I Gravitational Constant in GR: How & Why?

Zak
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
(precursor: I have not formally studied GR)

I have noticed that the gravitational constant found in classical gravitation is also used in GR. Why is this the case? Am I correct in thinking that the constant was determined by Cavendish and was for the classical theory of gravitation? So, my question: how do we know that the same gravitational constant is suitable for GR and why did we not have to, say, measure a new constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Zak said:
(precursor: I have not formally studied GR)

I have noticed that the gravitational constant found in classical gravitation is also used in GR. Why is this the case? Am I correct in thinking that the constant was determined by Cavendish and was for the classical theory of gravitation? So, my question: how do we know that the same gravitational constant is suitable for GR and why did we not have to, say, measure a new constant?

We get ##G## into the Einstein equations by requiring that they reduce to the classical gravitation law in the limit of slow (test-)particles in low gravitational fields.

Essentially the reason is that we want GR to supersede Newtonian gravity.
 
  • Like
Likes Zak
Zak said:
I have noticed that the gravitational constant found in classical gravitation is also used in GR. Why is this the case?
As JorisL mentioned, you can look at is as a requirement so that GR can reduce to Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limit.

Another way to look at it is that G is just a universal conversion factor between different units, so any time that you will convert between the same units you will get a the same conversion factor.
 
  • Like
Likes JorisL
Zak said:
I have noticed that the gravitational constant found in classical gravitation is also used in GR. Why is this the case?
You can think of it in terms of reducing to Newtonian gravitation in the appropriate limit. You can also look at it as a conversion factor between different units. So then it is the same in both theories as long as you use the same units.
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
314
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
386
Back
Top