Is Gravity Really Just Curved Spacetime?

[MeJennifer]

True, but there are no massless particles (no, photons are no particles!).

Whether photons are particles or not, which is more like a definition question anyway, seems to me not directly relevant to general and special relativity.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, it depends on what you are interested in. Photons are absolutely crucial in quantum optics. If you are interested on classical physics only, you don't need them, and it's always much better to stick to classical descriptions, i.e., the Maxwell equations in this case.

 

[PeterDonis]

The component of the 4-velocity of the particle in the "time" direction.

I would use the term "tangent vector" here in order to avoid the complaints you are getting that a massless particle does not have a 4-velocity (which is supposed to be a unit vector). With that correction, I agree that the "0" (timelike) component of the tangent vector to any timelike or null curve will be nonzero with respect to any orthonormal basis.

 

[PeterDonis]

there are no massless particles (no, photons are no particles!).

This is a "B" level thread, so all of the issues you are implicitly referring to here are really beyond the scope of this discussion. For purposes of a "B" level thread, I think the term "massless particles" is an acceptable way to refer to photons, as long as everyone is aware that it's a "B" level heuristic.

If you are interested on classical physics only, you don't need them

You don't "need" them in the sense that you can always generate predictions without using the concept, yes. But for this kind of discussion, where we can use the extreme geometric optics approximation and don't really care about the details of Maxwell's Equations, thinking of photons as "massless particles"--pointlike objects that move on null worldliness--can be very useful to avoid cluttering up your descriptions with unnecessary details.

 

[StandardsGuy]

You're thinking of curved space only. In curved spacetime, stationary objects are effectively moving along the time axis at speed c, so the curvature of free fall paths as the object moves through time accelerates it even if it isn't moving in space.

I had understood that we were moving through time fast, but at c is very fast. Are you sure? Can you show a mathematical proof that is fairly simple?

 

[StandardsGuy]

If Einstein knew that the movement through time caused gravity, then why did he say that time is an illusion?

 

[PeterDonis]

If Einstein knew that the movement through time caused gravity, then why did he say that time is an illusion?

Even though this is a "B" level thread, rules about acceptable sources still apply. Einstein didn't say that time is an illusion in any scientific paper that I'm aware of. He may have said it in pop science books or articles, but those aren't acceptable sources for discussion here.

Also, "movement through time causes gravity" is not a good way of describing what has been said in this thread. The idea that all objects are "moving through time" along their worldlines in a curved spacetime can help to understand how the motion of those objects shows the effects of gravity; but that's not the same as saying the "movement through time" of those objects causes gravity.

 

[Markus Hanke]

It has a parametrized path xμ(s)xμ(s)x^\mu(s) (although sss is not unique), and associated with every parametrized path is a 4-vector whose components are dxμdsdxμds\frac{d x^\mu}{ds}. The only difference with a massive particle is that sss can't be proper time.

Should that not read "massless" instead of "massive" ?

 

[stevendaryl]

Should that not read "massless" instead of "massive" ?

I meant the only difference between a massless and massive particle is that a massless particle's path cannot be parametrized by proper time.