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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Carlo Rovelli's assertion that "Newton's space is the gravitational field," suggesting that space and gravitational fields are fundamentally interconnected. Participants debate the accuracy of this statement, noting that traditional Newtonian gravitation operates within spacetime, unlike General Relativity, where gravity is inseparable from spacetime. Rovelli's concept of space as a quantum foam introduces the idea that distance is not fixed but varies based on the density of matter and energy, influencing gravitational effects. Critics argue that equating Newton's space directly with the gravitational field overlooks the role of changing distances in gravity's manifestation. Overall, the conversation highlights the speculative nature of Rovelli's ideas while acknowledging their appeal in popular science literature.
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.
 
Being material observers, we do not expand with the universe. Our ruler for measuring its increasing size does not expand either - its scale does not change. If I identify the ruler with a metric, then from my perspective it should be invariant both spatially and temporally. If it expanded with the universe, then its size measured with this ruler would be constant. Why then do we use a metric with the spatial scale expanding with the universe and constant temporal scale to measure the...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K