Relativity & Gravity: Questions for a 16-Year-Old

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ledzeppie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Relativity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of relativity and gravity, particularly focusing on the nature of space-time, time dilation, and the mechanics of gravity as understood through general relativity. Participants explore these ideas from both conceptual and technical perspectives, raising questions and clarifying thoughts related to the effects of mass on space-time and the behavior of objects under gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant wonders if space-time can be compared to rubber, questioning whether it can be stretched or is more rigid, similar to a trampoline.
  • Another participant notes that space-time is not fixed and rigid, emphasizing that fundamental questions about time, space, and mass remain unresolved in physics.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of gravity, with one participant asking for clarification on why objects fall towards Earth, particularly in the context of space-time warping.
  • Some participants suggest visualizations, like the rubber sheet analogy, to explain gravitational effects, while others critique this model, arguing it oversimplifies the concept of gravity in general relativity.
  • One participant proposes that time dilation can be interpreted geometrically, suggesting that time is slower near a large mass due to the stretching of space-time, while also noting that free-falling objects move along straight paths in space-time.
  • A participant raises a question about using the equation E=mc² to explain relativistic mass, linking kinetic energy to an increase in mass as a way to understand the concept better.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the analogies used to explain gravity and space-time. While some find the rubber sheet analogy helpful, others challenge its accuracy and relevance. There is no consensus on the best way to conceptualize these ideas, and various interpretations of time dilation and gravitational effects are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the fundamental nature of space-time, gravity, and the relationship between mass and energy. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties and the complexity of these concepts in physics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in the foundational concepts of relativity and gravity, particularly those seeking to deepen their understanding of space-time and its implications in physics.

ledzeppie
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
So I'm 16 and just starting to get into relativity. When I learned that bodies of mass bend space time, that got me thinking. So I was wondering whether space-time is sort of like rubber. Can it be stretched? Or is it more rigid and pulled from the outside, like a trampoline. I know this might be a bit of a stupid question but I'm reading A brief history of time right now and my brains kind of overloaded with a lot of new ideas.

If it is stretched, this raises another question. When it comes to time dilation, is time slower when its closer to a large mass because space-time is being stretched more?

And why is it that we get pulled towards the Earth (in terms of space time being warped). I understand gravity in orbits, but not in things such as throwing an apple in the air. Could anyone clarify this to me?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi ledzeppie: You'll find a lot of people here who also like science.

that's a great book...I read it several times when I first came across it...it's a great way to think about many strange things, each of which could form the basis of an entire career in physics.

Can it be stretched? Or is it more rigid and pulled from the outside, like a trampoline.

Sure. Nobody even knows what spacetime is but we know it's NOT fixed and rigid and unchanging. In general, physics describes many systems via mathematics but does not explain WHY things happen, nor does it yet explain the most basic questions such as What is time? What is space? What is mass? How are they related?

Until Einstein refused to accept that space and time are fixed everybody thought they were "immutable", that is, unchanging. Einstein had a hunch that the speed of light WAS fixed and from there he eventually realized space and time were not! In fact he first began thinking about what would happen if he could catch up to light...what would he observe??: he was 16, like you, and thought about that for ten years until he published his special theory of relativity. He finally decided nobody can ever catch it!
 
isn`t the center of gravity a moving target in this case?
 
ledzeppie said:
And why is it that we get pulled towards the Earth (in terms of space time being warped). I understand gravity in orbits, but not in things such as throwing an apple in the air. Could anyone clarify this to me?
Have a look at the visualizations linked in this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2244927&postcount=21
 
Spacetime is rigid, but curved (somewhat like the Earth's surface). The curvature of spacetime is determined by matter.
 
the gravity of falling bodies is also easy to understand with general relativity.

imagine the rubber sheet that so many books give as a mental image. put the bowling ball in the middle, and roll the smaller ball around it. that's orbit with general relativity. but this time, don't roll it, just place it down and watch how it moves towards the bowling ball without any angular momentum. that's how falling bodies work with general relativity. kinda watered down, but its the same general idea.
 
shawn77 said:
the gravity of falling bodies is also easy to understand with general relativity.
Indeed, but not this way:
shawn77 said:
imagine the rubber sheet that so many books give as a mental image. put the bowling ball in the middle, and roll the smaller ball around it. that's orbit with general relativity.
No, it's not.
shawn77 said:
but this time, don't roll it, just place it down and watch how it moves towards the bowling ball without any angular momentum.
Why does the ball start to move into the depression? Because gravity is pulling it down? You are using gravity to explain gravity.
shawn77 said:
thats how falling bodies work with general relativity. kinda watered down, but its the same general idea.
No, it is not even close. Gravity in GR is about moving along geodesics in curved space-time, not rolling into depressions in curved space. Where is the time dimension in your model?Please, read this:
http://www.relativitet.se/spacetime1.html
and this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=286926
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I want to understand it more than using a rubber sheet. Not only that but I want to understand it, not parrot the answers that I've heard.
 
ledzeppie said:
When it comes to time dilation, is time slower when its closer to a large mass because space-time is being stretched more?
Yes, you can interpret it geometrically like this. But you also have to add the idea that everything advances in space-time at a constant speed. So if a space-time dimension (here time) is stretched, it takes longer to pass coordinates (here clock ticks).

ledzeppie said:
And why is it that we get pulled towards the Earth (in terms of space time being warped).
For exactly the same reason, as above: Closer to the mass, the time dimension is stretched more. But again you have to add a second idea: Free falling objects advance on straight paths trough space time.

You can see both effects explained in terms of stretched time in this sketch:
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb...alence_and_general_relativity/curved_time.gif
 
  • #10
Ohhh kayyy, Thanks! I get that part now

1 more quick question that I'd rather not open a whole new thread for.
For relativistic mass, could e=mc^2 be used (as a simple explanation obviously) to explain it. For example, as E(kinetic) increases, the relative mass would have to increase to keep both sides of the equation equal. It just seems like a simple way for my mind to wrap around it, I just want to make sure I'm understanding it somewhat correctly.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K