Model for Gravity -- What mechanism distorts space in the real case?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the inadequacy of the rubber sheet model for gravity in accurately representing real-world phenomena, as it simplifies the complexities of General Relativity (GR). Participants debate the definition of "mechanism," with some arguing that GR's Einstein field equations serve as the mathematical framework explaining how mass distorts spacetime. The conversation highlights the challenges of visualizing spacetime curvature and the limitations of analogies and animations in conveying these concepts. There is a consensus that while GR effectively predicts various phenomena, it does not provide a straightforward causal mechanism for the curvature of spacetime. Ultimately, the nature of gravity and spacetime remains a complex topic that may not lend itself to simple explanations.
  • #61
PeterDonis said:
These are interesting, but I would make one caution: the "sector model" approach helps to visualize spatial curvature, but that is not the same as spacetime curvature. And the difference can often be quite stark.

For example, consider the black hole example. The "sector models" visualizations show that the spatial curvature around a black hole is positive radially but negative tangentially. However, the spacetime curvature is the opposite: radially it is negative (geodesics diverge) while tangentially it is positive (geodesics converge).

So I think one has to be very careful with such pedagogical methods.
That is an issue, and while the author does explicitly address it, the solution does require a fairly advanced knowledge of special relativity.

To quote from the first paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0323.pdf

In a spatial sector model a sector is rotated in order to lay it alongside the neighbouring sector. In the spatiotemporal case the rotation is replaced by a Lorentz transformation.

It's a step up from the proposal I often uses, saying that General relativity can be thought of as drawing space-time diagrams on "curved surfaces", going into much more detail about what is meant by a "curved surface". I always give that a very short shrift when I mention it, saying that a sphere is an example of what I mean by a curved surface and not attempting a more general defintion.

While the required knowledge of special relativity is a bit advanced, it's IMO more accessible and practical than trying to present differential geometry at the same intermediate level to the same audience.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
15K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K