Is GPS the only practical application of General Relativity?

petergreat
Messages
266
Reaction score
4
I guess GR is also needed to accurately coordinate space flight, but I highly doubt without GR the space shuttle will have any problem finding its way back home. Gravitational lensing doesn't count as practical application.
Maybe a subject with even fewer applications is quantum chromodynamics. Even though QCD is in principle needed to describe nuclear physics, effective theories such as nuclear shell model and liquid droplet model have guided scientists well enough to detonate a nuclear bomb in 1945, well before the completion of QCD in the 1970s. It seems to me that by the time QCD comes out, nuclear physics is already more or less finished. Or I could be wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
petergreat said:
I guess GR is also needed to accurately coordinate space flight, but I highly doubt without GR the space shuttle will have any problem finding its way back home. Gravitational lensing doesn't count as practical application.
This is an interesting question. SR is a different story. Every time you stick a magnet to your fridge, you're arguably applying SR, since magnetism is a relativistic effect. Explicit relativistic corrections are important in technologies as old as cathode ray tubes. Historically, GR was a poorly tested theory (relative to the other fundamental theories of physics) until the 1970's, so any practical applications of GR would probably have to be later than that. Although I doubt that you need GR for navigating the space shuttle, there are certainly detectable GR effects when you're dealing with space probes. Some of the best tests of GR are from Cassini. However, it's possible that those missions could have been carried out without understanding GR, just by carrying out course corrections on the fly, or taking GR effects into account as empirical fudge factors, without knowing that they originated in GR.

petergreat said:
It seems to me that by the time QCD comes out, nuclear physics is already more or less finished. Or I could be wrong.
I assume you mean "more or less finished" in terms of practical applications? Nuclear physics is a big and diverse field. QCD is very nearly irrelevant in low-energy nuclear structure physics. It's central in relativistic heavy-ion physics.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top