- #1

- 3

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter dbullard
- Start date

- #1

- 3

- 0

- #2

- 5,601

- 40

I am curious if there has been any research in to the elasticity of spacetime in regards to mass.

Einstein was the first such master. Or maybe Lorentz Fitzgerald for special relativity "elasticity"....

More generally, you are asking about general relativity, how gravity "gravitational potential" "warps" spacetime....gravitational curvature causes tidal effects.

A black hole is the "ultimate warper" crushing space and time and mass out of existance!

- #3

- 3

- 0

If i think of it as a bed sheet with a marble placed on it the sheet bends but if i put only a thin piece of plastic on it it would not move at all. I believe that maybe there is something to that in gravity is an effect of mass on spacetime but there is a minimum mass needed to begin effecting it.

- #4

- 1,538

- 0

Are you talking about a 'quantum of curvature'?

- #5

- 295

- 2

Einstein did not think of it as a sheet of rubber 'bending'. It's commonly used as a 2 dimensional analogue to the way gravity is space's 'metric' but I find it better to think of it as a 'Jello' that will adapt relative motion/mass/gravity/'energy'. And if you look out on the universe a dark night every star you see will have a (different) relative motion, relative you observing. That means that the universe you see is both time dilated and Lorentz contracted, which may seem weird :) but it's all a result of the invariant radiation describing what you look at.

That's also why you can't really define a time dilation, other than the twin experiment, where the twin has to come home first to 'prove it'. But it is real, both the Lorentz contraction and the time dilation, and they must be different, relative different stars.

But what communicates it all is that same 'propagating' light, coming at you at the same invariant 'speed', and that light paints the 'whole image' you obtain from observing that night sky. Think of that the next time you look up :)

That's also why you can't really define a time dilation, other than the twin experiment, where the twin has to come home first to 'prove it'. But it is real, both the Lorentz contraction and the time dilation, and they must be different, relative different stars.

But what communicates it all is that same 'propagating' light, coming at you at the same invariant 'speed', and that light paints the 'whole image' you obtain from observing that night sky. Think of that the next time you look up :)

Last edited:

- #6

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,395

- 2,637

- #7

- 5,601

- 40

I believe that maybe there is something to that in gravity is an effect of mass on spacetime but there is a minimum mass needed to begin effecting it.

GR assumes a continuous spacetime; quantum gravity may end up with a quantized gravitational theory. So in the former there is no minimum, in the latter, maybe could be.

Some references for consideration:

I kept this for my own notes from another thread here:

http://pirsa.org/09090005/

In this threadSpacetime can be simultaneously discrete and continuous, in the same way that information can.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=391989

"argument for the discreteness of spacetime",

Ben Crowell posted this question...

The following is a paraphrase of an argument for the discreteness of spacetime, made by Smolin in his popular-level book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. The Bekenstein bound says there's a limit on how much information can be stored within a given region of space. If spacetime could be described by continuous classical fields with infinitely many degrees of freedom, then there would be no such limit. Therefore spacetime is discrete.

some good discussion.

- #8

- 295

- 2

nice :)

Share: