To put it another way, how (which constants etc.) does general relativity prove that Earth's gravity is about 9.80N/kg on it's surface?|||'Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie', (The foundation of the General theory Relativity) was published by Einstein in 1916. He provided a field equation for a gravitational field tensor 'G' in terms of the stress-energy tensor 'T'.
G = 8πT
or in the expanded form: -
.. α .. α β
∂Γ + Γ Γ = -κ(T - ½g T)
_ μν μβ να .... μν ... μν
∂x
.. α
√-g = 1
In section 21 of this famous paper, Einstein considered Newton's theory as a first approximation. To do this he considered space-time to be essentially that found at spacial infinity, which means that only tensor components μ = ν = 4 may need to be considered!
Thus he derived the Newtonian equivalent equation: -
∇²g₄₄ = κρ
Where ρ = T₄₄ or the matter in the stress-energy tensor.
He then reduced this equation to one for the equivalent Newtonian gravitational potential 'V': -
-κ.⌠ρdτ
__ | _
8π⌡r
or units of time to match Newtonian theory
V =-K.⌠ρdτ
..... __ | _
..... c².⌡r
Where K = G = 6.7 x 10¯⁸ (10^-8 Einstein's cgs units, now 10^-11 SI units), with κ = 8πK /c²
Thus, Einstein's first order approximation gives a similar result to Newton's gravitational theory.
Since F = -dV/dr, a conservative central force field: -
Newtonian g = GM/r²
or Einstein's approximation
g =K.ρdτ
..... ___
..... c²r²
and from E = Mc² = ρ, we have with the proper time dτ = 1 second
g =K.M
..... ___
..... r²
Thus, to answer your question - to a first approximation, general relativity proves that Earth's gravitational acceleration is about 9.80N/kg on it's surface!!!!|||g=GM/R^2, where G=6.67*10-11, M-Earth mass, R-radius|||Luv a duck,gee whizz.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Are General Relativity and the idea of the Graviton compatible?
Say that scientists had experimental data that proved that Gravitons exist... Would this make General Relativity wrong?
If it wouldn't make General Relativity wrong, how do the theory of Gravitons and General Relativity both... Cooperate?
:)) Thankss.|||"...how do the theory of Gravitons and General Relativity both... Cooperate?..."
Relativity has shown us that gravity is actually the warping of spacetime due to the presence of mass. We've yet to explain *how* mass does this, but the graviton could well be the mediating particle involved, like the photon mediates electromagnetism.|||The concepts are independent. The graviton has been proposed as a virtual particle mediating the gravitational force. But we don't know whether there is one, or whether there is a need for one. So far we have no quantum theory of gravity, and again, we don't even know if we need one.
If it wouldn't make General Relativity wrong, how do the theory of Gravitons and General Relativity both... Cooperate?
:)) Thankss.|||"...how do the theory of Gravitons and General Relativity both... Cooperate?..."
Relativity has shown us that gravity is actually the warping of spacetime due to the presence of mass. We've yet to explain *how* mass does this, but the graviton could well be the mediating particle involved, like the photon mediates electromagnetism.|||The concepts are independent. The graviton has been proposed as a virtual particle mediating the gravitational force. But we don't know whether there is one, or whether there is a need for one. So far we have no quantum theory of gravity, and again, we don't even know if we need one.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
How come creationists don't have a problem with the theory of relativity or germ theory?
The same scientific principles and epistemological methodologies that were used by scientists to devise those theories are the same ones which were used to create the theory of evolution.
So if you think scientists are lying to you about the evidence for evolution, how come you don't think the same way about the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, cell theory or atomic theory?|||Anyone who would use a straw man fallacy by making up a creationist's opinion in order to criticize it is not worth debating. Learn how to argue without being fallacious.The science is the same. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the Darwin evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position.
Edit: As works in progress, many scientific theories just keep getting revised. For example, we base our current evolutionary theory of when humans diverged from apes on the fossil record. But every time a new fossil is found, the date gets pushed back.
In any case, this means is that any information given in student text books is considered to be “true” only at the time the book is published. (Now you see why you always have to buy the newest editions of those expensive college texts?)
Here are a couple ...
There are 109 Elements in the Period Table ... New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered.
Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.|||Let me put it like this...just because a person may use the English language (or whatever other one you choose) to tell a lie, doesn't mean the entire language is invalid.
Simply because a scientist utilizes, as you put it, "The same scientific principles and epistemological methodologies" that are valid in one instance, this does not make them valid in all instances.
If one were to be quite factual in the explanation of the "evolution" of the evolution theory, it would be shown that the evolutionary theory is a varied and extremely broad collection of ideas from many different individuals and institutions, not just one. Just as it can be said of the Creationists...there are many different philosophical and ideological variations. Jeez, you can't even get two Baptists to agree on everything let alone the entire religious world.|||Because those aren't the ones that conflict with their beliefs.
I bet if creationists had a bone to pick with relativity, we'd be flooded with asinine misrepresentations and lies about how it does or doesn't work, how it's supposedly false, or that it, too, is some kind of conspiracy against religion.|||Someone should really do a study to see if rhetorical questions actually make the person realize anything new or if they're pointless.
I'm pretty sure you know the answer to your question. That's why I say that. And I'm just interested in if this is an effective strategy. Unless your goal is to annoy... then good job lol|||How come evolutionists, who don't believe in God, have no problem with saying "God bless you" when the person next to them sneezes?
...or "thank God" when something amazing happens?
...or plead "please, God" when they're in a fox hole?
iamnotbut....I know [the Great] I AM|||Why is it that people so smart that can figure out all that stuff ignore what is right in front of their faces and see that always kind produces kind. Even their stupid degrees are because they went to a school of that kind and it produced the same. Get real.|||The theory of relativity was devised by mathematical means. Cell theory was based on observations.
Evolution was based on observations and guesses (natural selection only selects from what is available. Darwin was wrong).|||Simple, they start with the premise of creationist beliefs then attack anything that contradicts it. That's how a belief works. It is not intellectual dishonesty, it's just how beliefs work.|||how is babby formed, how is babby formed, how girl get pragnat|||god did not create the world in 6 days, and we werent one of the first things he put on earth at all.
this just proves that the story was WRONG, so why bother listening to creationists. theyre wrong.|||Oh...they would have an issue with big chunks of General Relativity if they actually understood the implications.|||They conveniently select what they think scientists are right about to fit into the existence of their God.|||Because they doesn't discredit their magical creation myth like evolution does.|||Or the theory of electronicism...|||Gravity is just a theory!!!!!!!!
*floats off sulkily*|||Creationists are funny like that.|||They used to have a problem with the earth going around the sun. Didn't make sense.|||it doesn't inconvenience them or their beliefs.|||First Cause|||I don;t have a problem with evolution. God did create us though. We can still only guess at and imagine how it was done.|||You still think evolution is science?
All through history evolution has been discredited by scientists.
Darwin understood that his beliefs were not scientific.
He wrote;
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science . . . . It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw(s) and holes as sound parts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, )New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475).
And scientists spent the next 150 years proving him right (i.e. that his speculations ran beyond the bounds of true science) by disproving his ideas.
First, 4 of Darwin's contemporaries challenged Darwin's idea;
1. Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875) wrote "No geologists, who are in possession of all the data now established respecting fossil remains, will for a moment contend for the doctrine in all its detail, as laid down by the great chemist to whose opinions we have referred. But, naturalists, who are not unaquainted with recent discoveries, continue to defend the ancient doctrine in a somewhat modified form. (The Principles of Geology Ch 9 pg. 145 par 2)
2. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) conducted experiments with peas which showed that one species could not transmute into another one. (The Evolution Handbook - TEH p. 20)
3. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (i.e. life cannot arise from non-living materials). (TEH p. 20)
4. August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) cut of the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. (TEH p. 20)
Then, in 1953 Stanley Miller sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids and proved that the act of producing amino acids would produce right-handed amino acids which clog the body machinery and kill the life form (TEH p. 265).
TEH - The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell contains over 3000 scientific facts and is available in book form and online at www.evolution-facts.org|||'Theory' is a nicer word for not completely true.|||Because youre a fruit.
So if you think scientists are lying to you about the evidence for evolution, how come you don't think the same way about the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, cell theory or atomic theory?|||Anyone who would use a straw man fallacy by making up a creationist's opinion in order to criticize it is not worth debating. Learn how to argue without being fallacious.The science is the same. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the Darwin evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position.
Edit: As works in progress, many scientific theories just keep getting revised. For example, we base our current evolutionary theory of when humans diverged from apes on the fossil record. But every time a new fossil is found, the date gets pushed back.
In any case, this means is that any information given in student text books is considered to be “true” only at the time the book is published. (Now you see why you always have to buy the newest editions of those expensive college texts?)
Here are a couple ...
There are 109 Elements in the Period Table ... New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered.
Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.|||Let me put it like this...just because a person may use the English language (or whatever other one you choose) to tell a lie, doesn't mean the entire language is invalid.
Simply because a scientist utilizes, as you put it, "The same scientific principles and epistemological methodologies" that are valid in one instance, this does not make them valid in all instances.
If one were to be quite factual in the explanation of the "evolution" of the evolution theory, it would be shown that the evolutionary theory is a varied and extremely broad collection of ideas from many different individuals and institutions, not just one. Just as it can be said of the Creationists...there are many different philosophical and ideological variations. Jeez, you can't even get two Baptists to agree on everything let alone the entire religious world.|||Because those aren't the ones that conflict with their beliefs.
I bet if creationists had a bone to pick with relativity, we'd be flooded with asinine misrepresentations and lies about how it does or doesn't work, how it's supposedly false, or that it, too, is some kind of conspiracy against religion.|||Someone should really do a study to see if rhetorical questions actually make the person realize anything new or if they're pointless.
I'm pretty sure you know the answer to your question. That's why I say that. And I'm just interested in if this is an effective strategy. Unless your goal is to annoy... then good job lol|||How come evolutionists, who don't believe in God, have no problem with saying "God bless you" when the person next to them sneezes?
...or "thank God" when something amazing happens?
...or plead "please, God" when they're in a fox hole?
iamnotbut....I know [the Great] I AM|||Why is it that people so smart that can figure out all that stuff ignore what is right in front of their faces and see that always kind produces kind. Even their stupid degrees are because they went to a school of that kind and it produced the same. Get real.|||The theory of relativity was devised by mathematical means. Cell theory was based on observations.
Evolution was based on observations and guesses (natural selection only selects from what is available. Darwin was wrong).|||Simple, they start with the premise of creationist beliefs then attack anything that contradicts it. That's how a belief works. It is not intellectual dishonesty, it's just how beliefs work.|||how is babby formed, how is babby formed, how girl get pragnat|||god did not create the world in 6 days, and we werent one of the first things he put on earth at all.
this just proves that the story was WRONG, so why bother listening to creationists. theyre wrong.|||Oh...they would have an issue with big chunks of General Relativity if they actually understood the implications.|||They conveniently select what they think scientists are right about to fit into the existence of their God.|||Because they doesn't discredit their magical creation myth like evolution does.|||Or the theory of electronicism...|||Gravity is just a theory!!!!!!!!
*floats off sulkily*|||Creationists are funny like that.|||They used to have a problem with the earth going around the sun. Didn't make sense.|||it doesn't inconvenience them or their beliefs.|||First Cause|||I don;t have a problem with evolution. God did create us though. We can still only guess at and imagine how it was done.|||You still think evolution is science?
All through history evolution has been discredited by scientists.
Darwin understood that his beliefs were not scientific.
He wrote;
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science . . . . It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw(s) and holes as sound parts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, )New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475).
And scientists spent the next 150 years proving him right (i.e. that his speculations ran beyond the bounds of true science) by disproving his ideas.
First, 4 of Darwin's contemporaries challenged Darwin's idea;
1. Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875) wrote "No geologists, who are in possession of all the data now established respecting fossil remains, will for a moment contend for the doctrine in all its detail, as laid down by the great chemist to whose opinions we have referred. But, naturalists, who are not unaquainted with recent discoveries, continue to defend the ancient doctrine in a somewhat modified form. (The Principles of Geology Ch 9 pg. 145 par 2)
2. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) conducted experiments with peas which showed that one species could not transmute into another one. (The Evolution Handbook - TEH p. 20)
3. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (i.e. life cannot arise from non-living materials). (TEH p. 20)
4. August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) cut of the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. (TEH p. 20)
Then, in 1953 Stanley Miller sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids and proved that the act of producing amino acids would produce right-handed amino acids which clog the body machinery and kill the life form (TEH p. 265).
TEH - The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell contains over 3000 scientific facts and is available in book form and online at www.evolution-facts.org|||'Theory' is a nicer word for not completely true.|||Because youre a fruit.
How should I present the Theory of Relativity in 6 minutes?
I have to do an oral presentation about Einstein. I completely understand the Theory of Relativity but I am not sure how I can present it. I will have access to a chalkboard so I can write things and draw things. I want to include E=mc^2, Special Relativity, and General Relativity.|||Depends how deep you want to go. I bet you don't understand GR very thoroughly (its pretty advanced) - and if you say curved space time is like one of those daft diagrams of bent lines or like a rubber sheet then you really haven't grasped a thing.
In 6 minutes I would stcik to what lead to relativity (constanct of speed of light, priciple of equivalence, light being affected by gravity from thought experiments to avoid violation of energy conservation).
If I am explaining SR to someone I draw a space time diagram, then show how it would be transformed non relativistically (the axes rotate which changes the speed of light) then relativistically ( the axes converge to keep the speed of light constant) and then point out that this means that simultaneity fails. This is the central plank of SR and it is often not even touched on.|||You may be biting off a lot for six minutes....
The best thing to do is write a short paper on what you want to say. Try to make sure to include real-life examples as much as possible, or at least things that people can imagine, like talking about two spaceships traveling away from each other at the speed of light, one flashes a light at the other, and it reaches the other at the speed of light!
I'm not going to try and tell you HOW to put it together, the information has to make sense to you, has to flow from the way you think. Just remember, like a teacher, you have to organize your information in such a way that it makes sense. Don't be afraid to have fun with it and make fun of yourself. If you relax by realizing that you are not going to be perfect, and let your audience know that you don't take yourself too seriously, they will respond favorably. If you can't relax, for the love of GOD don't imagine them naked--that's a trick for comedians!
If it's supposed to be about Einstein, stay away from a detailed talk on his work, just talk about him--If it's supposed to be about the science, well, do the opposite.
