Relativity Questions: Answers for the Beginner

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Owen-
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around fundamental questions regarding relativity, particularly the nature of spacetime, the effects of gravity on light, and the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Participants explore these concepts from a beginner's perspective, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the "fabric of spacetime" is a theoretical construct or a real entity, and seeks to understand how we conceptualize space and time in this manner.
  • Another participant challenges the definition of "real" in the context of gravity and its effects.
  • A participant outlines the need for a solid foundation in classical physics before tackling relativity and quantum mechanics, emphasizing the inadequacies of classical theories in certain contexts.
  • There is a discussion on the incompatibility of general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM), with one participant noting that GR describes gravity as curvature of spacetime, while QM suggests gravity arises from particle interactions.
  • Participants discuss the nature of light, with one noting that light has no mass but behaves as if it does due to its energy, which leads to bending around massive objects.
  • One participant critiques the analogy of spacetime as a "tight piece of cloth," suggesting it is not an accurate representation of GR, while providing alternative resources for better understanding.
  • There is a question about why objects do not simply fall into massive bodies, with one participant explaining that the initial motion of objects affects their trajectory in a gravitational field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of gravity and spacetime, with no consensus reached on the definitions of "real" or the adequacy of analogies used to describe these concepts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between GR and QM.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of their analogies and the complexity of the theories involved, indicating that a deeper understanding requires extensive reading and mathematical study.

Owen-
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Ok I am pretty new to the relativity thing. I am not at university, and I have started studing relativity by myself out of interest - so don't laugh at these stupid questions pleeease :)

1. Biggun - the fabric of space time - is this purely theoretical - to help us understand gravity, or is it a real thing? Furthermore, why and how are we able to think of space and time in this way?

2. Light is effected by gravity. Does light have mass then?

3. From what i understand of the fabric of space time, it is like a weight on a taught pice of cloth. anything coming towards towards the wieight will be attracted to it, and begin circling it? Why doesn't it just fall into it?

4. What, very broadly is the schism between Quantum, and Relativity?

Very VERY broad questions... sorry

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Owen- said:
it a real thing?

What is your definition of "real"?
 
broad questions... very broad, general answers

To understand anything you will need a foundation from which to view from:

Be sure you understand Classical Physics well: before tacling Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Science in broad strokes has three fundamental Theories:

Classical: Ok as it is for day to day “normal” use but proved itself to be inadequate to handle two situations. The solution to those problems were not fixable within the classical view but required two new and different theories to address those situations.

General Relativity: Built to go beyond classical relativity options like Special Relativity and Space-time Concepts into a independent theory that addresses the Very Large (as in size distance and speed) and the Very Heavy (even if very small in some cases). Astrophysics needs this as Classical cannot successfully address those issues.


Quantum Mechanics: Built from classical frustrations with quantum issues into an independent theory that has been imagining successful in predicting our “reality”. As a fundamentally theory it allows us to understand the very small with tiny size (as in masses much smaller than a single atom). Important to note there are many different “interpretations” of QM. It defines Particle Physics and the Standard Model that goes with it.

Your number 1 and 4 go together:

Of course gravity is real you feel it every day!
The real question is what kind of “Thing” is it. And that puts you right into how QM and GR are incompatible with each other.
For QM to work it needs gravity to be the result of particles (gravitons, others) interacting between items of mass. Simple and fundamental to the theory, no positive proof yet that’s why scientists work on the theory.
That is totally incompatible with the simple and fundamental foundation to GR where gravity is the result of curvature of space and time caused by masses in that space. A very different “thing” than particle interactions.
What is that “thing” – sorry way past a general answer to a general question! Plus if GR could really answer that question it would be better than QM. Another reason why we don’t know which of the three theories is “correct”. (although everyone figures it is not Classical based on the success of the other two)


As you read about GR which I assume is your primary focus you will find it helps to understand some about QM as well. Neither has been able to show itself completely correct by showing the other to wrong. The two do find some areas that overlap.

Like light having no mass, but consists of “Energy”. All three theories can work with the SR principle that Energy has a certain equivalence to mass to allow effects as if it had mass. Thus it should bend when passing a large mass as it follows the curve on your “tight piece of cloth” depending on it starting direction. And when a photon disappears into an atom as it is absorbed the atom gains a tiny bit of mass.

Finally “tight piece of cloth” is not exactly a “space-time” analogy and it is not a very “good” description of what GR gravity is. Consider it an “ok” description and as good as you can find until you get beyond the broad answers. I.E. lots of reading, math (matrix math), and thinking to go.

As to “Why doesn't it just fall into it?”
No one says it won’t – it just a hard thing to have happen by accident. Anything on your “tight piece of cloth” will only go straight in if it initial motion is straight at the center. How many other directions might it randomly be moving if you divide that up into degrees, minutes and seconds? And your only dealing with a flat two dimensional sheet (the curve is only for gravity) instead of three dimensions.
And the odds of finding something that is not already moving is pretty much impossible.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 116 ·
4
Replies
116
Views
10K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K