gravitational field. I can produce the source of these definition upon request.

Pete

 

[RandallB]

I can't tell by your text tone what you mean ...I think there's a happy medium where he can stimulate their interest using everyday words. Do you?

I qouted the question so no text tone intended. He asked :
“GR is a generalization of SR -- Is this correct?”
And of course it is not correct, may also mean Mattara's understanding may not be complete enough yet to explain too much. Even less knowledgeable friends should not be left with that incorrect assumption. If it were that simple how would you explain to them that it took ten years for Einstein to get GR after SR. They are very different things.

Sure I thing his idea that generating next to no questions is not realistic.
The happy medium is to be sure you know what your talking about your self first, not just repeating someone else’s idea of “the clear definition”. If only it was that easy, books would be much shorter than they are. Then he needs to judge how much of what to give based on who he’s talking to.

Does anybody think a novice is going to get the basics of SR and GR both in a couple one liners or less than five minutes without questions?

 

[pervect]

The other day, I was trying to explain what SR & GR were for some non-science friends of mine. I started speaking of motion with constant speed, the postulates of SR, the spaceship and the ball, time dilatition, twin paradox and so on. Needless to say, they didn't understand what I was talking about and that wasn't only because they wern't interested in science (I might not be able to explain this so good).

So I turn to you, the users of PF, who I'm convinced can help me. Can you clearly define SR(T) and GR(T) only using no more than, say 5 lines so that I better can explain it to my friends?

Cheers,

Special relativity is basically a replacement for Newton's laws. Newton's laws (which hopefully even your non-science friends will be familiar with) work fine at low velocities, but when velocities approach the speed of light, one needs to take into account relativistic effects.

General relativity is operationally our relativistic replacement for Newton's law of gravity, and is the current "standard" theory of gravity.

 

[Thrice]

You could try explaining it historically. People have known since galileo that motion is measured relatively. However maxwell's equations predicted a constant speed - c - and nobody knew what frame to measure it from (eg the speed of sound is measured relative to the medium). All attempts to find some ether to measure it had failed when einstein proposed special relativity.

In overturning galilean relativity, einstein also killed Newtonian gravity. GR, you could say, is a theory of gravity.

 

[pervect]

In SR, space-time is consided to be globally Lorentzian. The Lorentz interval is introudced as the fundamental geometric object which describes space and time. The Lorentz interval, i.e the quantity $\Delta t^2 - \Delta x^2 - \Delta y^2 - \Delta z^2$ is defined, any any inertial obsever will obtain the same value for this quantity.

In GR, we change the view, so that space-time is a 4 dimensional manifold, which has at any point a tangent space that is Lorentzian.

This is equivalent to the way that we view the Earth's spherical surface (a 2-dimensional manifold) as having everywhere a tangent space that is Euclidean (i.e a flat plane).

One might say that the Earth is globally round, but locally flat. Similarly, in GR, one says that the geometry of space-time is locally Lorentzian.

Unfortunatly, this sort of defintion is not going to be useful for talking about GR and SR to one's non-scientist friends. I would suggest that my earlier response would be more useful in that context.

ps - GR can be considered to be a generalization of SR (from inertial frames to non-inertial frames and curved space-times) in spite of RandallB's remarks. The process of making this generalization is not an easy one, however.

[add]The line between GR and SR can be a bit hazy at times, but usually the distinguishing feature of GR is that it introduces a metric tensor. Thus if one analyzes an accelerating space-ship in a coordinate system with a flat metric, one is doing SR, but when one analyzes an accelerating space-ship in a coordinate system in a non-flat coordinate system (i.e. one with a metric tensor that is not constant) one is considered to be doing GR. This point may be arguable.

 

[Oxymoron]

Since relativity deals with our inability to detect absolute motion, meaning physics is unchanged under coordinate transformations. Therefore I would simply say that:

SR = Deals with the symmetry in physics with respect to coordinate transformations in inertial frames.

GR = Deals with the symmetry in physics with respect to a general frame (this includes accelerating frames).

So SR is simply a special case of GR and they both deal with physical symmetries.

 

[Hurkyl]

Since relativity deals with our inability to detect absolute motion, meaning physics is unchanged under coordinate transformations. Therefore I would simply say that:

SR = Deals with the symmetry in physics with respect to coordinate transformations in inertial frames.

