ModifiedGravity.htmlWhat are the limitations of General Relativity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limitations of General Relativity (GR), exploring various phenomena that GR may not adequately explain, including potential alternatives like Modified Gravity (MOG) and Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). Participants examine theoretical implications, experimental results, and the relationship between GR and quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that every physical theory, including GR, has phenomena it cannot explain, prompting questions about specific limitations beyond event horizons and quantum unification.
  • One participant suggests that the validity of GR's limitations depends on assumptions about mass distributions and whether phenomena like the Pioneer anomaly are truly GR effects.
  • There is a discussion about the differences between MOG and MOND, with some participants asserting that MOG is a relativistic version of MOND, while others question the standardization of the term "MOG."
  • Experimental results from the Gravity Probe B experiment are mentioned, indicating that GR predictions may fall outside the error bars of measured precessions, although the significance of this is debated.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the verification of MOND, suggesting that the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics with GR indicates potential flaws in one or both theories.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definitions of MOG and MOND, with discussions on their respective interpolation functions and the implications for gravitational theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the limitations of GR or the validity of alternative theories like MOG and MOND. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the implications of experimental results and theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on assumptions regarding mass distributions and the lack of clear physical justification for certain interpolation functions in modified gravity theories. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the interpretation of experimental anomalies and their implications for GR.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
Well as every physical theory has some phenomonas that it can't explain/describe, what are those phenomena in GR?
I mean besides the what goes inside the event horizon and unification with QM, what other phenomena cannot be explained by GR?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That depends on the assumptions you make about the phenomena in question. For instance Modified Gravity (MOG) gets galactic rotation curves and even the Bullet Cluster data. Yet the interpolation function is essentially arbitrary even though the arbitrariness doesn't actually guarantee good rotation curves as is sometimes claimed. Of course it assumes that Dark Matter is not involved which can't be guaranteed because the interpolation function does not have a clear cut physical justification. You also have the Pioneer anomaly among others. Of course it could be a systematic error because these probes were not actually designed to measure this effect. It could also be a number of other physical processes.

So the validity of the assumption that GR can't explain these phenomena depends on whether or not we assume these are GR effects or the validity of our assumption about mass distributions.
 
MOG, you mean MOND don't you?
 
As a gravitational theory GR works very well both locally in the solar system and also extrapolated out to cosmological distances. Nevertheless there may be a few potential problems that have been discussed in this thread: Critique of Mainstream Cosmology.

One test of GR that is being evaluated at this moment is the Gravity Probe B experiment with final results due in May.

At the moment the team are evaluating and reducing unexpected experimental error and have reduced it so far to the one sigma confidence level. (68%).

At this level of confidence the GR prediction falls outside the error bars of the measured precessions!

You can see the relevant results in the project director Francis Everitt's lecture slide: http://colloquia.physics.cornell.edu/11-12-2007/cornellpres_files/v3_slide0341.htm data box.
Einstein prediction = -6571\pm1 (millarcsecs/yr)
4-gyro result (1 \sigma) for 85 days 12 Dec 04 - 4 Mar 05 = -6632 \pm43 (millarcsecs/yr)
However, we don't normally start taking notice until there is an anomaly at the three sigma level, nevertheless it is interesting!

One problem with GR is that of integrating it with quantum mechanics into a quantum gravity theory, therefore any observational anomalies are important in giving a clue where modifications may have to be made that would also assist towards this integration.

Garth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heard about some anomalies with probes sent out of this solar system, could this be evidence of MOND? Or is the theory bunk?

Got to admit MOND has no chance of being verified atm, so I can see why it's somewhat disputed. However the fact that QM cannot be reconciled with GR means that one or the other is wrong in some way. If the maths doesn't work doesn't that say something about the maths even renormalisation can't handle?

Sorry kind of a cross post with Garth.
 
loop quantum gravity said:
MOG, you mean MOND don't you?

MOG is a fully relativistic version but otherwise similar to MOND. J. W. Moffat and J. R. Brownstein are the main individuals behind this model. For example:
Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511026

Galaxy Rotation Curves Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370

Proposed empirical test to distinguish between MOND and MOG.
Testing modified gravity with globular cluster velocity dispersions
http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1935

ETA: MOND means Modified Newtonian Gravity i.e., non-relativistic. MOG mean Modified Gravity which is fully relativistic.
 
Last edited:
my_wan said:
ETA: MOND means Modified Newtonian Gravity i.e., non-relativistic. MOG mean Modified Gravity which is fully relativistic.

I'm not sure that "MOG" is a standard acronym for this model, since there are many ways to modify gravity in a relativistic manner.
 
loop quantum gravity said:
Well as every physical theory has some phenomonas that it can't explain/describe, what are those phenomena in GR?

Does your statement that every theory has some things it can not explain come from Godel's incompleteness theorem?

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

.. and is Godel's incompleteness theorem complete?
 
cristo said:
I'm not sure that "MOG" is a standard acronym for this model, since there are many ways to modify gravity in a relativistic manner.

The term MOG was coined by and is synonymous with the theory developed by John. W. Moffat et al. Much the same way MOND is associated with the theory proposed by Mordehai Milgrom in 1981. The term itself as you stated is not specific to an exact modification but deals with modification of acceleration with distance as originally proposed by MOND. In general neither even specify the interpolation function thereby including various choices, within limits, by definition. So you could specify some well defined interpolation formula differently, within limits, and it would still be a MOG theory.

MOND uses an interpolation function to modify acceleration in F = ma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND

MOG does essentially the same thing wrt G;
a(r) = \frac{{G_N}M(r)}{r^2}

Such that;

a(r) = \frac{{G(r)}M(r)}{r^2}

Where G(r) is constant in the limit of weak fields and large distances.
http://web.mac.com/joelbrownstein/iWeb/Modified%20Gravity/MOG/MOG.html

Details of MOG and published results can be reviewed here;
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/jbrownstein/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 118 ·
4
Replies
118
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K