A A very peculiar emergent definition of gravity

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a unique definition of Newtonian gravity, emphasizing that the circular orbit of a test particle at a distance equal to the Compton length of a mass M maintains the same areal speed, independent of both M and m. The inquiry about the existence of this definition in existing literature reveals a lack of references, leading to skepticism about its validity. Participants note that while independence of m is common in discussions, independence of M is less frequently addressed. The conversation references an older exercise related to quantum mechanics but highlights that current moderation rules prohibit personal speculation. Ultimately, the thread was closed for moderation due to these concerns.
arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,481
Reaction score
187
Newtonian gravity is the force law such that for any mass M, the circular orbit of any test particle m at a distance equal to the Compton length of M has the same areal speed, independent of M and m.

I wonder, have you seen this sort of definition online in the literature? I guess that independency of m is used in most arguments, but independency of M is less usual.
 
  • Like
Likes haushofer
Physics news on Phys.org
arivero said:
Newtonian gravity is the force law such that for any mass M, the circular orbit of any test particle m at a distance equal to the Compton length of M has the same areal speed, independent of M and m.
Where are you getting this from? Do you have a reference? I'm thinking not, since you say:

arivero said:
have you seen this sort of definition online in the literature?
Please note that personal speculation is off limits here.
 
arivero said:
the old exercise we did here
That was 20 years ago and our rules on speculation, even in the BTSM forum, are much stricter now than they were then.

Thread will remain closed.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 63 ·
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K