Does Newtonian gravity bend light?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the bending of light by gravity, specifically comparing Newtonian gravity and General Relativity (G.R.). Einstein's 1919 prediction of light deflection during a solar eclipse was about 1.7 seconds of arc, with half attributed to Newtonian effects and half to space curvature. Participants debate whether Newtonian theory can predict light bending, given that light was considered massless, and how G.R. introduces corrections for this phenomenon. The conversation highlights the distinction between classical mechanics and the implications of relativity on the behavior of light in gravitational fields. Ultimately, the consensus suggests that while Newtonian gravity offers some insights, it does not fully account for light's behavior near massive objects as G.R. does.
  • #31
re: needing more than the stress-energy tensor

In GR, the stress-energy tensor is the density of energy and momentum. It is somewhat similar to the charge density in E&M. In E&M, one can interpret the "source" of electromagnetism as a scalar, charge, which has a density given by a rank-1 tensor, the four-current.

In GR, one can interpret the "source" of gravity as energy and momentum (a four-vector) which has a density given by a rank-2 tensor, the stress-energy tensor.

Thus the four-current, multipled by a vector representing a volume, gives the charge density (a scalar) contained in that volume in E&M. The stress-energy tensor, a rank 2 tensor, mutliplied by a vector representing a volume, gives the energy-momentum (a four-vector) contained in that volume.

In order to solve either E&M, one needs more than the distribution of charge. One also needs additional boundary conditions. E&M is linear, so that one can add any homogeneous solution of Maxwell's equations to an inhomogenoeous solution, and the result will still be a solution of Maxwell's equations. In E&M, it's usually more convenient to deal with the electromagnetic potential rather than the fields. In terms of the potential, one talks for instance about the solution to Poisson's equations (in a region where there is charge) or Laplace's equation (in a region that is charge free), but one needs boundary conditions, for instance Direchlett boundary conditions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_condition) to specify a unique solution.

Gravity is not linear, so it's not as simple as it is for E&M, but one still needs both the stress-energy tensor AND the boundary conditions. Just knowing the source distribution is not enough. A common boundary conditions in E&M is "zero potential at infinity", in gravity a rougly similar assumption is "asymptotically flat space-time" which says that the metric "at infinity" is Minkowskian. The metric coefficeints g_ij obey second order differential equations in GR, so they are formally similar to the potentials in E&M, which also obey second order differential equations. Thus specifying the metric at infintiy is very similar to specfiying the E&M potential at infinity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
pervect said:
Gravity is not linear, so it's not as simple as it is for E&M, but one still needs both the stress-energy tensor AND the boundary conditions.
And these boundary conditions are part of the Weyl tensor right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K