Unifying GR + EM: Inflation & Gravity Effects

[ibysaiyan]

In GR gravity is seen as a property of space-time , curvature. Now we know that sometime after the plank's time we had the universe dominated by radiation ( recombination) as such the rate of inflation was in the range of ~ 10^30 m/s , which as you can see is considerably larger than the VOL ( at about 10^-37 to 10^-35 of a second).

I might be waffling here but if the expansion of the universe itself is not constant due to various parameter , however , the way I see things it has no affect on individual photon speeds.On the other hand I am not sure how gravity field ( or quantum graviton would behave).
I find this in conflict with what GR proposes where gravity doesn't stay constant , and acts as a function of the mass's object.

Can someone shed light over this.

Is this one of the reasons why we are finding it hard to unify GR with E-M ?

P.S: I have more questions in mind which I will ask following on to replies.

-ibysaiyan

 

[bapowell]

In GR gravity is seen as a property of space-time , curvature. Now we know that sometime after the plank's time we had the universe dominated by radiation ( recombination) as such the rate of inflation was in the range of ~ 10^30 m/s , which as you can see is considerably larger than the VOL ( at about 10^-37 to 10^-35 of a second).

Where are you getting your numbers (e.g. 10^30 m/s)? This is not the way that expansion rates are reported. Also, "inflation" refers to a specific epoch during which the early universe underwent accelerated expansion. What is "VOL"?

I might be waffling here but if the expansion of the universe itself is not constant due to various parameter , however , the way I see things it has no affect on individual photon speeds.

That's right. It doesn't and shouldn't.

On the other hand I am not sure how gravity field ( or quantum graviton would behave).
I find this in conflict with what GR proposes where gravity doesn't stay constant , and acts as a function of the mass's object.

You're losing me here. Gravitational fields are described by GR in terms of geometry. The universe is described by a non-static (expanding) spacetime, and GR accommodates this description perfectly fine. Where is the conflict?

 

[Chalnoth]

As an aside, there is no problem whatsoever unifying gravity with electricity and magnetism. The problem is unifying gravity with quantum mechanics.

 

[ibysaiyan]

Where are you getting your numbers (e.g. 10^30 m/s)? This is not the way that expansion rates are reported. Also, "inflation" refers to a specific epoch during which the early universe underwent accelerated expansion. What is "VOL"?

I see what you mean. By VOL I mean't velocity of light.

That's right. It doesn't and shouldn't.You're losing me here. Gravitational fields are described by GR in terms of geometry. The universe is described by a non-static (expanding) spacetime, and GR accommodates this description perfectly fine. Where is the conflict?

I presumed that since heavier masses have more warped space-time curvature , then as a consequence of this the G-field/ wave itself would have a varying propagation speed (sound nonsense to me) , but now that I think of it , a field's strength is proportional to the number of flux lines ( as is the case with B-fields , so perhaps same thing applies to gravity ? )
I don't know how I came with such a vague assumption. Obviously there are various parameters involved at different epochs.

Thanks for the correction (@ Chalnoth) .Of course it's the unification of gravity with QM that is being an issue.