Anyway, once you have what you want to say worked out and written down, make notecards with ONLY the main points--No details!!! Then practice your talk. Practice with other people, with your dog, cat, housefly, teddy bear, whatever--and a stopwatch. Only use the notecards to jog your memory. Don't try to memorize the speech--If you do the first thing that will happen when you look out at your audience is you will choke.
Trust me--I was a planetarium presenter for 6 years. I've done this once or twice... Using the above method, I was able to give a neat presentation on Pereus and Andromeda, the whole adventure, in about 5 minutes. It's easy with practice.
Best of luck, hope this was helpful.|||Three important points (two minutes each):
First..E = Mc^2 as the source of energy via both fission and fusion.
Second...time, mass, and length vary according to the Lorentz Transform L(v) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Time varies as t = t0/L(v), mass as m = m0/L(v), and length as l = l0 L(v); where t, m, and l are time, mass, and length as observed by someone outside the framework traveling at v velocity.
Third...gravity is a curvature in space...(use the bowling ball on a rubber sheet as a model of space curving under mass). Gravity lens in space have been observed verifying the curvatures in space.
Those are the highlights as I see them. Check the source for more on the TOR.|||A very bad scenario on a young brain. I wrote one article on Einstein for my daughter, please rewrite it for use under specified conditions: as follows:
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein was known by many titles: “Father of Modern Mathematics”, “Man-of-Evil for his contribution of atom bomb”, “greatest scientist who influenced modern thinking”, etc.
He was born on 14 March 1879 in Ulm, Germany. As a kid, he started speaking very late (4 years), but whatever he spoke has remained mind stretching even for the most learned. He began his school career in Munich. In 1895, Einstein failed an examination for admission to diploma in electrical engineering. He liked to study mathematics and physics. In 1908, he became a teacher of mathematics and physics.
Einstein worked in the patent office in Bern (1902 to 1909). He was awarded Noble Prize for physics in 1921 on ‘Photo Electric Effect’ based on Quantum Theory of Light (1905). 1905 was a great year for physics, which was recognized recently as the “World Year of Physics” by the United Nations.
In 1905, he became famous for his ‘Special Theory of Relativity’ that proved ‘mass’ and ‘energy’ of our cosmos are like sea-saws having pulley on the ‘speed of light’. He revolutionized the concept of ‘time’ and ‘space’. He later commented that ‘had I known that atom bomb would be used to kill people (Japan)’, I would have died with the “theory”.
In 1917, he gave another famous research ‘General Theory of Relativity’, which proved in 1919 the ‘bending of ray of light near the sun’ and ‘precision of perihelion of planet Mercury’ – considered as a black magic in astronomy. This was termed as a revolution in science with new theory of the Universe. One day, a famous person went to his house, and asked to show him his Lab. He took him to his living room/office, and pointed to his “PEN” – saying that is it – I AM NOT A STAR GAZER!
He later shifted to USA, and chaired the most prestigious institutions wherein many leading scientists of all times worked. Einstein was very much impressed by the Mahatma Gandhi. He had only two photographs in his home, that of his mother and Mahatma Gandhi. He died a natural death on 18 April 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
His quotes:
* Imagination is more important than knowledge
* Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler
* If I give you some money, you will be richer and I'll be poorer. But if I give you an idea, you will have a new idea but I shall still have it, too.
* Any man who reads (or watches TV) too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.
* Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics; I assure you that mine are greater.
%26gt;%26gt;%26gt; pls give your result or reaction after presentation on my email ID
In 6 minutes I would stcik to what lead to relativity (constanct of speed of light, priciple of equivalence, light being affected by gravity from thought experiments to avoid violation of energy conservation).
If I am explaining SR to someone I draw a space time diagram, then show how it would be transformed non relativistically (the axes rotate which changes the speed of light) then relativistically ( the axes converge to keep the speed of light constant) and then point out that this means that simultaneity fails. This is the central plank of SR and it is often not even touched on.|||You may be biting off a lot for six minutes....
The best thing to do is write a short paper on what you want to say. Try to make sure to include real-life examples as much as possible, or at least things that people can imagine, like talking about two spaceships traveling away from each other at the speed of light, one flashes a light at the other, and it reaches the other at the speed of light!
I'm not going to try and tell you HOW to put it together, the information has to make sense to you, has to flow from the way you think. Just remember, like a teacher, you have to organize your information in such a way that it makes sense. Don't be afraid to have fun with it and make fun of yourself. If you relax by realizing that you are not going to be perfect, and let your audience know that you don't take yourself too seriously, they will respond favorably. If you can't relax, for the love of GOD don't imagine them naked--that's a trick for comedians!
If it's supposed to be about Einstein, stay away from a detailed talk on his work, just talk about him--If it's supposed to be about the science, well, do the opposite.
Anyway, once you have what you want to say worked out and written down, make notecards with ONLY the main points--No details!!! Then practice your talk. Practice with other people, with your dog, cat, housefly, teddy bear, whatever--and a stopwatch. Only use the notecards to jog your memory. Don't try to memorize the speech--If you do the first thing that will happen when you look out at your audience is you will choke.
Trust me--I was a planetarium presenter for 6 years. I've done this once or twice... Using the above method, I was able to give a neat presentation on Pereus and Andromeda, the whole adventure, in about 5 minutes. It's easy with practice.
Best of luck, hope this was helpful.|||Three important points (two minutes each):
First..E = Mc^2 as the source of energy via both fission and fusion.
Second...time, mass, and length vary according to the Lorentz Transform L(v) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Time varies as t = t0/L(v), mass as m = m0/L(v), and length as l = l0 L(v); where t, m, and l are time, mass, and length as observed by someone outside the framework traveling at v velocity.
Third...gravity is a curvature in space...(use the bowling ball on a rubber sheet as a model of space curving under mass). Gravity lens in space have been observed verifying the curvatures in space.
Those are the highlights as I see them. Check the source for more on the TOR.|||A very bad scenario on a young brain. I wrote one article on Einstein for my daughter, please rewrite it for use under specified conditions: as follows:
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein was known by many titles: “Father of Modern Mathematics”, “Man-of-Evil for his contribution of atom bomb”, “greatest scientist who influenced modern thinking”, etc.
He was born on 14 March 1879 in Ulm, Germany. As a kid, he started speaking very late (4 years), but whatever he spoke has remained mind stretching even for the most learned. He began his school career in Munich. In 1895, Einstein failed an examination for admission to diploma in electrical engineering. He liked to study mathematics and physics. In 1908, he became a teacher of mathematics and physics.
Einstein worked in the patent office in Bern (1902 to 1909). He was awarded Noble Prize for physics in 1921 on ‘Photo Electric Effect’ based on Quantum Theory of Light (1905). 1905 was a great year for physics, which was recognized recently as the “World Year of Physics” by the United Nations.
In 1905, he became famous for his ‘Special Theory of Relativity’ that proved ‘mass’ and ‘energy’ of our cosmos are like sea-saws having pulley on the ‘speed of light’. He revolutionized the concept of ‘time’ and ‘space’. He later commented that ‘had I known that atom bomb would be used to kill people (Japan)’, I would have died with the “theory”.
In 1917, he gave another famous research ‘General Theory of Relativity’, which proved in 1919 the ‘bending of ray of light near the sun’ and ‘precision of perihelion of planet Mercury’ – considered as a black magic in astronomy. This was termed as a revolution in science with new theory of the Universe. One day, a famous person went to his house, and asked to show him his Lab. He took him to his living room/office, and pointed to his “PEN” – saying that is it – I AM NOT A STAR GAZER!
He later shifted to USA, and chaired the most prestigious institutions wherein many leading scientists of all times worked. Einstein was very much impressed by the Mahatma Gandhi. He had only two photographs in his home, that of his mother and Mahatma Gandhi. He died a natural death on 18 April 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
His quotes:
* Imagination is more important than knowledge
* Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler
* If I give you some money, you will be richer and I'll be poorer. But if I give you an idea, you will have a new idea but I shall still have it, too.
* Any man who reads (or watches TV) too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.
* Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics; I assure you that mine are greater.
%26gt;%26gt;%26gt; pls give your result or reaction after presentation on my email ID
If Einstein did not discover Theory of Relativity in 1905, how many years did it take others to discover?
It is generally misunderstood by general public that if Einstein didn't exist, there is no Theory of Relativity. But it's not true. Other great physicist like Niels Bohr surely would have discovered it without him. The question is, how many years later? I would say 5 years?|||Einstein never thought of special relativity as his outstanding work: that would certainly be general relativity.
Lorentz had done a lot of the mathematical work needed for special relativity before Einstein showed up, including the modification of Maxwell's equations. Poincare had done, in addition, virtually all of the philosophical work needed for it. Einstein wasn't aware of the totality of this work, especially not of Lorentz's most recent work, so he essentially re-invented it; he also had a "cleaner" approach to it.
I think both Poincare and Lorentz would have come to the full framework of special relativity within a year or so of 1905: they were each very close, it would only have taken a sudden change of perspective, that could have been occasioned by a chance encounter. Both of these two were great mathematical thinkers in their own right, and Poincare was extraordinarily creative, one of the two or three greatest mathematicians of the 20th century.
There is no chance that this well-known problem would have held out long enough for Bohr to be the player.|||Yes, most people don't learn about them.
By the way, I have unbounded admiration for Niels Bohr: In a way, his contribution is greater even than Einstein's. But he was just in the wrong generation of physicists to solve the issue that became relativity.
|||It's hard to say. On the one hand, there was a real crisis in physics. The Michaelson-Morley experiment contradicted Maxwell's equations under the Newtonian framework, so a basic problem was recognized. All that it really took was to take the pre-existing Lorentz Transformations seriously and see where it lead. However, there was an implicit sanctity of space-time rooted in intuition so deeply seated as to make tampering with it literally inconceivable, like challenging the Pythagorean Theorem.|||Theories of relative motion existed during and before Einstein's lifetime. He put it together so that it made sense at speeds near the speed of light.|||The Theory of Relativity is really small stuff compared to the theories of the really great scientists, including Neil Bohrs.Space travel is governed by Newtonian mechanics and will be for many years to come.|||Oh, no way 5 years. The reason Albert Einstein did not receive the Nobel Prize for his Theories of Relativity is because nobody really understood them. That's how genius Einstein was. They gave him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his works on the photoelectric effect (sort of what happens to white shirts under black light), because they knew he deserved to get the Nobel Prize, they just couldn't understand what he meant by the Theories of Relativity.
However, it could have been 1 year or less that someone else could have explained relativity. And if they did, they probably wouldn't have explained it to the extent that Einstein did. Even today, it takes a vast amount of knowledge in this area to fully, or almost fully understand these concepts.
Albert Einstein wrote "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", a paper in 1905 on the Theory of Special Relativity. The Theory of General Relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Einstein from 1907-1915.
So yes, surely relativity would have, in one way or another, have been made understandable by some other physicists, 5 or more years later, no-one can tell.
I hope this helped!|||Something similar would have been developed within 5 to 10 years. If might have been even better. Now we're stuck with Einstein's version for the next century.
Lorentz had done a lot of the mathematical work needed for special relativity before Einstein showed up, including the modification of Maxwell's equations. Poincare had done, in addition, virtually all of the philosophical work needed for it. Einstein wasn't aware of the totality of this work, especially not of Lorentz's most recent work, so he essentially re-invented it; he also had a "cleaner" approach to it.
I think both Poincare and Lorentz would have come to the full framework of special relativity within a year or so of 1905: they were each very close, it would only have taken a sudden change of perspective, that could have been occasioned by a chance encounter. Both of these two were great mathematical thinkers in their own right, and Poincare was extraordinarily creative, one of the two or three greatest mathematicians of the 20th century.
There is no chance that this well-known problem would have held out long enough for Bohr to be the player.|||Yes, most people don't learn about them.
By the way, I have unbounded admiration for Niels Bohr: In a way, his contribution is greater even than Einstein's. But he was just in the wrong generation of physicists to solve the issue that became relativity.
Report Abuse
|||It's hard to say. On the one hand, there was a real crisis in physics. The Michaelson-Morley experiment contradicted Maxwell's equations under the Newtonian framework, so a basic problem was recognized. All that it really took was to take the pre-existing Lorentz Transformations seriously and see where it lead. However, there was an implicit sanctity of space-time rooted in intuition so deeply seated as to make tampering with it literally inconceivable, like challenging the Pythagorean Theorem.|||Theories of relative motion existed during and before Einstein's lifetime. He put it together so that it made sense at speeds near the speed of light.|||The Theory of Relativity is really small stuff compared to the theories of the really great scientists, including Neil Bohrs.Space travel is governed by Newtonian mechanics and will be for many years to come.|||Oh, no way 5 years. The reason Albert Einstein did not receive the Nobel Prize for his Theories of Relativity is because nobody really understood them. That's how genius Einstein was. They gave him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his works on the photoelectric effect (sort of what happens to white shirts under black light), because they knew he deserved to get the Nobel Prize, they just couldn't understand what he meant by the Theories of Relativity.
However, it could have been 1 year or less that someone else could have explained relativity. And if they did, they probably wouldn't have explained it to the extent that Einstein did. Even today, it takes a vast amount of knowledge in this area to fully, or almost fully understand these concepts.
Albert Einstein wrote "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", a paper in 1905 on the Theory of Special Relativity. The Theory of General Relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Einstein from 1907-1915.
So yes, surely relativity would have, in one way or another, have been made understandable by some other physicists, 5 or more years later, no-one can tell.
I hope this helped!|||Something similar would have been developed within 5 to 10 years. If might have been even better. Now we're stuck with Einstein's version for the next century.
Why is quantum theory considered a better theory than the theory of relativity?
Why is it believed that the theory of relativity with eventually give way to quantum theory and not the other way around?|||Because of the Quantum Theory's extensive success correctly predicting the outcome of experiments.
A theory that sounds good on paper, but cannot correctly predict the outcome of experiments isn't a very valuable theory.
No other physical theory has had as much success as the Quantum Theory.
It is the most successful physical theory ever devised.
And yet, because of it's incompatablity with General Relativity, sooner or later something will have to give.
One will have to be abandoned in preference of the other.
Or, they will both be replaced by a third theory.
Or, the two will be reconsiled - somehow.|||Both are equally valid at the scale where they work.
General Relativity: The macro scale roughly atoms and larger
Quantum Mechanics : The micro scale things the size of an atom and smaller.