GR = Deals with the symmetry in physics with respect to a general frame (this includes accelerating frames).

So SR is simply a special case of GR and they both deal with physical symmetries.

That's a unfortunately (seemingly) common misconception.

I think, historically, that GR is what introduced differential geometry into physics, and therefore people seem to equate the two.

But differential geometry is just a mathematical technique, and it can be employed profitably in SR as well -- in particular, SR has absolutely no problem dealing with noninertial frames.


SR and GR differ, at least, in their description of the geometry of the universe.

SR claims "We can construct an `inertial' coordinate chart that is defined everywhere!"

GR merely claims "We can construct coordinate charts that are approximately `inertial', that are defined at least on small regions of space-time".

 

[Oxymoron]

Ah well, sorry about that. It seems I am a victim of an urban legend. :(

 

[robphy]

To follow up on Hurkyl's comment...

The modern geometric viewpoint is that
Special Relativity is faithfully described by Minkowskian geometry
(which uses an affine space R⁴ with a [uniform] metric tensor field of Lorentz-signature [which encodes the "speed of light"-postulate in the light-cone structure]). Implicit in the above is the group of Lorentz transformations which act on the entire spacetime. This is where the "relativity"-postulate is encoded.

In this viewpoint, SR/Minkowski geometry can handle "[accelerating] non-inertial frames",
just like Euclidean geometry can handle non-Cartesian coordinate systems [e.g. spherical-polar coordinates]... the appropriate Pythagorean-theorem still holds in the entire space! It is likely that ordinary geometry and trigonometry are not sufficient tools in this case... calculus and possibly other differential geometric methods are required.

For which circumstances will Euclidean geometry fail?
For spaces that are not [um..] Euclidean, e.g., a cylinder or a torus [spaces of zero intrinsic curvature which has closed geodesics] and a sphere [a space with curvature, seen by the convergence of initially parallel lines]. To deal with these cases, we have to weaken the restriction and allow generally non-Euclidean spaces with generally nonzero curvature. [As long as one doesn't venture too far away from home and/or have not-so-sensitive measuring devices, Euclidean geometry may be sufficient.]

In the Lorentzian case, the analogue is that the geometry of General Relativity involves a generally non-flat [with nonuniform metric], non-R⁴ spacetime manifold. Instead of the Lorentz group, we have the group of diffeomorphisms which act on the entire spacetime. [The spacetime of Special Relativity is therefore a special case.]

Of course, there's more to General Relativity than the geometry of its spacetime [i.e. its kinematical structure]... there's a dynamical "[field-]equation of motion" that relates the matter-sources to the curvature, which in turn dictates the motion of test particles and fields. [In SR, there are no matter sources to curve spacetime... the Minkowski spacetime is said to be a vacuum solution of the field equations.]

 

[pmb_phy]

I qouted the question so no text tone intended. He asked :
“GR is a generalization of SR -- Is this correct?”
And of course it is not correct,

Sorry RandallB but you are incorrect. Just crack open A first course in general relativity, Bernard Schutz page 3 (which is the exact same way Einstein defined it.)

Although relativity is old, it is customary to refer to Einstein's theory simply as 'relativity'. The adjective 'special' is applied iin order to distinguish it from Einstein's theory of gravitation, which acquired the name 'general relativity' because it permits one to describe physics from the point of view of both accelerated and inertial observers and is in that respect a more general theory.

The rest contradicts Einstein's views so I will omit them. I take Einstein's views over all others.

Pete

 

[RandallB]

ps - GR can be considered to be a generalization of SR (from inertial frames to non-inertial frames and curved space-times) in spite of RandallB's remarks. The process of making this generalization is not an easy one, however.

The line between GR and SR can be a bit hazy at times, but usually the distinguishing feature of GR is that it introduces a metric tensor.

As if a layman is going to understand how large the “generalization” is, based on what a “metric tensor” is; yah right.

This little generalization significantly changes the view of relativity. Making GR incompatible with Quantum understanding as expressed in Quantum Mechanics.
Even if the generalization is not an easy one, don’t you think we’d have a “generalized” agreement between QM and GR after 80 years of working on it if it were just a generalization?

