Is There a Third Force in General Relativity?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of forces in the context of general relativity (GR) and how it relates to Newtonian gravity, particularly focusing on the idea of a "third force" that may influence orbits, such as the precession of Mercury's perihelion.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the notion of a "third force" in GR, questioning the definition and existence of forces in this framework. They discuss the implications of GR on gravitational interactions and the nature of orbits, with some participants suggesting that the term may refer to a correction to Newtonian gravity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing insights and questioning the terminology used in the original quote. There is a recognition of the complexity of interpreting gravitational effects in GR, and some guidance is offered regarding the distinction between forces and the geometric interpretation of gravity.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing debate about the terminology used in the literature, particularly regarding the classification of forces in GR versus Newtonian physics. Participants note the potential confusion arising from sources like Wikipedia and the need for careful interpretation of terms like "force" in the context of general relativity.

YangMills
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I was researching relativity, and stumbled across this:

"General relativity introduces a third force that attracts the particle slightly more strongly than Newtonian gravity, especially at small radii. This third force causes the particle's elliptical orbit to precess..."

Is this accurate? If so, how does it work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it introduces a correction term to the Newtonian calculation which I guess you could view as a "third force" and this is responsible for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury etc.
 
Now I'm kind of curious what the first two 'forces' are. Doing gravitation in GR doesn't even usually involve talking about 'forces' except in a perturbative sense. It's all geodesics, isn't it?
 
Yes, that is exactly what perplexes me. In the context of general relativity, gravity is not a force, in the same way that there is no centrifugal force: it is a consequence of the coordinate system. Of course, this quote was from Wikipedia, but I've been following it for quite some time and have not seen it amended.
 
It's probably what latentcorpse said. You can cast the GR solution as a 'correcting' force to the force of gravity. But even in Newtonian theory, there's only one 'force', that's gravity. Centrifugal 'force' is not a force, it's an acceleration. I think you understand the issue. Probably best not to be overly concerned with what Wikipedia says.
 
I am not sure where the quote is coming from, but the effective potential of an object orbiting a point source in GR does have three terms. Differentiate and you get a total force with three contributions:

1. Inverse square (Newtonian gravity)
2. Inverse cube (Centrifugal force)
3. Inverse fourth power (GR "correction")

The thread has implied it, but I think this is where the talk of a "third" force is coming from. The first two produce the standard elliptical orbit and the third is a kind of perturbation causing precession. This is a poor-man's way to calculate the precession of Mercury, etc.
 
dulrich said:
3. Inverse fourth power (GR "correction")

Ah. That explains the dominance of GR at small radii.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K