Let me start by saying that I'm a physics student but I have no experience with GR other than some pop-sci and some clarifications on that pop-sci from various sources, so basically I'm saying that some math is fine but please bare in mind that I have no real experience with the relevant math.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

With that out out of the way, here's my question:

As far as I understand what GR did, aside from dealing with frames of reference correctly, was that it descried the force of gravity as a curvature in space-time (basically a massive object will change the metric of space-time, at least locally), the thing is that up to that point both gravity and electromagnetism where thought to be inverse square distance laws, so how come gravity got to be described by space-rime curvature while electromagnetism ended up with Maxwell's laws and whatever qunatum theory does with it?

More generally what makes gravity so special that it's described by space-time curvature while other forces (not necessarily fundamental ones) get to move objects from their natural geodesics, why aren't they generalized the same way gravity is?

Again my experience with GR is quite limited, I just had a thought and figured I'd share, so please go easy on me as I'm not up to speed with the rest of you GR people.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# B How come GR doesn't describe other forces with curvature?

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**