Excusing it with a “metric tensor” just obscures the point that GR is very different from SR, designed by Einstein to resolve the inability of SR to solve gravity. QM assumes all forces can be defined by an exchange of force particles (gravitons – Higgs fields) and this idea IS compatible with SR.
Einstein completely abandoned that idea, and in GR specifically defines Gravity as the result of curves (geodesics) in an entirely new geometry of reality (Masses on trampoline membranes). That is no simple generalization (ten years of effort), but it can be simply expressed as a huge difference in concepts between SR & GR to a layman. Understanding that there is a difference in fundamental concepts is one thing, comprehendible even by layman. It’s the actual understanding of the detailed concepts, if they are really that interested, that you are not going to convey in a one liner. Then they are going to need to join you in those long books to deal with “metric tensor”; how space-time (t, x, y, z) is not the same as a GR 4-D manifold (a, b, c, d); what “tangent space” means; indeterminate background independence; etc.

Just because Pop Scientists on TV do a bad job of this doesn’t mean you have to follow their example. If you don’t want to share with them the fundamental idea that SR and GR are dramatically different, just tell them it’s to complex for you to explain and stick to SR alone.

 

[Hurkyl]

RandallB:

---- For this post, I'm only speaking geometrically.

GR is defined as "SR is `locally correct'".

SR clearly satisfies this condition. Therefore, SR is clearly a special case of GR. Conversely, GR is a generalization of SR. There is no ambiguity here. :tongue:

GR did not build upon SR by adding nifty mathematical gadgets to do more interesting things -- it's exactly the opposite. GR removed some of the structure of SR. GR is a less powerful theory than SR.

More powerful mathematics, such as tensor analysis, are required for GR because GR has less structure than SR, and is thus much more difficult to study. SR has this nice, flat, global structure, and if we respect it, the mathematics is very easy. GR doesn't have a similar structure that makes it similarly easy to study.

Making GR incompatible with Quantum understanding as expressed in Quantum Mechanics.

This is wrong. Quantum mechanics can and is done on curved space-times.

(Masses on trampoline membranes)

Understanding that there is a difference in fundamental concepts is one thing, comprehendible even by layman.

I would say otherwise, because people seem to get it exactly backwards. People seem to think that GR postulates all these new and weird things -- the reality is that GR postulates less than SR. This has two consequences:
(1) GR requires more powerful mathematics, because it has less structure that can be exploited.
(2) GR is less restrictive, and is thus applicable to more things.

how space-time (t, x, y, z) is not the same as a GR 4-D manifold (a, b, c, d)

 

[Severian596]

As if a layman is going to understand how large the “generalization” is, based on what a “metric tensor” is; yah right. This little generalization significantly changes the view of relativity. Making GR incompatible with Quantum understanding as expressed in Quantum Mechanics.

I agree with you. I just think this is irrelevant given the intended audience. It won't change their view of relativity because they don't have a view yet.

RandallB, I suggest you try to forget all the things that you feel are important to relativity at this point in your life and try to remember what was important to relativity when you were a complete noob. You're right about the metric tensor talk.

I think saying, "SR is this complex (hold fingers two inches apart), and GR is an extension of SR that's this complex (hold hands three feet apart) due to the tremendous mathematical implications of gravity, acceleration, and curved space-time." That drives home the idea that one is a special case of the other.

I can't help but feel like we're getting farther from the original intent of this thread...

 

[RandallB]

I agree with you. I just think this is irrelevant given the intended audience. It won't change their view of relativity because they don't have a view yet.

RandallB, I suggest you try to forget all the things that you feel are important to relativity at this point in your life and try to remember what was important to relativity when you were a complete noob. You're right about the metric tensor talk.

Yah, you have a good point. Plus there seems to be such a huge desire to be able to simplify explanations. And if the layman doesn’t become a noob trying to learn more what’s the harm.

It’s just that initial oversimplification of SR vs. GR was what made understanding GR take so long for me. I didn’t truly see the diff between SR & GR till seeing the conflict between GR & QM.

Most astrophysicists and particle-physicists acknowledge that they live in two different unrecognizable worlds of understanding reality, divided between GR & QM. If they really could be reconciled we’d have a clear explanation of the dynamics of a singularity agreed on by now.

