B "Newton's space is the gravitational field"?

mieral
Messages
203
Reaction score
5
I just read Carlo Rovelli new book "Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity" in one sitting and quoting the relevant passage:

"The world is not made up of space + particles + electromagnetic field + gravitational field. The world is made up of particles + fields, and nothing else; there is no need to add space as an extra ingredient. Newton's space is the gravitational field. Or vice versa, which amounts to saying the same thing: the gravitational field is space"

Is the phrase "Newton's space is the gravitational field" correct if one will repeat it in articles?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've always read that Newtonian Gravitation existed within spacetime, much like how objects and other fields exist within spacetime. This is unlike in General Relativity where gravitation is not separate from spacetime.
 
I think Rovelli was talking about space existing in the classical way. As I understood it he was saying that at the smallest scale distance needs to be treated as a quantum measurement in a similar way to energy, with a 'smallest possible' distance existing. He describes space as like a quantum foam where distance is effectively defined by the number of 'bubbles' between two points. The geometry is constantly changing at any point so actual 'distances' are calculated in a statistical manner. A higher density (as measured in classical space) of matter or energy would lead to an increased density of 'bubbles' effectively increasing the distance measured between two points. This then becomes the cause of the 'bending' of space in General Relativity and is what leads to gravity.

To say that Newtons space is the gravitational field would be missing a key point. The change in measured distance within Newtons space is what leads to gravity, not the space itself.

It is worth noting that Rovelli stresses that this is an emerging science and many of the conclusions are still highly speculative. That said, it was a good read and the broad sweep of ideas fits very well with my world view.
 
It sounds like a pop sci book. Please recognize that pop sci books are meant for entertainment rather than education.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Back
Top