Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is spacetime really curved?

  1. Apr 19, 2009 #1
    Kip Thorne starts out Chapter 11 of BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS with that question.
    I wondered what experts here might think of that within the context of the following:

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 19, 2009 #2
    How then could we explain gravitational lensing in a flat spacetime? I don't think my eyes would be rubbery. :D
  4. Apr 19, 2009 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The flat spacetime paradigm doesn't give you different predictions, than the curved spacetime paradigm. It is just a philosophical question: Is spacetime curved or is just every observable thing behaving as it was curved.
  5. Apr 19, 2009 #4
    This good idea fails inside the BH horizon, where you have actually a separate (from the entire universe) flow of time. So it cant be explained by just time/space dilation.
  6. Apr 19, 2009 #5
    Dimitry..according to Thorne they ARE mathematically equivalent...everywhere in everyway...that's why I posted it...In your example, gravitational lensing, the conventional "curved space" paradigm does seem a better approach...

    AT has stated it precisely the way Thorne presents it...
  7. Apr 19, 2009 #6
    Hm... Strange.
    Whats about closed universe then? Can the flat space mimic all topological (non local) properties of a curved spacetime?
  8. Apr 19, 2009 #7
    Re: Is spacetime really curved?

    Yes, it is not only curved, but also filled with singularities. Think of a growing cactus as a model.

  9. Apr 24, 2009 #8


    User Avatar

    This kind of fits into what I've been thinking... Is light really curved by space? Or is it still going in a straight line? I assume it's both...
  10. Apr 24, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Science doesn't answer questions like "is space really curved?". Theories don't tell us what something is like. They only tell us what the results of experiments will be (or more generally, what the probabilities of the possible results are, given the results of previous experiments). We can usually interpret a theory as describing what something really is like, but the only thing experiments can tell us is how accurate the predictions are.

    It seems that in this case, we have an alternative theory's equivalent to GR, at least in the sense that it makes the same predictions about the results of experiments, but probably also in the sense that the axioms of either theory can be derived from the axioms of the other.

    The alternative theory describes spacetime and measuring devices in a different way. We know that both of these descriptions are incorrect, since the theories don't include quantum phenomena, but let's forget about that for a moment and pretend that the universe is classical. Which description is correct? What could possibly answer that, if experiments can't? (Hint:)
  11. Apr 24, 2009 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's going in a straight line in GR. I don't really know the alternative theory, but it sounds like the path is curved in that one.
  12. Apr 24, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, that's the question. Thorne indicates the theories are fully equivalent, and so does MTW. But is that right even down to admitting the same space of solutions?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook