EM Fields, Space-Time, Gravity: Unifying Theory?

SBryars
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Instead of calculating relative mass and density of an object to quantify gravity and gravitational forces, could Em field density be inserted into these calcs? why the shift from EM to Gr, relative to size? I know string theory is all the rage for unification, but why complicate an already complicated theory with more theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure, you can add the energy density on the right hand side of the Poisson equation. However, this is not covariant under Lorentz transformation, and, much worse, it doesn't hold up empirically.

Also, you might take a look at Nordström's attempt at a scalar theory of gravity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordström's_theory_of_gravitation
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
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...
Back
Top