Gravitational Theory, Don´t grasp it.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Moris526
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitational Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of spacetime and its relationship with matter, particularly how spacetime can influence the motion of objects in orbit. Participants explore theoretical concepts, mathematical frameworks, and philosophical implications related to gravitational theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how spacetime can "hold" matter in orbit, suggesting that spacetime must have some material aspect to create curvature.
  • Another participant proposes that spacetime can be thought of as "material," referencing Rindler's analogy of geodesics as rails for particles influenced by gravity.
  • Some participants express that spacetime is beyond human experience and imagination, but can be understood through non-Euclidean geometry and tensor calculus.
  • A different viewpoint mentions Moeller's model of spacetime as a dispersive medium with a refractive index, although this perspective is noted as less popular today.
  • One participant cites Einstein's perspective on the relationship between matter and fields, suggesting that matter could be viewed as regions of strong fields, raising questions about the nature of these concepts.
  • Another participant clarifies that spacetime does not "hold" objects in orbit but rather that objects follow natural paths or geodesics unless acted upon by forces, linking this to Newton's first law and the implications of General Relativity.
  • This participant also discusses the Schwarzschild solution, explaining how geodesics in a gravitational field lead to orbits that can be understood as straight lines in curved spacetime.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of spacetime and its interaction with matter, with no consensus reached on how to conceptualize these relationships. Disagreements exist regarding the materiality of spacetime and the interpretation of gravitational effects.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of mathematical frameworks and historical perspectives, which may not be universally accepted or understood. The discussion includes references to various theoretical models and philosophical considerations that are not resolved.

Moris526
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
If matter distortions the spacetime structure and this structure keeps, let´s say, matter in orbit, i can´t think of this structure as inmaterial.
How space time hold matter in orbit? by contact?
Hasn´t something to be made of matter to curv?
I understand ¨structure¨ of spacetime as matter? HEEEELLLLPPP!

Is spacetime something we can´t experience?

Sorry about the english, i´m from argentina.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's fine to think of spacetime as "material" in that case. Rindler describes geodesics (spacetime trajectories of particles under the influence of gravity and no other forces) as a unique set of rails!

"In 1854 the railroad reached Goettingen, but Bernhard Riemann unveiled there an even more important system of rails, the geodesics of curved spaces."

From Rindler, General Relativity before Special Relativity, American Journal of Physics 62:887-893, 1994.
 
Space-time that we not only can't experience but also we can't imagine. But it can be understood only through noneucludean geometry/tensor calculus.
 
Space-time that we not only can't experience but also we can't imagine. But it can be understood only through noneucludean geometry/tensor calculus.
This is true, but Moeller in 'General Relativity' shows that space-time can be modeled as a dispersive medium with a refractive index. The book was published in 1950 and it is not a popular view now.
 
"How space time hold matter in orbit? by contact?"
This by no means anybody can guess even now
- Einstein said "There is no sense in regarding matter and field astwo qualities quite different from each other ... Could we notreject the concept of matter andbuild apure field physics? We could regardmatter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. A thrownstoneis,fromthis point of view, a changing field in which the states of the greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone" -
mystery lies in the fecund soil of quantum electro/chromo area but Einstein from 1930 till his death tried to establish his belief through only math without any result.
 
Spacetime doesn't have to "hold" anything in orbit. The orbital trajectories are the natural paths a body will follow when NO forces are applied.

We just have to restate Netwon's fisrt law:

Original says: "Every body remains in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by a force".

After General Relativity, it has to be re-phrased to say: " Every body traces out a geodesic in space-time unless acted upon by a force."

If there were no other masses around, the geodesics would be the same as Newton's
"straight lines". But when there is another mass, Schwartzschild found the only spherically-symmetric solution for the spacetime around a single point mass, and its geodesics were not straight lines, but Kepler-like orbits (with a small correction). So a body's orbit is really a straight line in spherically symmetric space.

Think of drawing the straightest possible line on the surface of the earth; what do you get? A Great Circle.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K