Gravitational Theory, Don´t grasp it.

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.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top