- #1

aeroboyo

- 70

- 0

From my very limited knowledge of General Relativity, i have the impression that mass is just considered as 'other' in this theory. By that i mean, GR assumes matter to be made of something other than space-time, and only deals with the effect that matter has on the geometry of space-time. Is that a correct interpretation of GR? Does GR offer any explanation of what matter is at a fundamental level?

Maybe this question doesn't warrent an entire thread. I'm curious about the connection between mass and space-time in GR. I started wondering about this after reading about a theory called Heim Theory which tries to explain matter at the most fundamental level as being essentially due to the geometry of space-time, i.e like some kind of 'twising' of space-time. Think of a tornado... it appears to be an object with a structure but it's really just made out of air like its surroundings. If the geometry of space-time can sucessfully explain gravitation, then why not use geometry of space-time to explain other forces, or even matter on a fundamental level? Why does GR restrict itself to gravitation and assume mass to be 'other'...

Maybe this question doesn't warrent an entire thread. I'm curious about the connection between mass and space-time in GR. I started wondering about this after reading about a theory called Heim Theory which tries to explain matter at the most fundamental level as being essentially due to the geometry of space-time, i.e like some kind of 'twising' of space-time. Think of a tornado... it appears to be an object with a structure but it's really just made out of air like its surroundings. If the geometry of space-time can sucessfully explain gravitation, then why not use geometry of space-time to explain other forces, or even matter on a fundamental level? Why does GR restrict itself to gravitation and assume mass to be 'other'...

Last edited: