Einstein's Quest for Unifying SR & GR with EM

  • Thread starter Thread starter εllipse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Em Gr Sr
εllipse
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
Alright, so Einstein came up with SR to make Maxwell's EM consistent with dynamics, correct? But SR was only for non-inertial reference frames and ignored gravity, so it was replaced with GR to make SR consistent with gravity. So why have I read (from many sources) that Einstein spent his later years (from 1925 onward) trying to find a way to reconcile GR and EM? Was SR compatible with EM, but somehow GR wasn't? Did some of the changes made between SR and GR conflict with Maxwell's EM?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The way I understand it (which may not be very well, I'm just going on something I heard once) is that Einstein was trying to come up with a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism. In GR gravity emerges from the assumption that it is the same as an accelerated frame of reference. However, with EM you just have "charge" and no real reason why it should exist. I think he was somehow trying to come up with a deeper explanation for EM that would link it with gravity. It's not that he was trying to clear up an inconsistancy, he was trying to unify the two in some way.
 


Yes, you are correct in your understanding that Einstein's Special Relativity (SR) was developed to reconcile Maxwell's Electromagnetism (EM) with classical mechanics. However, SR only applied to non-inertial reference frames and did not account for gravity. This led Einstein to develop General Relativity (GR) which extended SR to include gravity and was able to explain the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

However, as you mentioned, Einstein did spend a significant portion of his later years trying to find a way to unify GR and EM. This is because while GR successfully explained gravity, it did not fully align with the principles of EM. For example, GR predicted the existence of gravitational waves, while EM did not have a concept of waves in its equations.

Additionally, GR and EM had different mathematical frameworks, making it difficult to combine them into a unified theory. Einstein believed that there must be a deeper underlying principle that could unite these two theories, and he spent much of his later years searching for this unification.

It wasn't until the development of quantum mechanics and the theory of quantum electrodynamics that a possible unification of GR and EM became apparent. This eventually led to the development of theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, which attempt to unify all of the fundamental forces of nature, including gravity and electromagnetism.

In short, while SR was compatible with EM, GR introduced new concepts and principles that were not fully aligned with EM, leading Einstein to continue his quest for a unified theory until his death.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
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