Comparing Gravity in Newtonian and Relativistic Frameworks

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of gravitational calculations in Newtonian mechanics versus General Relativity (GR), particularly in the context of planetary orbits, with a focus on Mercury's orbit as a case study. Participants explore the differences in predictions made by both frameworks and the implications of these differences.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Newton's equations yield a slight error in predicting Mercury's orbit compared to GR, with an error of about 1 part in 107.
  • There is a discussion about whether GR predicts a higher or lower gravitational figure compared to Newtonian calculations, with some uncertainty expressed about direct comparisons.
  • Participants mention that GR predicts additional effects such as time dilation and space distortion that influence trajectories beyond gravitational acceleration.
  • One participant raises a question about the precision of Newton's equations for other orbits, suggesting that the perihelion shift is most significant for Mercury due to its proximity to the Sun.
  • Mathematical expressions are provided to compare the formulations of orbits in both Newtonian and GR frameworks, highlighting an additional term in the GR equation.
  • There is a critique of the common visualizations of gravity, such as the rubber sheet analogy, with a participant expressing dissatisfaction with the representation of gravitational effects in three-dimensional space.
  • A question is posed about the potential impact of using Schwarzschild radii in Newtonian calculations and whether it would align the results more closely with GR predictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of Newtonian mechanics versus GR in describing gravitational phenomena, particularly regarding Mercury's orbit. There is no consensus on the implications of using different reference points or the validity of common visualizations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in the comparison, including the dependence on specific definitions and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical steps in the discussion.

John15
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
I understand there is a slight difference in the value of gravity when worked out using Newton or relativity. The obvious example being mercury where Newtonian is slightly out and relativity accurate.
Does relativity show a higher or lower figure or does the difference in working out mean you cannot compare the 2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
John15 said:
I understand there is a slight difference in the value of gravity when worked out using Newton or relativity. The obvious example being mercury where Newtonian is slightly out and relativity accurate.
Does relativity show a higher or lower figure or does the difference in working out mean you cannot compare the 2.
The only effect you can directly compare it the gravitational acceleration. Here is a thread about it:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=310397

But GR predicts other effects that also affect trajectories like time dilation and space distortion.
 
Why do Newtons equations not correctly describe the orbit of mercury. How precise are they with the other orbits.
 
John15 said:
Why do Newtons equations not correctly describe the orbit of mercury. How precise are they with the other orbits.
Newton's theory is pretty accurate already, the error is only about 1 part in 107.

The perihelion shift applies to all non circular orbits but the effect is largest for Mercury because Mercury is closest to the Sun.

We can actually express equatorial orbits in common form both for GR and Newton's theory:
[tex]\Large {\frac {{d}^{2}u}{{d\varphi }^{2}}}=1/2\,\mbox {D} \left( f \right) <br /> \left( u \right) [/tex]

Where f(u) is:
[tex]\Large f \left( u \right) =2\,{\beta}^{2}u+2\,k-{u}^{2}[/tex]
for Newton and

f(u) is:
[tex]\Large f \left( u \right) =2\,{\beta}^{2}u+2\,k-{u}^{2}+2\,{u}^{3}[/tex]
for GR.

The only difference is an extra term (u is defined here as m/r).

For details see for instance "General Relativity" - Woodhouse, chapter 8.2

With a lot of hand waving we get an approximate advance of:
[tex]\Large 6\,{\frac {Gm\pi}{r_{{0}}{c}^{2}}}[/tex]
where r0 is the approximate radius.
 
Last edited:
Have looked at the other thread, I personally don't like the cone idea, it is similar to the rubber sheet example unfortunately for me it does not work in 3d space all the cones cancel out leaving a series of expanding spheres and, for example, the Earth ofbits the suns equator not around its top.
Out of interest if the distance in Newton was taken from the shwartzchild radii rather than exact centers would it bring Newton and einstein any closer, it would obviously slightly increase g in Newton especially close to a large body like the sun.
Not sure if the +2u3 above causes an increase or decrease in GR.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K