It will require something different since neither theory works at the other scale. Current leading candidate is String Theory
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/pro…
Watch hour 2 - Two Conflicting Laws|||Are they both not relative? Quantum theory refers to that which we cannot define. Relativity refers to that which we can define.|||They both describe different things. Quantum physics deals with the world on a subatomic level, whereas relativity deals with the world on a macroscopic scale. Albert Einstein believed that he could somehow "unify" his general theory with quantum physics. This marriage however was doomed to failure. As Old Pilot mentioned in his answer, one of the most promising developments is string theory.
There are other theorists who think that a quantum theory of gravity is the best way to make general relativity and quantum theory compatible.
A theory that sounds good on paper, but cannot correctly predict the outcome of experiments isn't a very valuable theory.
No other physical theory has had as much success as the Quantum Theory.
It is the most successful physical theory ever devised.
And yet, because of it's incompatablity with General Relativity, sooner or later something will have to give.
One will have to be abandoned in preference of the other.
Or, they will both be replaced by a third theory.
Or, the two will be reconsiled - somehow.|||Both are equally valid at the scale where they work.
General Relativity: The macro scale roughly atoms and larger
Quantum Mechanics : The micro scale things the size of an atom and smaller.
It will require something different since neither theory works at the other scale. Current leading candidate is String Theory
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/pro…
Watch hour 2 - Two Conflicting Laws|||Are they both not relative? Quantum theory refers to that which we cannot define. Relativity refers to that which we can define.|||They both describe different things. Quantum physics deals with the world on a subatomic level, whereas relativity deals with the world on a macroscopic scale. Albert Einstein believed that he could somehow "unify" his general theory with quantum physics. This marriage however was doomed to failure. As Old Pilot mentioned in his answer, one of the most promising developments is string theory.
There are other theorists who think that a quantum theory of gravity is the best way to make general relativity and quantum theory compatible.
Has anyone ever taken a general relativity course and understood it?
I'm taking a graduate level general relativity course and it seems completely unintelligible. Has anyone else had the same experience? Has anyone else been able to understand it?|||That is generally only relevant to people who decide to take the class. I mean torture themselves.|||I took it last semester. Unfortunately, by the time we finished all the differential geometry stuff, the semester was over and we never got to apply it to anything. Frankly, I wasn't following the math too closely, since I figured I'd just get an overview and pick it up when we started applying it to something. Which we never did. So no, I didn't get a lot out of the course. But then, quantum made no sense to me the first time either - maybe I just need another 5 courses in GR. :)|||Yep. I took the course twice (once just for fun and once to get the credits when I needed them) and got an A+ in the exam. I did better in general relativity than in any other subject I was ever tested on.
General Relativity is quite easily intelligible. I learned most of it by myself by reading "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler and "Gravitation and Cosmology" by Weinberg. Both books are classics and the authors go to great lengths to make the topic digestible.
Of course, I have to admit, that I also took a couple of classes on differential geometry (for mathematicians, not physicists) as a preparation. Once one understands the math from the ground up, the physics on the introductory level of a graduate course is relatively simple.
In comparison quantum field theory is much, much harder, mostly because it does not have nearly as neatly a mathematical structure as GR.
Just keep at it. It will come to you.
General Relativity is quite easily intelligible. I learned most of it by myself by reading "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler and "Gravitation and Cosmology" by Weinberg. Both books are classics and the authors go to great lengths to make the topic digestible.
Of course, I have to admit, that I also took a couple of classes on differential geometry (for mathematicians, not physicists) as a preparation. Once one understands the math from the ground up, the physics on the introductory level of a graduate course is relatively simple.
In comparison quantum field theory is much, much harder, mostly because it does not have nearly as neatly a mathematical structure as GR.
Just keep at it. It will come to you.
What types of math do I need to know to understand the mathematics of the General Theory of Relativity?
I've been a self-studying physics student and have understood the concepts involving the Special and General Theories of Relativity for a while now. I want to go to the next level now by taking on the mathematics. Thank you for your help!|||You will need to know Riemannian geometry and other topics in differential geometry. Here's some suggested reading:
First, learn multivariable calculus and get very comfortable with it. Then read do Carmo's "Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces". From there, you could look at Do Carmo's graduate level book on Riemannian geometry. I believe his Riemannian geometry book is the most easily accessible compared to other books on this topic.
For a super fast course in Riemannian geometry, you might consult the relevant chapter on that topic in John Milnor's book on Morse theory.
Finally, to learn just what you need for general relativity, check out "A First Course In General Relativity" by Bernard Schutz. The mathematics in this book is at a much more elementary (and physics oriented) level than the mathematics in the other books. However, I found that the low level presentation of the mathematics in that book made it more difficult to learn.
Unfortunately, that's the way it is when it comes to differential geometry and tensor calculus. It takes about a year to become fully comfortable with the ideas of the subject. Without the pressure of having to take tests and turn in homework assignments, it may take even longer. Just remember that there's no one good book on the subject and hang in there.
Some other reading material:
John M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds (1st year grad students love it, professors tend to dislike it)
Theodore Frankel, The Geometry of Physics|||Unfortunately, lots. Differential geometry and tensor calculus are among the subjects that you will need to understand.|||Tensor analysis and differential geometry - hopefully as a physics student you've already studied at least three semesters of calculus as well as differential equations.
Try: algebra %26gt; trig %26gt; precalculus %26gt; calculus (differentiation, integration) %26gt; differential equations %26gt; tensor analysis %26gt; differential geometry. It's a good 4 years of college and grad level math. Good luck!|||Well Basicly it means:
Energy=Mass*Speed of Light*Speed of Light|||well you got to build on up quite a bit, and unfortunatly I don't think your at that point yet of self studying your way into it. If you were an advanced undergrad i'd say it could be possible to self study your way through at least the basic mathematics of it, but really I think trying to get there like this is going to be pretty difficult.
But i'll try to guide ya as best I can.
I'll assume your at least ready to start out calculus.
Your going to have to start out in calculus and really build from there you must learn differentation, integration and just about anything you can pull out of those books. by the time your ready to move on to other things you should be able to do just about any calculus problem in any of those books. Concentrate heavily on vector calculus in 3 dimensions.
From there your going to probably want to study linear algebra and that by yourself is going to be ugly. Start with matrix mathematics and learn those operations and then move into learning about solving linear systems. Know the terms and theorms of linear algebra.
At the same time as that you can start your voyage into solving some applied problems in Differential equations. This is where your calculus is going to come into play a bit more and getting Diff EQ down is going to help quite a bit.
After you feel pretty comfortable with those 2 your going to have to find some sort of mathematical text on logic. Your going to at least have to give yourself a crash course on mathematical logic and the creation of proofs.... Definatly the hardest part of mathematics.
Well if you get this far on your own i'd be pretty impressed and pretty curious to see how good you are, but you got a ways to go. You still need to study Analysis, you probably would want to get some modern algebra in there somewhere... which by yourself i would say is damn near impossible. Then you would need to study fourier analysis, some pretty advanced calculus, and some applied mathematics. I would say 5 years would be about the right timetable to expect some good results.
First, learn multivariable calculus and get very comfortable with it. Then read do Carmo's "Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces". From there, you could look at Do Carmo's graduate level book on Riemannian geometry. I believe his Riemannian geometry book is the most easily accessible compared to other books on this topic.
For a super fast course in Riemannian geometry, you might consult the relevant chapter on that topic in John Milnor's book on Morse theory.
Finally, to learn just what you need for general relativity, check out "A First Course In General Relativity" by Bernard Schutz. The mathematics in this book is at a much more elementary (and physics oriented) level than the mathematics in the other books. However, I found that the low level presentation of the mathematics in that book made it more difficult to learn.
Unfortunately, that's the way it is when it comes to differential geometry and tensor calculus. It takes about a year to become fully comfortable with the ideas of the subject. Without the pressure of having to take tests and turn in homework assignments, it may take even longer. Just remember that there's no one good book on the subject and hang in there.
Some other reading material:
John M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds (1st year grad students love it, professors tend to dislike it)
Theodore Frankel, The Geometry of Physics|||Unfortunately, lots. Differential geometry and tensor calculus are among the subjects that you will need to understand.|||Tensor analysis and differential geometry - hopefully as a physics student you've already studied at least three semesters of calculus as well as differential equations.
Try: algebra %26gt; trig %26gt; precalculus %26gt; calculus (differentiation, integration) %26gt; differential equations %26gt; tensor analysis %26gt; differential geometry. It's a good 4 years of college and grad level math. Good luck!|||Well Basicly it means:
Energy=Mass*Speed of Light*Speed of Light|||well you got to build on up quite a bit, and unfortunatly I don't think your at that point yet of self studying your way into it. If you were an advanced undergrad i'd say it could be possible to self study your way through at least the basic mathematics of it, but really I think trying to get there like this is going to be pretty difficult.
But i'll try to guide ya as best I can.
I'll assume your at least ready to start out calculus.
Your going to have to start out in calculus and really build from there you must learn differentation, integration and just about anything you can pull out of those books. by the time your ready to move on to other things you should be able to do just about any calculus problem in any of those books. Concentrate heavily on vector calculus in 3 dimensions.
From there your going to probably want to study linear algebra and that by yourself is going to be ugly. Start with matrix mathematics and learn those operations and then move into learning about solving linear systems. Know the terms and theorms of linear algebra.
At the same time as that you can start your voyage into solving some applied problems in Differential equations. This is where your calculus is going to come into play a bit more and getting Diff EQ down is going to help quite a bit.
After you feel pretty comfortable with those 2 your going to have to find some sort of mathematical text on logic. Your going to at least have to give yourself a crash course on mathematical logic and the creation of proofs.... Definatly the hardest part of mathematics.
Well if you get this far on your own i'd be pretty impressed and pretty curious to see how good you are, but you got a ways to go. You still need to study Analysis, you probably would want to get some modern algebra in there somewhere... which by yourself i would say is damn near impossible. Then you would need to study fourier analysis, some pretty advanced calculus, and some applied mathematics. I would say 5 years would be about the right timetable to expect some good results.
What does that general theory of relativity say about the geometry of space-time 3?
What does that general theory of relativity say about the geometry of space-time
1) That it is not constant throughout the universe, but instead varies in its structure from place to place.
2) That it is similar to the geometry of supper time.
3) That it is equivalent to the geometry that Euclid axiomatized over two thousand years ago.
4) That it is constant in its structure, but that it does not conform to the “intuitive” geometry that was axiomatized by Euclid over two thousand years ago.|||4)
Next!
1) That it is not constant throughout the universe, but instead varies in its structure from place to place.
2) That it is similar to the geometry of supper time.
3) That it is equivalent to the geometry that Euclid axiomatized over two thousand years ago.
4) That it is constant in its structure, but that it does not conform to the “intuitive” geometry that was axiomatized by Euclid over two thousand years ago.|||4)
Next!
Explain the concept of social relativity and how we may interpreted it from the following points of views?
Explain the concept of social relativity and how we may interpreted it from the following points of views as described in your text: offender, justice system, victim, society. In other words, what role does the aformentioned play in the criminal event?|||all itner related and connected. when a criminal acts, he triggers the whole social justice machinery. it traumatizes the victim which affects other members of society and spurs social action agst criminal acts.
What areas of maths play the main role in the theory of general relativity?
I know general relativity is highly mathematical and requires very advanced mathematics. I am just curious, can you please point out what areas of maths is used in general relativity? Just giving me the names will be fine...eg. differential equations. Thanks!|||Integrals, Calculas, Linear Algebra
Tensors (they don't come up many other places), Guages|||Tensor calculus and differential geometry.
Tensors (they don't come up many other places), Guages|||Tensor calculus and differential geometry.
Why should electrical engineering majors take special relativity?
I'm pursuing a degree in EE. There is a general requirement for the degree to take a class that is half optics, half special relativity. I understand why I should take the optics class, but why would every electrical engineer need to learn special relativity. It seems to me that if you actually need to use it, you'll be working with something very specialized to begin with.|||Matt is correct, to create a well rounded engineer, you need to study many areas. EE will study MEing and vis-versa|||Well I found for a lot of my first year of engineering degree the stuff you learned was important but I think a lot of it had to do with thinking like an engineer. If you can wrap your mind around relativity you can wrap your mind around pretty much anything else. They're just teaching you to think in a sense.
Could someone please explain to me what the theory of relativity is to me?
I have googled the theory of relativity and have read information about it on many links and I still don't get the meaning or concept of it. Could someone please explain to me what it is and how it is related towards objects in the universe?
I will choose a best answer.|||In short:
You are moving. Someone else is not. When both of you look at some external event, the two of you see different things. This is because of time.
Imagine you are moving very swiftly down a railroad track, sitting on a flatcar.
You are facing sideways. You hold two mirrors, so you can see both in back of you and in front of you. An observer is sitting beside the track. Just when you pass one light pole, and approach another light pole, and are exactly equidistant between the two poles, lightning bolts strike both poles at the same instant.
What does the observer see? He sees the double lightning strikes on the two poles and swears that they happened at the same time.
But you look in your mirrors and see the front pole is struck first. The pole behind is struck later. Why?
Light traveling from the poles to you takes time. You don't see simultaneous strikes. The light from the poles travel equal distances to the observer, the two times are equal. For you, the times are not equal. As light moves from the poles to you, you are changing position. You travel closer to the front pole, and farther from the rear pole. You will see the light from the front pole before you see the light from the rear pole.
Now Einstein took this rather obvious idea farther. What happens to a person who is moving at the speed of light? Does he see nothing from behind? And everything all at once from the front (direction of travel). And if he shines a flashlight forward, does the beam not exit?
And what about gravity? If Einstein was in a falling elevator, and he was falling as fast as it, would he be without gravity? And is this like being in space? And if he was in space, in an elevator that was rising faster and faster, being pressed down to the floor at one G, would this be just like he was standing motionless on Earth? These ideas and others will confound you and me for a long time.|||General Relativity
General relativity is a theory of space and time created by Albert Einstein and published in 1915. The central idea of general relativity is that space and time are two aspects of something called spacetime, which is curved in the presence of matter, energy, and momentum, (picture a funnel where a planet or star is at the bottom of the funnel and the funnell is made of "spacetime")
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/General鈥?/a>
Special Relativity
Suppose you are moving toward something that is moving toward you. If you measure its speed, it will seem to be moving faster than if you were stopped. Now suppose you are moving away from something that is moving toward you. If you measure its speed again, it will seem to be moving more slowly. This is the idea of "relative speed."
Before Einstein, scientists were trying to measure the "relative speed" of light. They were doing this by measuring the speed of starlight reaching the Earth. If the Earth were moving toward a star, the starlight from it should seem faster than normal. If the Earth were moving away from a star, the starlight from it should seem slower than normal.
