On Einstein´s theory of curved spacetime.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter svenraun
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of curved spacetime as described by Einstein's theory, exploring various interpretations and analogies, particularly the trampoline analogy. Participants examine the implications of viewing spacetime from different perspectives and the mathematical definitions of curvature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of the trampoline analogy, suggesting that it oversimplifies the nature of spacetime and that curvature cannot be viewed from a fixed external perspective.
  • Another participant emphasizes that spacetime curvature is measured by observing the behavior of free-falling bodies, noting that in flat spacetime, the separation between inertial particles changes linearly with time, which is not the case in curved spacetime.
  • A different viewpoint highlights that the trampoline analogy reduces three-dimensional space to two dimensions, and while it helps visualize curvature, it remains an analogy and does not necessitate a fourth spatial dimension.
  • One participant reiterates their initial thoughts, questioning how to assess curvature from different observational points and suggesting that gravity may vary at different locations on a planet.
  • Another participant introduces a mathematical perspective on curvature, explaining how moving a tangent vector along a closed path in curved space results in a change in orientation, illustrating the complexity of geodesics in a gravitational field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of analogies for understanding spacetime curvature, and there is no consensus on the best way to visualize or interpret these concepts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of different observational perspectives on spacetime curvature.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes limitations related to the use of analogies, the dependence on mathematical definitions, and the challenges of visualizing higher-dimensional curvature. Participants acknowledge the complexity of the concepts without reaching definitive conclusions.

svenraun
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Now if you view the cosmos from the side like imagine all planets horizontally they say spacetime is curved in a way like heavy sphere objects lying on a trampoline. What happens to the spacetime above the middle of the objects really, it seems like according to this space can push only on one side of the large objects. But it seems its pushing all around. And what if you can't view the scholarsystem horizontally but vertically, how do you then judge the curvature of space. Like it doesn't work the other way around. Taking the pi and viewing the higgs field around a planet even when its not a circular curvature doesn't matter, there should be a slight difference in gravity in some point on the planet, i mean exactly where pi becomes infinite. So the curvature should be actually a perfect sphere while the Earth for example is falling through space. Depends which point you are observing. Anyone familiar with this ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no such thing as viewing "the cosmos from the side", "vertically", or from any other outside-looking-in direction. The trampoline analogy is just that—an analogy (and not a very good one). We are inside spacetime. We measure its curvature by looking at how free falling (inertial) test bodies behave. In flat spacetime, the separation between two inertial particles changes linearly with time. In curved spacetime, this is not true in general, and the extent to which it fails to be true is a measure of local curvature.
 
The trampoline example is just an analogy. In it, all of 3 dimensional space exists along the surface of the trampoline. Another way to look at it is it reduces all of space to two dimensions and use the third dimension to show the curve. This is done this way because we have no way of depicting 3 dimensions curved through a fourth dimension.

And even if we could, it would still be an analogy. Space-time curvature doe not actually require a 4th spatial dimension. It really is the result of non-Euclidean geometry.
 
svenraun said:
Now if you view the cosmos from the side like imagine all planets horizontally they say spacetime is curved in a way like heavy sphere objects lying on a trampoline. What happens to the spacetime above the middle of the objects really, it seems like according to this space can push only on one side of the large objects. But it seems its pushing all around. And what if you can't view the scholarsystem horizontally but vertically, how do you then judge the curvature of space. Like it doesn't work the other way around. Taking the pi and viewing the higgs field around a planet even when its not a circular curvature doesn't matter, there should be a slight difference in gravity in some point on the planet, i mean exactly where pi becomes infinite. So the curvature should be actually a perfect sphere while the Earth for example is falling through space. Depends which point you are observing. Anyone familiar with this ?

Probably the best way to grasp "curvature" of space-time is to use the mathematical definition of curvature. Basically, if you move a tangent vector along a closed path in a curved space, trying not to change it's orientation, it won't return to it's original orientation (notice that the tangent vector has to be tangent to the space). You can try it with the surface of a sphere: start with a vector pointing north at the equator. Then move it across the equator to the other side of the sphere. Now move it north to the north pole, and then continue in that direction until you reach the original point. If you did it correctly, the resulting vector should be pointing towards the south pole now. All of this can be done without considering the sphere as something living in 3 dimensions.

This is also the effect of the gravitational field. This curvature makes "geodesics", or paths of shortest distance, more complicated than just straight lines, and these "geodesics" are what particles follow. This is how gravity "pulls" things: they don't follow straight lines, which since Newton we associate with particles moving without forces applying to them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K