So I only see benefit in admitting that difference, and the core of that difference is building GR distinct from SR. What’s wrong with admitting to a layman that there are three different theories for a reason, and distinguishing between them in not easy? Simplifying the descriptions of each theory may well be best for a noob even useful.
But I don’t think it that helpful to obscure differences between the theories are real, in-fact you need to acknowledge the conflicts to explain why three active theories exist not just one.

 

[Severian596]

It’s just that initial oversimplification of SR vs. GR was what made understanding GR take so long for me. I didn’t truly see the diff between SR & GR till seeing the conflict between GR & QM.

Ah! That explains why your feedback has been heavy with QM talk...because that was where your understanding stemmed from.

I think Mattara could say anything and everything that we've all said here and his friends will either a) walk away from the Q&A session with a few pop-science factoids, b) call it all rubbish and pour another beer, or c) take it upon themselves to discover the mysteries for themselves. In any case our feedback will work fine for a and b; and c will eventually learn the specifics for himself or herself!

 

[pmb_phy]

Excusing it with a “metric tensor” just obscures the point that GR is very different from SR, designed by Einstein to resolve the inability of SR to solve gravity.

That is not what Einstein to GR. Einstein had a restriction on SR in that it only applied to inertial frames of reference (which there is a metric for). After 1905 he sought to generalize relativity so as to include noon-inertial frames. His first insight came when he realized that a uniformly accelerating frame of reference was identical to a uniform gravitational field. I.e. the Equivalence Principle. Between 1907 and 1915 Einstein sought to generalize the restriction of a uniform g-field to a non-uniform g-field. So Einstein didn't start of trying to make SR conform to gravity. He started off trying to make SR conform to non-inertial frames. But wallah! When he did that gravity came into play at the same time.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

Mattara - I'm curious as to whether your question has been answered to your satisfaction and if not whether you'd like to ask additional questions so that we can hopefully clarify things? Cheers!

Pete

 

[Mattara]

Yes ,I'm more than satisfied. It has been interesting to follow your discussion.

 

[rczmiller]

An amateur’s contribution

For what its worth, this is how I try to explain it to my friends when they mistakenly ask:

Special Relativity presents the theory that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating objects. Thus, no matter how fast something is traveling, space/time will be perceived so that light is traveling at one speed. It also presents the famous E=MC2 equation (actually written shortly following the SR paper, but the basics were there so I don’t confuse people with this detail unless they ask).

General Relativity is a much more complex interpretation of relativity that uses intense mathematical equations to explain how space/time bends and warps to create the perception of gravity.

I throw in at the end: “interestingly enough, many experiments have been conducted to test these theories, and even though they may seem impossible, the experiments support Einstein’s theories”.

Good luck!

 

[rczmiller]

If they ask about E=MC2, all that equation tells us is that energy and matter are the same thing, of course!

 

[pmb_phy]

For what its worth, this is how I try to explain it to my friends when they mistakenly ask:

Special Relativity presents the theory that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating objects.

That is an incorrect statement since SR applies to accelerating objects as observed from an inertial frame. If they make the claim you said her then tell them they're wrong.
[/quote]
General Relativity is a much more complex interpretation of relativity that uses intense mathematical equations to explain how space/time bends and warps to create the perception of gravity.[/quote]Just because the spacetime is flat it doesn't mean that the frame is non-inertial.

If they ask about E=MC2, all that equation tells us is that energy and matter are the same thing, of course!

The inertial energy E of a body is not always proportional its mass m. That holds in certain cases, i.e. when the body is isolated. It does not hold in general. See counter example at

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_energy_vs_mass.htm

Pete

 

[rczmiller]

It's relative

Pete,

Thanks for your comments. I guess it all depends on where you are standing. If you are on the object (railcar, spaceship, Earth), then as far as the object is concerned it does not matter how fast it is moving, the laws of physics should be consistant as long as the object does not accelerate. Is this correct?

I read Einstein's 1935 book on SR & GR a few years ago. It was intended to provide the novice reader a good introduction into SR & GR. If I remember correctly, it took Einstein 32 chapters to summerize SR & GR. In 5 sentences, something is going to be left out that someone feels is important. However, on the GR side, Einstein used equal length rod to describe how matter warps space/time to cause the effect of gravity. I always liked the way he initially presented GR in that manner.

Oh well, just my personal preference!