They noticed that no matter who performed the experiments, where they were performed, or what starlight they used, the "relative speed" of light was always the same.
Einstein said this happens because there is something odd about distance and time. He thought that as the Earth moves through space, our clocks slow down (ever so slightly). So, any clock used to measure the speed of light is off by exactly the right amount to make light seem to be moving at its regular speed.
Also, Einstein said that as the Earth moves through space, our measuring devices change length (ever so slightly). So, any measuring device used to measure the speed of light is off by exactly the right amount to make the starlight seem to be moving at its regular speed.
Other scientists before Einstein had written about light seeming to go the same speed no matter how it was observed. The idea that made Einstein's relativity so revolutionary is that light does not just seem to go the same speed, it is always going the same speed no matter how an observer is moving.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special鈥?/a>
If you type:
simple explanation relativity
into any search engine you can find good stuff
http://www.squidoo.com/relativity_explan鈥?/a>
or go to youtube, I think that would be your best bet. Just type in relatvity, there are some vids in there|||Both special and general relativity are surprisingly simple. They fall from these statements:
Special Relativity:
(A) The speed of light is c.
(B) All observers in uniform motion (straight line, no acceleration) observe the same laws of physics. There is no "special" frame of reference, no absolute rest.
General Relativity:
(A) All observers in any motion observe the same laes of physics. This is a generalisation of the special relativity (A).
or equivalently:
(A') Acceleration and Gravity are indistinguishable. In fact, they arent pysically real effects but merely two sides of the same underlying physical entity... space-time curvature.
These principles are very common and everybody can agree to them. For example, you wouldnt want to make an entirely new set of physical laws for someone living on Venus, just because Venus moves rapidly relative to Earth. Physics there is the same as it is here... including the speed of light, the boiling temperature of water, the spectral lines of atoms and so on... Also, the physics of a person in a freely falling elevator is the same physics as the physics of someone floating in spaces with zero gravity. If you agree to and understand these, you already understand relativity. No math needed at all.|||the simple meaning is,every physical measurements we measure are relative to other things.there is no any absolute measurement. if we measure the speed of bus relative to bus halt,and relative to
other moving vehicle,the results are different that mean there is no any absolute speed to bus.
relativity says every ting is relative to speed.|||basicly einstein said in his special theory of relativity that the speed of light is always constant in a vaccuum and time and space are not absolute, they are relative. his general theory of releativity says that gravity warps space and time|||Theory of Relativity-
Relativity as is clear from the word means "Relative to something"
The theory of relativity tells us how we can interpet observations made by us under a particular set of conditions , relative to the ones made under another.
Theory of relativity has two parts:
1-Theory of special relativity- SPECIAL means that this theory works with those objects that are NOT accelerating.Its a special case of zero acceleration.
It tells us TWO things:
1-Speed of light is constant ,no matter from where you look at it.
2-Laws of physics are same for a particular frame of reference(m not sure of this one)
This is strange,consider it this way:
When you are driving a car and look at another car which is travelling in the same direction with the same speed,you will feel that the other car is not moving at all with respect to u!
Because the two velocitties got cancelled..
Its not so with energy. Imagine that you r driving the car and a beam of light rays passes parallel to you, if you measure its speed by experiment you will find it to be exactly same as the value you obtain when you were not moving and then measured velocity. You would have expected to get a somewhat lower velocity of light as judged from the moving car but its NOT so.
since speed=dist/time
and speed of light=constant
Consider a case where you are travelling in a train ,it has a mirror fixed on its roof ,a friend of yours is standing on the platform and can see inside the train. Your train is moving.
You switch on and then off a torch aiming at the mirror. The rays of light would go up, get reflected and come back so they'll cover(according to you) a distance of say 3metres(height of the roof from the torch)
but you, the torch all are inside the train and are moving with a speed relative to your friend on platform,so your friend will see that the beam of light rays will not just go up but also move horizontly covering an additional distance let this total distance be= 5metres.
Now relativity tells us that speed of light is constant no matter where you measure it from so u and ur friend both will percieve velocity=c for the light beam ,now:
speed=dist/time
so time=dist/speed
since both of you experience the same speed but different distance covered by the beam so naturally the eqn tells us that both of you will measure a different time-interval between the start of light beam and its coming back!!
This means that rate of passing of time can vary accroding to the velocity you have relative to the other. However in order for this effect to be large enough to be experienced directly , we need to travel not at the velocity of train but at a velocity comparable to the veloctiy of light say 99% the speed of light then the difference in time interval for the two persons will be so much that like say one would have aged just 5 yrs while the other one at the platform would have aged 20 yrs! (remember he will measure greater distance so greater time).
Theory of General Relativity includes accelerating bodies and is much moe complex and difficult.
It tells us that particles having mass modifies/warps the space and time around it.
Its like ...when you throw a heavy ball on a streched rubber sheet, the ball would create a depression on the sheet. the same way mass is like the ball and the sheet is analogous to sapce and time. The bending of space around a mass results in gravitational force because other nearby masses(even energy) follow the bending of space and consequently fall into the depression. just like a smaller ball would fall into the depression created by the heavy ball on the sheet!
The theory also tells us that mass modifies time around it so that time is slowed down near a mass relative to the flow of time away from the mass!
Einstein gave the equivalence principle in which he said that gravity and acceleration are equivalent.
i.e. acceleration can provide the same thing which gravity provides and vice versa.
Check out this video and follow the sequence of videos(1,2,3,4,5):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM5rCpnBR鈥?/a>
I will choose a best answer.|||In short:
You are moving. Someone else is not. When both of you look at some external event, the two of you see different things. This is because of time.
Imagine you are moving very swiftly down a railroad track, sitting on a flatcar.
You are facing sideways. You hold two mirrors, so you can see both in back of you and in front of you. An observer is sitting beside the track. Just when you pass one light pole, and approach another light pole, and are exactly equidistant between the two poles, lightning bolts strike both poles at the same instant.
What does the observer see? He sees the double lightning strikes on the two poles and swears that they happened at the same time.
But you look in your mirrors and see the front pole is struck first. The pole behind is struck later. Why?
Light traveling from the poles to you takes time. You don't see simultaneous strikes. The light from the poles travel equal distances to the observer, the two times are equal. For you, the times are not equal. As light moves from the poles to you, you are changing position. You travel closer to the front pole, and farther from the rear pole. You will see the light from the front pole before you see the light from the rear pole.
Now Einstein took this rather obvious idea farther. What happens to a person who is moving at the speed of light? Does he see nothing from behind? And everything all at once from the front (direction of travel). And if he shines a flashlight forward, does the beam not exit?
And what about gravity? If Einstein was in a falling elevator, and he was falling as fast as it, would he be without gravity? And is this like being in space? And if he was in space, in an elevator that was rising faster and faster, being pressed down to the floor at one G, would this be just like he was standing motionless on Earth? These ideas and others will confound you and me for a long time.|||General Relativity
General relativity is a theory of space and time created by Albert Einstein and published in 1915. The central idea of general relativity is that space and time are two aspects of something called spacetime, which is curved in the presence of matter, energy, and momentum, (picture a funnel where a planet or star is at the bottom of the funnel and the funnell is made of "spacetime")
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/General鈥?/a>
Special Relativity
Suppose you are moving toward something that is moving toward you. If you measure its speed, it will seem to be moving faster than if you were stopped. Now suppose you are moving away from something that is moving toward you. If you measure its speed again, it will seem to be moving more slowly. This is the idea of "relative speed."
Before Einstein, scientists were trying to measure the "relative speed" of light. They were doing this by measuring the speed of starlight reaching the Earth. If the Earth were moving toward a star, the starlight from it should seem faster than normal. If the Earth were moving away from a star, the starlight from it should seem slower than normal.
They noticed that no matter who performed the experiments, where they were performed, or what starlight they used, the "relative speed" of light was always the same.
Einstein said this happens because there is something odd about distance and time. He thought that as the Earth moves through space, our clocks slow down (ever so slightly). So, any clock used to measure the speed of light is off by exactly the right amount to make light seem to be moving at its regular speed.
Also, Einstein said that as the Earth moves through space, our measuring devices change length (ever so slightly). So, any measuring device used to measure the speed of light is off by exactly the right amount to make the starlight seem to be moving at its regular speed.
Other scientists before Einstein had written about light seeming to go the same speed no matter how it was observed. The idea that made Einstein's relativity so revolutionary is that light does not just seem to go the same speed, it is always going the same speed no matter how an observer is moving.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special鈥?/a>
If you type:
simple explanation relativity
into any search engine you can find good stuff
http://www.squidoo.com/relativity_explan鈥?/a>
or go to youtube, I think that would be your best bet. Just type in relatvity, there are some vids in there|||Both special and general relativity are surprisingly simple. They fall from these statements:
Special Relativity:
(A) The speed of light is c.
(B) All observers in uniform motion (straight line, no acceleration) observe the same laws of physics. There is no "special" frame of reference, no absolute rest.
General Relativity:
(A) All observers in any motion observe the same laes of physics. This is a generalisation of the special relativity (A).
or equivalently:
(A') Acceleration and Gravity are indistinguishable. In fact, they arent pysically real effects but merely two sides of the same underlying physical entity... space-time curvature.
These principles are very common and everybody can agree to them. For example, you wouldnt want to make an entirely new set of physical laws for someone living on Venus, just because Venus moves rapidly relative to Earth. Physics there is the same as it is here... including the speed of light, the boiling temperature of water, the spectral lines of atoms and so on... Also, the physics of a person in a freely falling elevator is the same physics as the physics of someone floating in spaces with zero gravity. If you agree to and understand these, you already understand relativity. No math needed at all.|||the simple meaning is,every physical measurements we measure are relative to other things.there is no any absolute measurement. if we measure the speed of bus relative to bus halt,and relative to
other moving vehicle,the results are different that mean there is no any absolute speed to bus.
relativity says every ting is relative to speed.|||basicly einstein said in his special theory of relativity that the speed of light is always constant in a vaccuum and time and space are not absolute, they are relative. his general theory of releativity says that gravity warps space and time|||Theory of Relativity-
Relativity as is clear from the word means "Relative to something"
The theory of relativity tells us how we can interpet observations made by us under a particular set of conditions , relative to the ones made under another.
Theory of relativity has two parts:
1-Theory of special relativity- SPECIAL means that this theory works with those objects that are NOT accelerating.Its a special case of zero acceleration.
It tells us TWO things:
1-Speed of light is constant ,no matter from where you look at it.
2-Laws of physics are same for a particular frame of reference(m not sure of this one)
This is strange,consider it this way:
When you are driving a car and look at another car which is travelling in the same direction with the same speed,you will feel that the other car is not moving at all with respect to u!
Because the two velocitties got cancelled..
Its not so with energy. Imagine that you r driving the car and a beam of light rays passes parallel to you, if you measure its speed by experiment you will find it to be exactly same as the value you obtain when you were not moving and then measured velocity. You would have expected to get a somewhat lower velocity of light as judged from the moving car but its NOT so.
since speed=dist/time
and speed of light=constant
Consider a case where you are travelling in a train ,it has a mirror fixed on its roof ,a friend of yours is standing on the platform and can see inside the train. Your train is moving.
You switch on and then off a torch aiming at the mirror. The rays of light would go up, get reflected and come back so they'll cover(according to you) a distance of say 3metres(height of the roof from the torch)
but you, the torch all are inside the train and are moving with a speed relative to your friend on platform,so your friend will see that the beam of light rays will not just go up but also move horizontly covering an additional distance let this total distance be= 5metres.
Now relativity tells us that speed of light is constant no matter where you measure it from so u and ur friend both will percieve velocity=c for the light beam ,now:
speed=dist/time
so time=dist/speed
since both of you experience the same speed but different distance covered by the beam so naturally the eqn tells us that both of you will measure a different time-interval between the start of light beam and its coming back!!
This means that rate of passing of time can vary accroding to the velocity you have relative to the other. However in order for this effect to be large enough to be experienced directly , we need to travel not at the velocity of train but at a velocity comparable to the veloctiy of light say 99% the speed of light then the difference in time interval for the two persons will be so much that like say one would have aged just 5 yrs while the other one at the platform would have aged 20 yrs! (remember he will measure greater distance so greater time).
Theory of General Relativity includes accelerating bodies and is much moe complex and difficult.
It tells us that particles having mass modifies/warps the space and time around it.
Its like ...when you throw a heavy ball on a streched rubber sheet, the ball would create a depression on the sheet. the same way mass is like the ball and the sheet is analogous to sapce and time. The bending of space around a mass results in gravitational force because other nearby masses(even energy) follow the bending of space and consequently fall into the depression. just like a smaller ball would fall into the depression created by the heavy ball on the sheet!
The theory also tells us that mass modifies time around it so that time is slowed down near a mass relative to the flow of time away from the mass!
Einstein gave the equivalence principle in which he said that gravity and acceleration are equivalent.
i.e. acceleration can provide the same thing which gravity provides and vice versa.
Check out this video and follow the sequence of videos(1,2,3,4,5):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM5rCpnBR鈥?/a>
How did Einstein come up with the theory of special relativity based on then current scientific knowledge?
Did he guess or was there some logical technique he used. Did he use the scientific method. I understand that they are just now proving some of his theory with evidence. I am most interested in his thought process. Did he ever describe how he thought up the special relativity?|||Yes Einstein was famous for creating straightforward "thought experiments" or "gedunken experiments". Before Einstein theorized special relativity a scientist named Maxwell proved that electricity and magnetism are actually different formulations of the same force, "sense" this force by electromagnetic radiation (light). Maxwell proved that the speed of light never changed. Einstein considered this a contradiction of modern theory his thought experiment was essentially: If you were on a train and you emitted a beam of light wouldn't the light be moving faster than the accepted "speed of light" to an observer that is stationary since you add the speeds (speed of train+speed of light). You can think of throwing a baseball on a train, to somebody outside on the ground watching you they would see the ball move with the speed of the train PLUS the speed you through the ball. If this was the case with light then you could change the speed of light. This was the contradiction that led Einstein to really think what the constancy of the speed of light meant, and thus special relativity.|||He was impressed with the results of the famous Michelson Morley experiment, it led him to believe that light speed altered time.
Is Special Relativity an expansion of Newtonian Physics or a replacement?
I've heard that general relativity is a replacement for universal gravitation, but is special relativity also a replacement of newtonian physics or an expansion?|||Einstein knew that Newton was insignificantly incorrect for velocities that were NOT a significant fraction of the speed of light. ====%26gt; He was very careful to make sure that Special Relativity and General Relativity gave essentially the same answers. Even today so long as the velocity of the measuring instrument is not significant, we use Newton because Relativity is NOT worth the extra effort and calculations.
Newton is corrected by the Lorentz Transform
1 / sq rt (1 - (V^2/C^2))
How fast must we go (V) before it is significantly different from 1?
So, I would say SR is a expansion. It certainly has not replaced.|||Likely Newtonian Physics is a practical limit for Special Relativity for slow objects (opposite the speed of light) and moderate mass and gravity (opposite black holes, etc.). Newton's Laws work perfectly well for cars and planes although you could use (difficult) relativistic formulas to get the same answers.
Newton is corrected by the Lorentz Transform
1 / sq rt (1 - (V^2/C^2))
How fast must we go (V) before it is significantly different from 1?
So, I would say SR is a expansion. It certainly has not replaced.|||Likely Newtonian Physics is a practical limit for Special Relativity for slow objects (opposite the speed of light) and moderate mass and gravity (opposite black holes, etc.). Newton's Laws work perfectly well for cars and planes although you could use (difficult) relativistic formulas to get the same answers.
What job or profession do I take if I want to work in relativity?
I am amazed by relativity.Is their a special profession or type of scientists which research on relativity?If so what qualificationd do I need?Is their a special degree?All answers will bw appreciated.|||The theory of relativity is now such an integral part of modern physics today that it's difficult to have any job in physics without involving it. There is no such thing as a "special degree" for just relativity, even though certain universities in the world do have a strong faculty component devoted to general relativity. The theoretical physics community is somewhat divided over the question of which will be the most fruitful direction to take us out of the impasse we've had for the past 40 years---the leading paradigm being string theory--but physicists like Penrose and Hawkings are part the general relativity camp. How to get started? Well, just major in physics, and get your BS, and decide if you want to continue on to your MS, and PhD. If you want to get into theoretical physics, then pick your colleges carefully, and get in touch with faculty members who are actively engaged in such research.
If you'd like a candid overview of the current state of physics and the issues at stake, read Lee Smolin's "Trouble With Physics". It might help you decide which direction you really want to take.|||Relativity Theory of Einstein is only a section of the World of Theoretical Physics .There are many Theories in Physics including Quantum Mechanics.
If you have a very inovative imagination and have an ability for mathermatics being a Physisit or Cosmologist may be the right Profession for you.|||You get a Ph. D. in physics and work as a research scientist.
If you'd like a candid overview of the current state of physics and the issues at stake, read Lee Smolin's "Trouble With Physics". It might help you decide which direction you really want to take.|||Relativity Theory of Einstein is only a section of the World of Theoretical Physics .There are many Theories in Physics including Quantum Mechanics.
If you have a very inovative imagination and have an ability for mathermatics being a Physisit or Cosmologist may be the right Profession for you.|||You get a Ph. D. in physics and work as a research scientist.
How Acc to Einstein Theroy of Relativity,Time and Space are Relative to Each Other ?
and in Equation E= M c square
i understand energy can be converted into mass and mass can be converted into energy but i dont get
what is C Square ?
what are the Conclusions which einstein theory of relativity and brought to the modern world and what is its contribution ?
Please explain me Einstein theroy of relativity in a simple manner ?|||I'll answer your questions in reverse order--first an overall description of relativity then the more specific questions about applications and finally E=mc^2.
RELATIVITY (an idea known since before Galileo) is the notion that the laws of physics are the same in a constantly moving reference frame as they are in a stationary one. Any experiment you could do in your laboratory would work just as well in the stateroom of a moving ship (provided the ship wasn't rocking and just chugging constantly along).
SPECIAL RELATIVITY came about because the laws of electricity and magnetism (Maxwell's equations) when applied in conjunction with classical mechanics do not obey relativity. They predict, for example, that light moves with a constant velocity. This would appear to suggest that there is a special reference frame, an electromagnetic ether, in which the laws apply. But experiment failed to find such an ether. Light travels at the same constant speed in all directions no matter what your speed. So Einstiein came up with special relativity to solve this problem. He allows different observers moving at different speeds to measure different lengths and times between events so that they can both apply Maxwell's equations and both observe light travelling at the same speed. So if you see a moving ruler, it appears short. Moving clocks appear to run slow. Another result of special relativity is that an object at rest has energy proportional to its mass.
GENERAL RELATIVITY is Einstein's theory of gravity, which he developed to reconcile classical gravity to special relativity. He starts with the notion that all objects fall the same in a gravitational field (known since before Galileo) and derives equations that reconcile the observations of accelerating observers and observers in gravitational fields. One result is that clocks run slow in a gravitational well. Because all objects fall on the same path, you can model the effects of gravity not only as a force but also as a warping of space and time through which the objects move.You really can't explain the derivation of the equations without a lot of math (ie, not in a simple manner).
As for the significance of relativity, it really isn't terribly significant (compared to the other big discovery of the 20th century, quantum mechanics, which is responsible, among other things, for every piece of electronics since the transistor). Some applications of relativity:
1) It is necessary obviously for high energy particle physics and certain applications in astronomy where things are moving at speeds comparable to c
2) The equivalence between mass and energy is used by nuclear physicists as a book-keeping device to keep track of energy gained and lost in reactions. In a nuclear bomb, for instance, a lot of energy is liberated, so you have a significant decrease in mass.
3) GPS satellites require special and general relativity corrections to keep sufficiently accurate time that they can tell us where we are.
c^2 is the conversion factor between our units of mass (which are kg if you like SI units) and our units of energy (joules in SI). c also happens to be the speed at which light travels.
So in SI, c = 300 million m/s. So 1kg of mass is equivalent to (300 million squared) joules of energy.
In natural units, c=1, so an object's mass is equal to its at rest. An electron has 511 keV of mass, so an electron at rest has 511 keV of energy.|||Relativity theory relates how an observer views motion of masses. However there is no mass at rest in the universe as there is no time at rest. since every thing moves there is no such thing as an absolute rest.
|||Time is related to the motion of gravitational masses . Without Time motion and energy would not exist.
Small masses tend to move faster than large masses.
|||There is a whole lot more to the theory of relativity than E=mc^2, none of which says time and space are relative to each other.
c is the speed of light.|||Explaining the whole of Einstein's theory of relativity is much to difficult for Yahoo! Answers, but I can give you an overview. We'll start with E=mc^2
c is the speed of light, and is the constant of variation in this equation; It's what is necessary in order to keep the mathematics concise and easy to understand, not to mention solvable.
As for what exactly Einstein's theory is, it's a theory involving how motion and time coexist, and what that says about our universe. The first idea behind this is that there is no universal time. Time is different for different observers. For instance, assume you are standing by a train track with a train approaching. As it passes you observe someone dropping a ping-pong ball onto a table. You as a stationary observer will disagree with the observer who dropped the ball about how long it took to hit the table.
Space and time are relative to one another and become as one, creating what we know as spacetime. It is literally the fabric of our universe itself. Large bodies like our sun, actually bend this fabric around itself.
That's really the two major aspects of relatively, very roughly mentioned. You can find many explanations with visual diagrams online, I also suggest checking out a few books, for instance, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and The Universe in a Nutshell.
i understand energy can be converted into mass and mass can be converted into energy but i dont get
what is C Square ?
what are the Conclusions which einstein theory of relativity and brought to the modern world and what is its contribution ?
Please explain me Einstein theroy of relativity in a simple manner ?|||I'll answer your questions in reverse order--first an overall description of relativity then the more specific questions about applications and finally E=mc^2.
RELATIVITY (an idea known since before Galileo) is the notion that the laws of physics are the same in a constantly moving reference frame as they are in a stationary one. Any experiment you could do in your laboratory would work just as well in the stateroom of a moving ship (provided the ship wasn't rocking and just chugging constantly along).
SPECIAL RELATIVITY came about because the laws of electricity and magnetism (Maxwell's equations) when applied in conjunction with classical mechanics do not obey relativity. They predict, for example, that light moves with a constant velocity. This would appear to suggest that there is a special reference frame, an electromagnetic ether, in which the laws apply. But experiment failed to find such an ether. Light travels at the same constant speed in all directions no matter what your speed. So Einstiein came up with special relativity to solve this problem. He allows different observers moving at different speeds to measure different lengths and times between events so that they can both apply Maxwell's equations and both observe light travelling at the same speed. So if you see a moving ruler, it appears short. Moving clocks appear to run slow. Another result of special relativity is that an object at rest has energy proportional to its mass.
GENERAL RELATIVITY is Einstein's theory of gravity, which he developed to reconcile classical gravity to special relativity. He starts with the notion that all objects fall the same in a gravitational field (known since before Galileo) and derives equations that reconcile the observations of accelerating observers and observers in gravitational fields. One result is that clocks run slow in a gravitational well. Because all objects fall on the same path, you can model the effects of gravity not only as a force but also as a warping of space and time through which the objects move.You really can't explain the derivation of the equations without a lot of math (ie, not in a simple manner).
As for the significance of relativity, it really isn't terribly significant (compared to the other big discovery of the 20th century, quantum mechanics, which is responsible, among other things, for every piece of electronics since the transistor). Some applications of relativity:
1) It is necessary obviously for high energy particle physics and certain applications in astronomy where things are moving at speeds comparable to c
2) The equivalence between mass and energy is used by nuclear physicists as a book-keeping device to keep track of energy gained and lost in reactions. In a nuclear bomb, for instance, a lot of energy is liberated, so you have a significant decrease in mass.
3) GPS satellites require special and general relativity corrections to keep sufficiently accurate time that they can tell us where we are.
c^2 is the conversion factor between our units of mass (which are kg if you like SI units) and our units of energy (joules in SI). c also happens to be the speed at which light travels.
So in SI, c = 300 million m/s. So 1kg of mass is equivalent to (300 million squared) joules of energy.
In natural units, c=1, so an object's mass is equal to its at rest. An electron has 511 keV of mass, so an electron at rest has 511 keV of energy.|||Relativity theory relates how an observer views motion of masses. However there is no mass at rest in the universe as there is no time at rest. since every thing moves there is no such thing as an absolute rest.
Report Abuse
|||Time is related to the motion of gravitational masses . Without Time motion and energy would not exist.
Small masses tend to move faster than large masses.
Report Abuse
|||There is a whole lot more to the theory of relativity than E=mc^2, none of which says time and space are relative to each other.
c is the speed of light.|||Explaining the whole of Einstein's theory of relativity is much to difficult for Yahoo! Answers, but I can give you an overview. We'll start with E=mc^2
c is the speed of light, and is the constant of variation in this equation; It's what is necessary in order to keep the mathematics concise and easy to understand, not to mention solvable.
As for what exactly Einstein's theory is, it's a theory involving how motion and time coexist, and what that says about our universe. The first idea behind this is that there is no universal time. Time is different for different observers. For instance, assume you are standing by a train track with a train approaching. As it passes you observe someone dropping a ping-pong ball onto a table. You as a stationary observer will disagree with the observer who dropped the ball about how long it took to hit the table.
Space and time are relative to one another and become as one, creating what we know as spacetime. It is literally the fabric of our universe itself. Large bodies like our sun, actually bend this fabric around itself.
That's really the two major aspects of relatively, very roughly mentioned. You can find many explanations with visual diagrams online, I also suggest checking out a few books, for instance, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and The Universe in a Nutshell.
What is the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?
How would I describe the incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
And how does the String Theory (and its variants) addresses (or solve) this problem ?|||Does string theory solve the problem? The answer depends on what you think the problem is. If the problem is to resolve the conflict between QM and GR, then no, string theory doesn't do that. The problem that string theory is supposed to address, is to find one consistent explanation for all of the known fundamental forces. String theory attempts to be that explanation, rendering both GR and QM obsolete in the process.
The incompatibility is in the math, and it's in the basic philosophy. Issac Newton believed that gravity was a force "acting at a distance." Modern scientists don't like to believe in action at a distance. In QM, forces that appear to act at a distance, actually are caused by things continually exchanging invisible, "virtual" particles. For a long time, believers in QM have sought evidence of a "graviton" particle that would "carry" the gravitational force in the same way that photons are supposed to carry the electro-weak force and "gluons" carry the strong nuclear force. Einstein took a whole other approach. He said, that gravity is not really a force at all, but rather an illusion that is due to the inertia of bodies following trajectories (a.k.a., "geodesics") in curved spacetime.
The curvature of spacetime lies at the heart of the math incompatibility. A whole new branch of mathematics called differential geometry was... not exactly invented by Einstein, but fleshed out by Einstein in order to formulate GR. QM on the other hand is formulated in flat, Euclidean spacetime, and (I'm going to confess here, I don't really understand the math) attempts to make it work in a curved spacetime have met with failure.
String theory, in its many variants, attempts to replace both of 'em, but based on what I've heard, it's still not ready for prime-time.|||If you want full details on this subject, 'The Elegant Universe' By Brian Greene is a fantastic book that discusses this topic
Simply, the incompatibility between the two theories is that the use in extremes.
Firstly, relativity generally deals with the massive, and quantum mechanics with the macroscopic. However, when these two are combined, the equations cannot be used together (i don't really know the maths of it, but i think you get stupid answers like infinity). An example of this is in the first few moments after the big bang, and in black holes, where there are very massive objects packed into macroscopic areas.
Secondly, quantum mechanics predicts that on scales of less than planck length (i.e. unimaginably small) the fabric of spacetime would not be flat, but covered in bumps and ripples and trenches etc. (think of fractals, if you know what they are). This would go against many of the assumptions of general relativity.
To understand why string theory solves this problem, you first need to know, that things can only be observed at small scales by thing that are small - our eyes use photons (light particles) but these are too big at these small scales for the imperfections to show up. However, according to quantum mechanics, you could use increasingly small particles with increasingly high energy to detect the imperfections. This works because particles are zero-dimentional and point-like. With strings, however, they are one-dimentional, and if they are the smallest constituents of the universe, then you cannot observe any imperfections smaller than they are, so if they do exist, they would have no effect on anything else.
This is a simplified explanation, and i am not sure of all the details, but i hope it helps.
And how does the String Theory (and its variants) addresses (or solve) this problem ?|||Does string theory solve the problem? The answer depends on what you think the problem is. If the problem is to resolve the conflict between QM and GR, then no, string theory doesn't do that. The problem that string theory is supposed to address, is to find one consistent explanation for all of the known fundamental forces. String theory attempts to be that explanation, rendering both GR and QM obsolete in the process.
The incompatibility is in the math, and it's in the basic philosophy. Issac Newton believed that gravity was a force "acting at a distance." Modern scientists don't like to believe in action at a distance. In QM, forces that appear to act at a distance, actually are caused by things continually exchanging invisible, "virtual" particles. For a long time, believers in QM have sought evidence of a "graviton" particle that would "carry" the gravitational force in the same way that photons are supposed to carry the electro-weak force and "gluons" carry the strong nuclear force. Einstein took a whole other approach. He said, that gravity is not really a force at all, but rather an illusion that is due to the inertia of bodies following trajectories (a.k.a., "geodesics") in curved spacetime.
The curvature of spacetime lies at the heart of the math incompatibility. A whole new branch of mathematics called differential geometry was... not exactly invented by Einstein, but fleshed out by Einstein in order to formulate GR. QM on the other hand is formulated in flat, Euclidean spacetime, and (I'm going to confess here, I don't really understand the math) attempts to make it work in a curved spacetime have met with failure.
String theory, in its many variants, attempts to replace both of 'em, but based on what I've heard, it's still not ready for prime-time.|||If you want full details on this subject, 'The Elegant Universe' By Brian Greene is a fantastic book that discusses this topic
Simply, the incompatibility between the two theories is that the use in extremes.
Firstly, relativity generally deals with the massive, and quantum mechanics with the macroscopic. However, when these two are combined, the equations cannot be used together (i don't really know the maths of it, but i think you get stupid answers like infinity). An example of this is in the first few moments after the big bang, and in black holes, where there are very massive objects packed into macroscopic areas.
Secondly, quantum mechanics predicts that on scales of less than planck length (i.e. unimaginably small) the fabric of spacetime would not be flat, but covered in bumps and ripples and trenches etc. (think of fractals, if you know what they are). This would go against many of the assumptions of general relativity.
To understand why string theory solves this problem, you first need to know, that things can only be observed at small scales by thing that are small - our eyes use photons (light particles) but these are too big at these small scales for the imperfections to show up. However, according to quantum mechanics, you could use increasingly small particles with increasingly high energy to detect the imperfections. This works because particles are zero-dimentional and point-like. With strings, however, they are one-dimentional, and if they are the smallest constituents of the universe, then you cannot observe any imperfections smaller than they are, so if they do exist, they would have no effect on anything else.
This is a simplified explanation, and i am not sure of all the details, but i hope it helps.
Is there any website where i can find easier explanations to general relativity?
I am reading about general relativity from wikipedia when after sometime it just starts to go out of place. So are there any easier to understand explanations to relativity?|||http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA39FKsLd…
What is the difference between quantum mechanics and relativity theory? which one is more accurate and we need?
What is the difference between quantum mechanics and relativity theory? which one is more accurate and we need to know better?
Thank you.|||Quantum mechanics (QM) is more accurate, its solution space is two maybe three particles at a time, and is based on some arbitrary constants chosen to make it work.
Relativity theory (GR) provides solutions for solar systems to dust grains without aid of Dark anything. And its constants (when used) are the familiar ones of Newtonian gravitation and Maxwell's EM.
Neither is more than a theory, whatever replaces them will only be a theory, and QM and GR will continue to be used inside their domains of applicability.
What we need to know better, are the limitations of Science.
Thank you.|||Quantum mechanics (QM) is more accurate, its solution space is two maybe three particles at a time, and is based on some arbitrary constants chosen to make it work.
Relativity theory (GR) provides solutions for solar systems to dust grains without aid of Dark anything. And its constants (when used) are the familiar ones of Newtonian gravitation and Maxwell's EM.
Neither is more than a theory, whatever replaces them will only be a theory, and QM and GR will continue to be used inside their domains of applicability.
What we need to know better, are the limitations of Science.
How would you test the idea of general relativity using a clock?
I've been reading about general relativity and this was one of the "brain twister" questions..
Does anyone have any cool ideas? And how accurate do you think the clock used would have to be?|||Send it on a rocket round trip and you will find it has lost a bit of time during the trip.Very roughly, while it was cruising at speed v, the time went more slowly by the factor sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
c is 300,000km/sec and if we were orbiting the earth, our v wd be about 10km/sec So the clock has lost .0002 % (roughly).
I believe this nhas been measured with a VERY accurate clock.|||This is actually being tested as we type. A super precise crystal clock based on the vibration frequency of the crystal was launched some years ago in a satellite. The expectation is that when the clock is recoverd, we will discover that it has been running slow compared to the same kind of clock on Earth. That slowness is predictable via the theory of relativity.
The clock has to be super precise because the degree of slowness will be waaaaaaaay below a second after several years orbiting. For example, if the satellite travels at 17,000 mph in orbit for one year, that will result in the on board clock being 0.0102 sec slower at the end of the year than the similar clock on Earth. [See source.]
Clearly, to measure .0102 sec differential over a year, your clock would have to be way more precise than down to a 100th of a second. I would suggest a 1000th of a second precision at the minimum if you can run the experiment over a year Earth time. Shorter periods would of course demand even greater precision.
BTW: Accuracy and precision are not the same thing. One can say it's hot out and be accurate, but that's not very precise. Or one can say it's 98 deg F out and be precise, but not at all accurate if it happens to really be 99 deg F. What you need most in your clock is precision to meaure down to the millisecond or finer.
|||Yes that's one way to do it. The experiment has been done. In fact the clocks used for the GPS system have to take relativity into account, or they would gradually lose time compared with time on earth, because in orbit they move very fast (and also because they are further from the centre of the earth).
Does anyone have any cool ideas? And how accurate do you think the clock used would have to be?|||Send it on a rocket round trip and you will find it has lost a bit of time during the trip.Very roughly, while it was cruising at speed v, the time went more slowly by the factor sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
c is 300,000km/sec and if we were orbiting the earth, our v wd be about 10km/sec So the clock has lost .0002 % (roughly).
I believe this nhas been measured with a VERY accurate clock.|||This is actually being tested as we type. A super precise crystal clock based on the vibration frequency of the crystal was launched some years ago in a satellite. The expectation is that when the clock is recoverd, we will discover that it has been running slow compared to the same kind of clock on Earth. That slowness is predictable via the theory of relativity.
The clock has to be super precise because the degree of slowness will be waaaaaaaay below a second after several years orbiting. For example, if the satellite travels at 17,000 mph in orbit for one year, that will result in the on board clock being 0.0102 sec slower at the end of the year than the similar clock on Earth. [See source.]
Clearly, to measure .0102 sec differential over a year, your clock would have to be way more precise than down to a 100th of a second. I would suggest a 1000th of a second precision at the minimum if you can run the experiment over a year Earth time. Shorter periods would of course demand even greater precision.
BTW: Accuracy and precision are not the same thing. One can say it's hot out and be accurate, but that's not very precise. Or one can say it's 98 deg F out and be precise, but not at all accurate if it happens to really be 99 deg F. What you need most in your clock is precision to meaure down to the millisecond or finer.
|||Yes that's one way to do it. The experiment has been done. In fact the clocks used for the GPS system have to take relativity into account, or they would gradually lose time compared with time on earth, because in orbit they move very fast (and also because they are further from the centre of the earth).
Where can I find the equations of general relativity and Schrodinger's equation?
I want a detailed description of the equations of general relativity and Schrodinger's equation.How can I find that?|||Get a text book. "Modern Physics" by Serway was pretty good.
The equation of general relativity is fairly simple to begin with thou: E = Em +Ek, where E is the total energy, Em is the rest mass/energy and Ek is the realivistic kinetic energy function, which has characters I do not have on this keyboard.
Shrodingers equation requires a bit more explaination... it is an equation with an infinite number of solutions, and an infinite number of wrong answers... kinda annoying. The answers are all probability functions, and a good background in linier algebra and multi-variable calculus is necessary to understand it at all. The significance of the equation, however, can be summed up fairly nicely. While in classical mechanics, the idea was to give a definate answer, relying on our knowelege that if something is behaving this way now, it will behave that way later also, we could accurately predict where something would be providing nothing changed. This is not the case in quantum mechanics. The analogy of Schrodinger's cat is often used to describe how a particle can exist in multiple states at the same time just because we do not know what state it is in.
The implications of the Schrodinger equation are thought provoking, actually solving it is extremely difficult.|||You could search wikipedia, which will give you some brief background and both the Einstein and Schroedinger wave equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6d…
But to understand their context and meaning would take more serious study.
For General Relativity, there is "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler as the canonical text. Probably easier, there is Bernard Schutz's book which is pitched at undergraduates.
To understand Quantum Mechanics, there's a book by Anthony Sudbery that is decent; Liboff and Griffiths were still big with the undergraduates last I checked.|||for Schrodinger's equation:
1. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExp…
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger…|||Try Wikipedia.
The equation of general relativity is fairly simple to begin with thou: E = Em +Ek, where E is the total energy, Em is the rest mass/energy and Ek is the realivistic kinetic energy function, which has characters I do not have on this keyboard.
Shrodingers equation requires a bit more explaination... it is an equation with an infinite number of solutions, and an infinite number of wrong answers... kinda annoying. The answers are all probability functions, and a good background in linier algebra and multi-variable calculus is necessary to understand it at all. The significance of the equation, however, can be summed up fairly nicely. While in classical mechanics, the idea was to give a definate answer, relying on our knowelege that if something is behaving this way now, it will behave that way later also, we could accurately predict where something would be providing nothing changed. This is not the case in quantum mechanics. The analogy of Schrodinger's cat is often used to describe how a particle can exist in multiple states at the same time just because we do not know what state it is in.
The implications of the Schrodinger equation are thought provoking, actually solving it is extremely difficult.|||You could search wikipedia, which will give you some brief background and both the Einstein and Schroedinger wave equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6d…
But to understand their context and meaning would take more serious study.
For General Relativity, there is "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler as the canonical text. Probably easier, there is Bernard Schutz's book which is pitched at undergraduates.
To understand Quantum Mechanics, there's a book by Anthony Sudbery that is decent; Liboff and Griffiths were still big with the undergraduates last I checked.|||for Schrodinger's equation:
1. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExp…
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger…|||Try Wikipedia.
How is Relativity realted to Quantum Mechanics?
The theory of relativity directly relates the four dimensions of our universe (time, motion, space, and the speed of light). Quantum mechanics is the study of measurements in extremely small quantities. I understand that if you distort one dimension of the universe, another must be distorted as well. But how does this relate to Quantum mechanics and how does it branch off from the M-Theory?|||At the root of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to know the simultaneous magnitudes of certain pairs of dynamical variables (called "canonical pairs") with arbitrary precision. An example of which are the position and momentum of a particle. Now, the reason why QM and GR are incompatible is that according to GR the gravitational field is a property of the geometry of space-time, which predicts that this field is propagated with a finite velocity (that of light), as opposed to infinitely fast, as Newton had believed. A moment's thought will make you realize that this property requires that a moving (i.e. accelerating) mass necessarily transfers energy and momentum to the gravitational field, just as is the case of a charge in relation to the electromagnetic field, both result in the emission of waves (gravitational in the case of the former, electromagnetic in the case of the latter). Since a quantum theory of matter is required to fit the observed phenomena, it is also necessary to have a quantum theory of gravitational fields, for the same reason that we have to have a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-because of the interaction between mass (or charge) and the corresponding field. But since the gravitational waves are carried as ripples in the space-time framework itself, this would require a quantization of the coordinates of space and time themselves. This is a very difficult task that hasn't been successfully performed to-date.
Hope this is clear.
I added later the following additional explanation why it is so difficult to quantize space-time: The coordinates of space and time are not canonical in the usual sense, in that we do not have canonical momentum coordinates, which would permit quantization by the normal procedure (postulating the usual commutation relations).|||Basically, Quantum Mechanics and General relativity clash with each other. They show two different pictures of the universe. M-theory reconciles these two views. If you are interested in M-theory you should watch this program --%26gt; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/pro…
*Beware it's three hours long*|||Quantum Mechanics has been reconciled with *Special* Relativity via Quantum Field Theory. Relativistic electrons, for example, are described by the Dirac Equation. No one has figured out how to quantize the wave function in the much more complex space-time metric of General Relativity, however. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can do it.|||That's really the BIG Question. Unfortunately, nobody has a good answer. (And I DO keep up with the latest developments in physics) The crux of the problem seems to be that, at the quantum level, time really isn't relevant. The whole issue requires a pretty endomorphic math background to even begin to wrap one's mind around. I have that, but I've been wrestling with it for years and haven't come up with a good answer yet. I'll keep trying, though.|||The four dimensions are usually understood as the three space and the one time. relativity's consequences explain a good deal of the macro universe, while quantum explains pretty much everything else, as far as I understand it
Hope this is clear.
I added later the following additional explanation why it is so difficult to quantize space-time: The coordinates of space and time are not canonical in the usual sense, in that we do not have canonical momentum coordinates, which would permit quantization by the normal procedure (postulating the usual commutation relations).|||Basically, Quantum Mechanics and General relativity clash with each other. They show two different pictures of the universe. M-theory reconciles these two views. If you are interested in M-theory you should watch this program --%26gt; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/pro…
*Beware it's three hours long*|||Quantum Mechanics has been reconciled with *Special* Relativity via Quantum Field Theory. Relativistic electrons, for example, are described by the Dirac Equation. No one has figured out how to quantize the wave function in the much more complex space-time metric of General Relativity, however. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can do it.|||That's really the BIG Question. Unfortunately, nobody has a good answer. (And I DO keep up with the latest developments in physics) The crux of the problem seems to be that, at the quantum level, time really isn't relevant. The whole issue requires a pretty endomorphic math background to even begin to wrap one's mind around. I have that, but I've been wrestling with it for years and haven't come up with a good answer yet. I'll keep trying, though.|||The four dimensions are usually understood as the three space and the one time. relativity's consequences explain a good deal of the macro universe, while quantum explains pretty much everything else, as far as I understand it
How do we explain complications and inconsistencies in the theory of relativity?
The theoretic law is that energy is matter, and that speed gains mass. And it is interesting, because when a body ceases functioning, it decomposes eventually into nothing, returning nitrogen to the earth. So, I want to know why, when I sit, motionless, and do nothing, my *** gets bigger. Shouldn't this general rule of relativity apply to every operation within its dynamic? |||Okay this question is friggin' hilarious, you should really be writing stand-up!
Of course the issues lies with the fact that changes in mass due to motion are only readily measured when you approach the speed of light and therefore you would not be able to measure the changes in mass you might experience due to velocity.
The changes in your *** are unfortunately related to chemistry, not physics. Your body is not a closed system, you put in calories in the form of food and you burn calories by existing (breathing, thinking, working out, etc.) If you put more energy in than you use, your butt gets wider. This has nothing to do with relativity.
Then when you die, your biochemical pathways stop and microorganism metabolize your cells and entropy has its way with you.
Still, if you could write another 15 minutes worth of material like this question, you can totally hit the comedy circuit.|||Lol! Good question. When you get a good answer let me know!
Of course the issues lies with the fact that changes in mass due to motion are only readily measured when you approach the speed of light and therefore you would not be able to measure the changes in mass you might experience due to velocity.
The changes in your *** are unfortunately related to chemistry, not physics. Your body is not a closed system, you put in calories in the form of food and you burn calories by existing (breathing, thinking, working out, etc.) If you put more energy in than you use, your butt gets wider. This has nothing to do with relativity.
Then when you die, your biochemical pathways stop and microorganism metabolize your cells and entropy has its way with you.
Still, if you could write another 15 minutes worth of material like this question, you can totally hit the comedy circuit.|||Lol! Good question. When you get a good answer let me know!
Where to get Best source for understanding Theory of Relativity?
I want to understand theory of relativity, but none explain exactly. Please explain me or tell source where can I understand theory of relativity easily.
NOTE :- Prerequisite is only basic physics required for understanding your explanation.|||A very VERY small percentage of post doctoral physicists really understand General Relativity. Special relativity looks fairly straightforward - it only needs a simple first order algebraic equation to do its calculations - but the implications are not so easy to really understand. I think you should be satisfied with analogies and simple calculations. Your understanding will not be very far reaching , but at least you will have a chance to get some idea of what is going on.|||There are hundred of books, many good ones, many bad ones by people who repeat without understanding.
For a recent one of the highest quality and requiring very little prerequisites (but demanding that you truly use your brain) I would say, "It's about time" by N. David Mermin.
(That's for the special theory. You can't learn the general theory without much more maths)|||I liked this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Compl…
Took me half a year to read it, and I gave up on the math, but at least now, I have a much clearer picture of what it is that I don't know about general relativity and quantum physics. Oddly, the book barely even mentions special relativity, but like the other folks said, there's lots of places you can look for that information.|||Try Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_rel…
NOTE :- Prerequisite is only basic physics required for understanding your explanation.|||A very VERY small percentage of post doctoral physicists really understand General Relativity. Special relativity looks fairly straightforward - it only needs a simple first order algebraic equation to do its calculations - but the implications are not so easy to really understand. I think you should be satisfied with analogies and simple calculations. Your understanding will not be very far reaching , but at least you will have a chance to get some idea of what is going on.|||There are hundred of books, many good ones, many bad ones by people who repeat without understanding.
For a recent one of the highest quality and requiring very little prerequisites (but demanding that you truly use your brain) I would say, "It's about time" by N. David Mermin.
(That's for the special theory. You can't learn the general theory without much more maths)|||I liked this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Compl…
Took me half a year to read it, and I gave up on the math, but at least now, I have a much clearer picture of what it is that I don't know about general relativity and quantum physics. Oddly, the book barely even mentions special relativity, but like the other folks said, there's lots of places you can look for that information.|||Try Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_rel…
How does the general theory of relativity explain the speed of light being constant in a black hole?
The speed of light is constant in a black hole. How does the general theory of relativity explain it?|||The same way it explains the speed of light being constant outside of a Black Hole. The speed of light is the same, everywhere. The intense gravity inside of a Black Hole merely prevents light from leaving a Black Hole.
.|||Accodring to Einstein the strenghth of gravity of a collapsing star or a black hole distorts space and time ..Time is NOT a constant but relative to mass , electric charge and angular movement. C can not break away from the escape velocity past the event horizon as at this point time is outside of scientific observation of our universe in the event horizon IT IS SPACE THAT ALTERS NOT THE SPEED OF LIGHT A spinning black hole at the event horizon drags space and time so severly that it is impossible to stay in the same place This area is called the ergosphere it is not time we understand but that effect we can define as but not understand called gravity...
BUT TO YOUR QUESTION. a clock masures the proper time T(o )and a ruler measures the the proper distance L(o ) if the observer is so limited to quantify his observations due to the limits of the event horizon does this mean if it cant be observed, so it doesnt happen..so to the speed of light what distance are you measuring it against within the event horizon as space and distance is relative ... that is why it is relative to space and TIME|||It does no such thing, it never has and never will, black holes, like the "big bang" are points beyond which the laws are not understood in any rational way.
The term used by mathematicians, and physicists, alike, is "a singularity" it is literally a point beyond which no known methodology exists, for us to understand what the nature of the behaviour is like, within these conditions, and no way we can measure the behaviour either.
A point, if you like, where all mathematics breakdown, or are ineffective at describing or predicting the behaviour of the event, or object, in question.......everybody is simply guessing, incorrectly here,....... full stop.|||The theory of relativity is based around the assumption that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames (an assumption that has been shown in many experiments). Relativity doesn't explain why the speed of light is constant. The speed of light being constant explains relativity.|||It does not, there is no light in a black hole, light is trapped in the event horizon.
.|||Accodring to Einstein the strenghth of gravity of a collapsing star or a black hole distorts space and time ..Time is NOT a constant but relative to mass , electric charge and angular movement. C can not break away from the escape velocity past the event horizon as at this point time is outside of scientific observation of our universe in the event horizon IT IS SPACE THAT ALTERS NOT THE SPEED OF LIGHT A spinning black hole at the event horizon drags space and time so severly that it is impossible to stay in the same place This area is called the ergosphere it is not time we understand but that effect we can define as but not understand called gravity...
BUT TO YOUR QUESTION. a clock masures the proper time T(o )and a ruler measures the the proper distance L(o ) if the observer is so limited to quantify his observations due to the limits of the event horizon does this mean if it cant be observed, so it doesnt happen..so to the speed of light what distance are you measuring it against within the event horizon as space and distance is relative ... that is why it is relative to space and TIME|||It does no such thing, it never has and never will, black holes, like the "big bang" are points beyond which the laws are not understood in any rational way.
The term used by mathematicians, and physicists, alike, is "a singularity" it is literally a point beyond which no known methodology exists, for us to understand what the nature of the behaviour is like, within these conditions, and no way we can measure the behaviour either.
A point, if you like, where all mathematics breakdown, or are ineffective at describing or predicting the behaviour of the event, or object, in question.......everybody is simply guessing, incorrectly here,....... full stop.|||The theory of relativity is based around the assumption that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames (an assumption that has been shown in many experiments). Relativity doesn't explain why the speed of light is constant. The speed of light being constant explains relativity.|||It does not, there is no light in a black hole, light is trapped in the event horizon.
What does it mean that general relativity has been verified to 5 decimal places?
please help me understand this. i need to know how reliable general relativity is, and this is what i read. however, i don't understand what it means. thanks.|||Suppose I have a scale which measures my weight as 180 lbs, it tells me my weight to 2 digit.
If I stand on a more advanced scale, perhaps I measure my weight (without changing my body or Earth's gravity) as 183.54 lbs. I now know my weight to 5 digits.
Now apply it to GR context. Our theoretical model of GR has been shown to match experimetal evidence to 5 digits. That is what your statement means.|||One of the toughest parts of learning the sciences is the jargon... the terminology. A lot of that comes from tekkies, the scientists themselves, inventing the terms and definitions. Unfortunately, most of them have no clue how to do that properly; so we end up with definitions and terms that make little sense to the normal person. Anyway, to your question....
If we have a number N with no fraction or decimal point, we call that a whole number.
If we have a number N.n with a decimal point and another number n in the first slot, the first place, after the decimal point, we call that a decimal number to the first place.
Similarly N.nn is a decimal number to the second place, N.nnn is to the third place, etc.
So when GTR is verified to the fifth decimal place that means its predictions and the observed results jibe out to N.nnnnn which is a decimal number to the fifth place. But it also means that for the sixth decimal place, N.nnnnnX, some discrepancies between predictions and observed results are likely to crop up.
In a properly designed experiment, the likelihood of the discrepancy in that sixth position or higher is usually specified. This is something we learn to do in courses called the Design and Analysis of Experiments, or something similar.
If I stand on a more advanced scale, perhaps I measure my weight (without changing my body or Earth's gravity) as 183.54 lbs. I now know my weight to 5 digits.
Now apply it to GR context. Our theoretical model of GR has been shown to match experimetal evidence to 5 digits. That is what your statement means.|||One of the toughest parts of learning the sciences is the jargon... the terminology. A lot of that comes from tekkies, the scientists themselves, inventing the terms and definitions. Unfortunately, most of them have no clue how to do that properly; so we end up with definitions and terms that make little sense to the normal person. Anyway, to your question....
If we have a number N with no fraction or decimal point, we call that a whole number.
If we have a number N.n with a decimal point and another number n in the first slot, the first place, after the decimal point, we call that a decimal number to the first place.
Similarly N.nn is a decimal number to the second place, N.nnn is to the third place, etc.
So when GTR is verified to the fifth decimal place that means its predictions and the observed results jibe out to N.nnnnn which is a decimal number to the fifth place. But it also means that for the sixth decimal place, N.nnnnnX, some discrepancies between predictions and observed results are likely to crop up.
In a properly designed experiment, the likelihood of the discrepancy in that sixth position or higher is usually specified. This is something we learn to do in courses called the Design and Analysis of Experiments, or something similar.
Einstein鈥檚 General Theory of Relativity explains gravity as a warp in the fourth dimension of spacetime. In re?
Einstein鈥檚 General Theory of Relativity explains gravity as a warp in the fourth dimension of spacetime. In recent years, others have described the other forces, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, in similar ways, and the math seems to work. Does the math make the model true?|||No the math says that *all four* dimensions warp, not just the fourth.
The model is just a guess, and no one should believe it is "true" in any literal sense. The math merely maps from the "assumptions", to measurable / verifiable output. Math is steady logic, that has been proven time and again... and even has some known issues in some cases. So a theory is only as good as the assumptions you make, and the results you expect will be only as good as the care taken in "mapping".|||For the most part yes. Math generally doesn't lie. Although it is our own perception of reality that makes it true. If you have another theory then it can be proven within some dimension of reality if the math is correct. You can think of space as a blanket. If you place a large ball (the sun) in the center of the blanket it makes a dip. Then if you set a smaller ball on the same blanket it will roll towards the large one thus demonstrating the basic law of gravity. The larger the object the greater the gravitational pull
The model is just a guess, and no one should believe it is "true" in any literal sense. The math merely maps from the "assumptions", to measurable / verifiable output. Math is steady logic, that has been proven time and again... and even has some known issues in some cases. So a theory is only as good as the assumptions you make, and the results you expect will be only as good as the care taken in "mapping".|||For the most part yes. Math generally doesn't lie. Although it is our own perception of reality that makes it true. If you have another theory then it can be proven within some dimension of reality if the math is correct. You can think of space as a blanket. If you place a large ball (the sun) in the center of the blanket it makes a dip. Then if you set a smaller ball on the same blanket it will roll towards the large one thus demonstrating the basic law of gravity. The larger the object the greater the gravitational pull
What is the difference between relativity and creation?
Who can explain creation to trash Einsteins theory of relativity.|||In common english "theory" means something that's just an idea, but when used as a scientific term, it means something very different. Scientific ideas (hypotheses) don't get to be theories easily. (See http://wilstar.com/theories.htm - this guy explains it pretty well.) If it's made it to the level of theory, it's got a LOT of weight behind it, so I wouldn't expect to find a simple answer here.
How to learn the mathematical aspects of general theory of relativity?
I mean I want to understand the field equations. I have a master in engineering level maths background. What all do I need to learn as a foundation before I attempt to learn differential geometry [the understanding of which, from what I gather is of paramount importance for theory of relativity.]
From where should I start? Should I start with vector calculus, partial differential equations? or what?
Yours answers are highly appreciated.|||If you have a master's in engineering, then you should have taken classes in calculus, analytical geometry (this is where I first learned about Riemannian geometry for example), and diffeq's. I would brush off those old text books, then take a modern physics class at any accredited 4 year university that offers a decent physics program.|||All of that, add hydrodynamics and tensor calculus.|||plus at least BS in physics, better MS
More people talk about G-R than understand it|||You've gotten some pretty good advise here from others. I would just like to add the following:
Jason Gibson
MathtutorDVD.com
http://www.mathtutordvd.com/
Offers an excellent DVD math tutorial program at a really reasonable price per course. His math courses range from grade school level arithmetic through college Calculus-3 and Physics-3. As I understand it, one of his goals is to develop his DVD math program to take in aspects of Einstein's Special and General Relativity, as well as Quantum Mechanics.
Jason is an exceptionally well qualified instructor.
I recommend that you check out what his program has to offer, then contact him and discuss your goals and objectives. I am certain that he can put you on the right track that will get you to where you want to go.|||While it has absolutely nothing to do with what your asking, I've found this site and good way to understand the hard stuff -
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm
From where should I start? Should I start with vector calculus, partial differential equations? or what?
Yours answers are highly appreciated.|||If you have a master's in engineering, then you should have taken classes in calculus, analytical geometry (this is where I first learned about Riemannian geometry for example), and diffeq's. I would brush off those old text books, then take a modern physics class at any accredited 4 year university that offers a decent physics program.|||All of that, add hydrodynamics and tensor calculus.|||plus at least BS in physics, better MS
More people talk about G-R than understand it|||You've gotten some pretty good advise here from others. I would just like to add the following:
Jason Gibson
MathtutorDVD.com
http://www.mathtutordvd.com/
Offers an excellent DVD math tutorial program at a really reasonable price per course. His math courses range from grade school level arithmetic through college Calculus-3 and Physics-3. As I understand it, one of his goals is to develop his DVD math program to take in aspects of Einstein's Special and General Relativity, as well as Quantum Mechanics.
Jason is an exceptionally well qualified instructor.
I recommend that you check out what his program has to offer, then contact him and discuss your goals and objectives. I am certain that he can put you on the right track that will get you to where you want to go.|||While it has absolutely nothing to do with what your asking, I've found this site and good way to understand the hard stuff -
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm
What are some ways that Einstein's theory of relativity be tested?
Hey everyone, I need help in testing Einstein's theory of relativity. Please give me methods in how I can do so, thanks!|||Special or General relativity?
"all the possible methods to test it."
That's a big list.
----------
Why put big in quotes? You don't believe me?
Unfortunately, due to the nature of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, most experiments require very large speeds or very massive objects--qualities the general public doesn't encounter everyday.
