Space where General Reletivity Resides

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philosophaie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General Space
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the appropriate geometrical framework to describe the gravitational interactions of the Earth and Sun, with various geometries like Einstein-Cartan, Riemann, and Minkowski being considered. It emphasizes that these geometries are human constructs rather than definitive spaces, with a focus on which model best represents the interaction between geometry and matter. The Schwarzschild metric is highlighted as a suitable model for non-rotating celestial bodies, while the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation is recommended for modeling stars in the context of General Relativity. The conversation also touches on the potential of Riemann-Cartan geometry to incorporate torsion and spin, suggesting a need for further exploration in this area. Ultimately, the discussion seeks to identify the most realistic geometric description for gravitational modeling.
Philosophaie
Messages
456
Reaction score
0
There are many spaces: Einstein-Cartan Space, Riemann Space, Minkowski Space... Which one does the Earth and the Sun reside in? Which one has Torsion, mass etc. if any?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Those are basically just geometrical representations. It could be said that we reside in none of them or all of them, depending on how one reads the question.
 


A model can be formulated in say Riemann space to take in account for the magnetic and gravitational field of the sun. The torsion would be zero. The metric would be the Schwarzschild metric. Affinity would be the Christoffel symbol. Then the Riemann Curvature and Ricci Tensors can be calculated. Would this be the correct model for the sun?
 
Philosophaie said:
There are many spaces: Einstein-Cartan Space, Riemann Space, Minkowski Space... Which one does the Earth and the Sun reside in? Which one has Torsion, mass etc. if any?

Russ has basically given the complete answer. I'll toss in my two bits.

You are listing alternative geometries, that go onto space and describe how it acts. Alternative geometries, not different spaces as such.

Maybe a trivial distinction but you probably know the quotes from Einstein where he says points in space have no physical existence, no objective reality.
So the thing to focus on is the geometry. Often it is a dynamic geometry able to interact with matter, behavior governed by a Lagrangian or a differential equation.

So what your question means to me is which is the best most realistic description of geometry and how it behaves interactively with matter?

I can't tell you any final answer but obviously Minkowski geometry is highly unrealistic. It is only right if there is no matter, and not always even then. It is only approximately right if there is negligible matter in the universe. It does not expand. It is flat. It sucks.

On the other hand (strictly interpreted) Riemannian geometry has the wrong metric signature---which Minkowski at least gets right! So Riemannian is no good.

As Russ hints, all these geometries are human constructs. So the question is which is the most realistic, not which do we live in.

Of the ones you listed I'd go with Einstein Cartan.

But I also like the new version of quantum geometry that came out in 2007. It looks like it might give classical GR in the large distance limit, and also be kind of interesting and weird in the very small distance limit.
 
A model can be formulated in Einstein-Cartan Space would have to take into account spin and torsion of which I am unfamiliar in formulating. Any suggestions on how to learn about these modeling techniques of the sun?
 
General Relativity...


Philosophaie said:
Any suggestions on how to learn about these modeling techniques of the sun?
Use the Schwarzschild metric and the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation to model stars in astrophysics and General Relativity.

In Einstein's theory of general relativity, the Schwarzschild solution (or the Schwarzschild vacuum) describes the gravitational field outside a spherical, non-rotating mass such as a (non-rotating) star, planet, or black hole. It is also a good approximation to the gravitational field of a slowly rotating body like the Earth or Sun. The cosmological constant is assumed to equal zero.

In astrophysics, the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equation constrains the structure of a spherically symmetric body of isotropic material which is in static gravitational equilibrium, as modeled by General Relativity.

The extension of Riemannian geometry to include affine torsion is now known as Riemann–Cartan geometry.

Wikipedia said:
While it is intuitively compelling that this implies Einstein–Cartan theory, the rigorous mathematical proof of convergence to the equations of Einstein–Cartan theory has not been done.

The equivalent TOV solution for the Einstein–Cartan theory, would be an interesting examination.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff_equation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top