How do we argue that gravity is not a force due to curvature of space-time?

Chaste
Messages
63
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How do we argue that gravity is not a force due to curvature of space-time?


Homework Equations



I'm new.. I don't even understand the eqn of tensor calculus.

The Attempt at a Solution



No force is needed for as massive objects follows the curvature of spacetime with their innate velocity? Just like the Earth orbits around the sun because its velocity sustains it in the path of curvature caused by the sun?

I'm writing an essay on this. and I need more points to elaborate on curvature.
Thanks for all help given.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yea basically. The Earth thinks its going in a straight line, but since the space around Earth is curved by the sun, the Earth follows a circular trajectory as a result. The key word "geodesic."
 
What gives the Earth its inherent/innate velocity to maintain its trajectory/geodisic movement instead of being attracted towards the sun?
Does this velocity only apply to massive objects? what about smaller objects like humans, do we attract each other?
 
well the Earth is attracted towards the sun, or else it would fly out into space. It continues to move though because there is nothing to stop it (see, "Newtons first law of motion").
Yes, all objects attract all other things gravitationally, even humans. Even individual atoms attract others gravitationally, but the force is extraordinarily weak and it is really only noticeable in very large objects such as planets and stars.
 
A telling case could be made against gravity being interpreted as curvature of spacetime if there were a dependence of gravity on the material an object is made of instead of just it's mass. So a gold satellite would orbit differently from an aluminum satellite it would make it difficult to interpret as geometry. As far as we know so far, they don't. Look up the Eotvos experiment. Work in this direction is still going on. Look up Gravity Probe B. Work those into your essay.
 
One point to note... My essay is to understandable to a layman and my tutor told me to focus more on the geometry/geodesic such that NO FORCE is required between masses.

I was wondering how do I explain geodesics in a laymanized manner. sigh
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top