Newtonian Gravity: How GR Affects F=GMm/d^2

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between Newtonian gravity and General Relativity (GR), specifically questioning the validity of the equation F=GMm/d² in light of GR's description of gravity as the curvature of space and time. Participants explore the conditions under which Newtonian mechanics is considered "wrong" and the applicability of both theories in various scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the equation F=GMm/d² is fundamentally incorrect if Newton's gravity is deemed wrong by GR.
  • Others argue that Newtonian mechanics is not entirely "wrong" but rather limited in its applicability, particularly at speeds approaching the speed of light.
  • It is noted that Newtonian mechanics remains precise for everyday applications and is not abandoned in practical scenarios like construction.
  • Some participants highlight that the differences between GR and Newtonian gravity become significant under strong gravitational fields, such as those experienced by Mercury, where GR provides more accurate predictions.
  • There is a discussion on the limitations of Newtonian mechanics, with some suggesting that it is approximately correct within a useful domain, while others emphasize that no physics equations are absolutely "right" but rather models that work under specific conditions.
  • A participant mentions the experimental evidence supporting GR, including the precession of Mercury's orbit and the energy shift observed in a Mossbauer Effect experiment, which aligns with GR predictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether F=GMm/d² is wrong or merely limited. The discussion reflects multiple competing perspectives on the applicability of Newtonian mechanics versus GR.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the dependence on specific conditions for the validity of each model, as well as the unresolved nature of how to quantify the accuracy of predictions made by either theory in various scenarios.

Stratosphere
Messages
373
Reaction score
0
What exactly was wrong with Newtons gravity. I understan that GR says that gravity is the curveture of space and time. However if Newton was wrong wouldn't that mean that F= GMm/d^2 is actualy wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stratosphere said:
What exactly was wrong with Newtons gravity. I understan that GR says that gravity is the curveture of space and time. However if Newton was wrong wouldn't that mean that F= GMm/d^2 is actualy wrong?

Newtonian mechanics is also "wrong" at speeds near c. Do you see us abandoning Newton's laws when we build houses and buildings?

You need to look at under what conditions the classical description are no longer accurate. It doesn't mean that they are wrong. It just means that they work very well, within the accuracy that we need, only within certain range of conditions.

Zz,.
 
Stratosphere said:
What exactly was wrong with Newtons gravity. I understan that GR says that gravity is the curveture of space and time. However if Newton was wrong wouldn't that mean that F= GMm/d^2 is actualy wrong?
For all eternity, predictions made on basis of Newtonian mechanics will remain as precise as they always have been.
 
So F= GMm/d^2 is correct?
 
No. It is approximately correct in a limited domain (but a very useful domain to us).
 
How limited are we talking?
 
Last edited:
depends, we don't usually well actually we never travel anywhere near the speed of light maybe some pilots (usually military) travel past the speed of sound which is only a very and i mean very small fraction of the speed of light so in order for Newtonian physics to start to appear wrong is about 10 percent of C, though it's always wrong but very, very slightly at normal speeds. (that's only SR)
 
again sound travels very, very, very slow compared to the speed of light
 
You have to remember that no physics equations are really 'right' per se. They are just models to describe what we see, some models are better then others others are valid in different circumstances.

Newtons model describes gravity in every day life well enough, but like TOE said at 0.1C things start to go wrong. This is where GR model takes over.

Neither are right or wrong, just valid in different circumstances.
 
  • #10
Stratosphere said:
How limited are we talking?

How limited you're talking depends on how accurate you want to predict ;) .
 
  • #11
One of the first experimental tests of GR was its prediction of the rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Newtonian gravity predicted a rate of 5557 seconds of arc per century. The actual measured value is 5600 seconds of arc per century, consistent with Einstein's prediction from GR.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html

Differences between GR and Newtonian gravity are largest for Mercury's orbit because it's closest to the sun and experiences the strongest gravitational field. For the other planets, the differences are a lot smaller. If you don't need to deal with that level of precision, Newtonian gravity works fine on the scale of the solar system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
jtbell said:
One of the first experimental tests of GR was its prediction of the rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Newtonian gravity predicted a rate of 5557 seconds of arc per century. The actual measured value is 5600 seconds of arc per century, consistent with Einstein's prediction from GR.
That was more of a post-diction than a prediction. That 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy was a known problem with Newtonian gravity at the end of the 19th century. The first successful prediction of GR was the bending of a ray light from some remote star as the ray passed by the Sun. GR predicted this result before it was observed in solar eclipses.

That 43 seconds of arc per century discrepancy between prediction and measurement is a tribute to 19th astronomers. First thing to note: 43 seconds of arc per century is an incredibly small number. It is equal to 0.00012 degrees per year. It would take three million years to accumulate an error of 360 degrees. That astronomers could even see such a discrepancy using 19th technology is quite amazing.

Second thing to note: Calculating what Newtonian mechanics predicts for the precession requires a precise understanding of the Earth's rotation (~5026 arc seconds per century of Mercury's apparent precession arises from the precession of the Earth's rotation axis), precise estimates of the masses and orbits of the other planets (~531 arc seconds per century of Mercury's precession arises from interactions with other planets), and doing all of the hairy calculations with pencil and paper. Another tribute to 19th astronomers and mathematicians.GR makes itself apparent much more readily in terms of time rather than position. Our GPS receivers would give incredibly bad positions if the special and general relativistic effects on clocks were not taken into account.
 
  • #13
ZapperZ said:
Newtonian mechanics is also "wrong" at speeds near c. Do you see us abandoning Newton's laws when we build houses and buildings?
Zz,.
When experimenters (Pound and Rebka (Harvard), 1959) put a Mossbauer Effect experiment iron-57 14.4 keV photon source at the top of a 73.8 foot tower (roof of physics building) and a detector in the basement, the experiment showed that when the photons fall to the ground, their energy increases (doppler shift). Although the energy shift due to gravity was very small (about 1 part in 10^15), the measured energy shift agreed with GR predictions to about 1%. So both apples photons gain energy when falling from trees or tall buildings.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
8K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K