Perhaps you could try to replicate the Michelson-Morley experiment to test the second postulate of special relativity. Im sure there are design plans or already built Michelson's interferometers lying around online.|||There are so many parts of it, what part would you like to know about young one
"all the possible methods to test it."
That's a big list.
----------
Why put big in quotes? You don't believe me?
Unfortunately, due to the nature of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, most experiments require very large speeds or very massive objects--qualities the general public doesn't encounter everyday.
Perhaps you could try to replicate the Michelson-Morley experiment to test the second postulate of special relativity. Im sure there are design plans or already built Michelson's interferometers lying around online.|||There are so many parts of it, what part would you like to know about young one
PHYSICS: Can you explain the difference between special and general relativity?
I have to write a short 2 page paper about general relativity. I started to write about how you can't describe motion w/out a frame of reference and stuff like that, but I read that that's actually what special relativity is.
So what's the difference between special and general relativity?
Thanks!!|||Special Relativity deals only with objects which are not acted upon by any external forces. General Relativity adds gravity into the equations, in the form of a curvature of space-time caused by massive objects.
Easy way to remember this: SPecial relativity deals with SPeed, whereas General relativity deals with Gravity.|||Special relativity deals with measurement in inertial frames of reference and the effects of the constant speed of light regardless its conditions of motion.
General relativity deals with measurements in any frame of referece and the effects of gravity as the curvature of space.|||Special Relativity does not deal with acceleration by gravity, or anything but very simple, straight-line accelerations (and of course just inertial motion). General Relativity does, via the "Equivalence Principle".
So what's the difference between special and general relativity?
Thanks!!|||Special Relativity deals only with objects which are not acted upon by any external forces. General Relativity adds gravity into the equations, in the form of a curvature of space-time caused by massive objects.
Easy way to remember this: SPecial relativity deals with SPeed, whereas General relativity deals with Gravity.|||Special relativity deals with measurement in inertial frames of reference and the effects of the constant speed of light regardless its conditions of motion.
General relativity deals with measurements in any frame of referece and the effects of gravity as the curvature of space.|||Special Relativity does not deal with acceleration by gravity, or anything but very simple, straight-line accelerations (and of course just inertial motion). General Relativity does, via the "Equivalence Principle".
What are good introductory texts on general relativity?
I have an MSci degree in mathematics and physics but my course did not offer any modules covering general relativity. Could someone reccommend a few books that are good texts to get started in this area? I already have good knowledge of tensors and special relativity. Also I would prefer something that leaned to the mathematical side of things. Thanks.|||I took GR last semester and I found these two books to be invaluable. Considering you are good with tensors you should have no problem picking this up. Have fun! If you have any questions send me an email.|||Another good book is "Gravitation" by Misner, Throne, and Wheeler. It is more comprehensive rather than introductory but definitely a good book on GR.
Is the Theory of Relativity too good to be bothered with evidence?
It's well established that it takes an amount of time (about 3 minutes) for a photon to reach the earth from the sun. Relativity says that as an object approaches the speed of light that time, for the object, slows. So it follows that a photon leaving the sun at t=0 arrives at the earth at t=0. This is contradicted obviously by observable evidence. How is this so?|||It is NOT contradicted by observable evidence.
The Theory of Special Relativity has been proven with the use of atomic clocks on both airplanes and the Space Shuttle.
The speed of light in a vacuum is a definition and an absolute and unchanging by definition. The only relativistic effect would be from the movement of the space craft not from its communication because that is at the speed of light.
A photon takes years to leave the sun from the inner core where it is formed in the process of fusion and it can take almost eight minutes to reach the earth. This is because the sun is so dense and it has to travel almost 93 million miles to reach earth.
Photons can go slower than the speed of light and do so in an atmosphere, but only by a little bit. That is why the absolute speed of light is measured in a vacuum, and it is always specified that it is done in a vacuum.|||Actually, it takes 8 minutes for a photon to get to the Earth from the Sun. But if you're traveling along with the photon, you wouldn't seem to be moving at all. Time has stopped in that reference frame. But not in the reference frames of someone on the Earth.
Relativity is well-supported by evidence (look up Einstein's own experiments with Mercury and Gravity Probe A). You may want to take a class on relativity or read a book about it.|||Oh my god! How could we possibly have missed that!|||I thought it was seven minutes. And anyway, you have to look at time dilation from the viewpoints (each) of the fast object and the reference reality. time passes differently for the two, that it why it is the theory of RELATIVITY.
The Theory of Special Relativity has been proven with the use of atomic clocks on both airplanes and the Space Shuttle.
The speed of light in a vacuum is a definition and an absolute and unchanging by definition. The only relativistic effect would be from the movement of the space craft not from its communication because that is at the speed of light.
A photon takes years to leave the sun from the inner core where it is formed in the process of fusion and it can take almost eight minutes to reach the earth. This is because the sun is so dense and it has to travel almost 93 million miles to reach earth.
Photons can go slower than the speed of light and do so in an atmosphere, but only by a little bit. That is why the absolute speed of light is measured in a vacuum, and it is always specified that it is done in a vacuum.|||Actually, it takes 8 minutes for a photon to get to the Earth from the Sun. But if you're traveling along with the photon, you wouldn't seem to be moving at all. Time has stopped in that reference frame. But not in the reference frames of someone on the Earth.
Relativity is well-supported by evidence (look up Einstein's own experiments with Mercury and Gravity Probe A). You may want to take a class on relativity or read a book about it.|||Oh my god! How could we possibly have missed that!|||I thought it was seven minutes. And anyway, you have to look at time dilation from the viewpoints (each) of the fast object and the reference reality. time passes differently for the two, that it why it is the theory of RELATIVITY.
What equation from Einstein's theory of general relativity supports the existence of gravitation waves?
They are a few equation arising from general relativity. I was wondering which one shows how energy from a binary system is converted into gravitational waves.|||gravitational radiation from space was predicted by Einstein in General Relativity
Here you go:
http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Gravitati…|||Yea' well that is wrong !.. IN 2001 I signed up for space.com, I reported my physics finding and a bit later checked back with them on my posting about Vacuum Relativity they said that my explanation in physics was right. I was told I would get the credit posting, my brother in law at the time was a professor of aeronautical engineering. A teacher, and strait A student all through all grades. HE knew I was telling the truth, father in law worked for the air-force and retired from there many years of service. I have copies from space.com. Until 2001 all schools and universities was teaching general and special relativity. The gravitational and binary energy physics is wrong also !.. Don't think so ? without me giving you more Billion dollar New Scientific and new Atomic energy answers, so you can have Hollywood take old scientific pictures and do voice overs to steal other peoples Work again. If those answers in physics you think are right. try going to Nasa website and answering all of the universes pictures, Nasa is wondering about. Armature's ?.. You people are all alike !|||All of them. They are really a single equation, describing all of spacetime.
Here are some links that might help you.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Re…
http://elmer.caltech.edu/ph237/CourseOut…
http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/gr…|||good question, i dont know but i want to
Here you go:
http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Gravitati…|||Yea' well that is wrong !.. IN 2001 I signed up for space.com, I reported my physics finding and a bit later checked back with them on my posting about Vacuum Relativity they said that my explanation in physics was right. I was told I would get the credit posting, my brother in law at the time was a professor of aeronautical engineering. A teacher, and strait A student all through all grades. HE knew I was telling the truth, father in law worked for the air-force and retired from there many years of service. I have copies from space.com. Until 2001 all schools and universities was teaching general and special relativity. The gravitational and binary energy physics is wrong also !.. Don't think so ? without me giving you more Billion dollar New Scientific and new Atomic energy answers, so you can have Hollywood take old scientific pictures and do voice overs to steal other peoples Work again. If those answers in physics you think are right. try going to Nasa website and answering all of the universes pictures, Nasa is wondering about. Armature's ?.. You people are all alike !|||All of them. They are really a single equation, describing all of spacetime.
Here are some links that might help you.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Re…
http://elmer.caltech.edu/ph237/CourseOut…
http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/gr…|||good question, i dont know but i want to
According to Special Relativity, which ones are dependent on the observer speed?
Consider the list of physical properties below. According to Special Relativity, which ones are dependent on the observer speed?
Energy
Length
Time
All of the these.|||all of these|||C.|||none of the above. you mean velocity, not speed.|||Time.
Energy
Length
Time
All of the these.|||all of these|||C.|||none of the above. you mean velocity, not speed.|||Time.
Is there a contradiction between free will and relativity?
My physics knowledge is imperfect so this may be rubbish but...
Since relativity states that time in a subjective concept depending on your position then arguably you could say the future has already happened but we're looking in the wrong place. Does this then imply that whatever we choose to do is already set and thus we cannot truly have free will? If yes or no then why?|||"Already" set? if the future has "already happened," then when exactly IS the "present"?
Point of view matters - that's the point of relativity. So no, there is no contradiction. Point of view can never escape the present moment. In a sense, point of view *is* the present moment. And we can't escape having a point of view. Free will is part of it's "what it's like" to be a person. It's not a true or false thing about the universe. There is no new info about it from relativity.|||I highly suggest everyone read Skatta's answer.
Skatta's answer (the last answer) is by far the best answer to this question. It is among the best of all of the answers I have seen to any question on this website.
|||All possibilities are open.|||I don't see any contradiction between the two at all. Relativity is a theory. Until proved otherwise we will find that someone else will add or subtract information regarding the theory of relativity. It is a science, in science we do not know it all, we are constantly learning and changing what we know. It is the current correct explanation to a lot of matter concerning physics but the theory can change with the insight of another genius.
Free will however is shown daily in all our decisions. We either accommodate the laws that govern our lives or we rebel against them. The laws of life are not just the moral or governing laws of King and Parliament, President and Congress but those of the unseen aspects of our world and life.
You are free to follow what is in the world or what is unseen and rules the world or what is unseen and has created the universe. It's all up to you.
I see no contradiction between "free will" %26amp; "relativity".|||yes and no, its relative :)
no joking, if you take relativity as a law it will be absolute and meaningless.
free will and relativity are in some way the same thing because they say there is not such thing as an absolute destiny.|||no.
what you're talking about is that time and motion are pretty much the same thing.
imagine if all the universe was frozen still, from its smallest parts to its biggest. completely still.
then there can be no time whatsoever right?
clocks are still, no beings can think, nothing, everything is frozen, molecules atoms everything that exists even what we have not discovered yet.
as soon as one tiny spec of anything moves, now time exists, for that thing only in relation to everything else, all other things are frozen in time compared to each other.
so you can see how motion and time is tightly related.
it just so happens also, that more speed not only moves through space faster but also through time.
so the faster you go, the more fast forward the outside world moves, not just seems, actually moves. so this would have the effect that you, moving really fast would age more slowly than the rest of people stuck moving slowly on earth for example.
but this does not imply that things have already occurred.
light is the closest thing to that, because it already is where it is going. from its perspective. but we are stuck experiencing time so we can notice light moving. but still things have not yet occurred in our time frame, at our speed.
the evolution of time, is the motion of things. they are moving constantly, but they have not already travelled where they will travel yet. so nothing of the future has yet occurred.
and you will notice that things can either move (at various different speeds in any direction) or be stationary compared to something else but they cannot unmove.
and time can move forward at various speeds, but not backwards. for the exact reason that things cannot unmove, they cannot go in reverse. the universe has a play pause and fastforward button but no rewind.
this has no implications for free will.
but i think that just the fact that like all things we understand are completely predictable and follow specific rules that cannot be broken, and really only those we don't fully understand, nor do we claim to, do not have this feature. i think this is a very strong indication free will doesn't exist.
your brain is just a thing in a certain shape and when events occur it reacts in a certain way given the laws of physics. and that's not free will. free will needs a "you" that exists outside the body and the brain, an entity of its own, somehow controlling matter, though it is not matter itself. such a thing doesn't exist. the "you" is your brain, the shape, partly dictated by your genes and partly by your experiences and how your genes reacted to them. and this happening is what you are aware of.
you can't control how smart you are right? because your intelligence is a structure in your mind, your process of thinking is physical events occurring in your mind, same thing with your memories, and so your conclusions are as well. and all this creates a very nice illusion of free will. and it sooort of is in a way.
but that free will does not exist does not mean the future has occurred, it just means that it is in theory predictable. so long as you don't let the prediction affect the present, meaning if you calculated the future, you could only read the prediction after the event occurred, because knowing the prediction would itself affect the future. and you could not calculate the result of a prediction that includes it's own conclusion in the result because it has come to a conclusion yet. so that renders predicting the future useless.
so i think we have an undetermined future, and no free will.
Since relativity states that time in a subjective concept depending on your position then arguably you could say the future has already happened but we're looking in the wrong place. Does this then imply that whatever we choose to do is already set and thus we cannot truly have free will? If yes or no then why?|||"Already" set? if the future has "already happened," then when exactly IS the "present"?
Point of view matters - that's the point of relativity. So no, there is no contradiction. Point of view can never escape the present moment. In a sense, point of view *is* the present moment. And we can't escape having a point of view. Free will is part of it's "what it's like" to be a person. It's not a true or false thing about the universe. There is no new info about it from relativity.|||I highly suggest everyone read Skatta's answer.
Skatta's answer (the last answer) is by far the best answer to this question. It is among the best of all of the answers I have seen to any question on this website.
Report Abuse
|||All possibilities are open.|||I don't see any contradiction between the two at all. Relativity is a theory. Until proved otherwise we will find that someone else will add or subtract information regarding the theory of relativity. It is a science, in science we do not know it all, we are constantly learning and changing what we know. It is the current correct explanation to a lot of matter concerning physics but the theory can change with the insight of another genius.
Free will however is shown daily in all our decisions. We either accommodate the laws that govern our lives or we rebel against them. The laws of life are not just the moral or governing laws of King and Parliament, President and Congress but those of the unseen aspects of our world and life.
You are free to follow what is in the world or what is unseen and rules the world or what is unseen and has created the universe. It's all up to you.
I see no contradiction between "free will" %26amp; "relativity".|||yes and no, its relative :)
no joking, if you take relativity as a law it will be absolute and meaningless.
free will and relativity are in some way the same thing because they say there is not such thing as an absolute destiny.|||no.
what you're talking about is that time and motion are pretty much the same thing.
imagine if all the universe was frozen still, from its smallest parts to its biggest. completely still.
then there can be no time whatsoever right?
clocks are still, no beings can think, nothing, everything is frozen, molecules atoms everything that exists even what we have not discovered yet.
as soon as one tiny spec of anything moves, now time exists, for that thing only in relation to everything else, all other things are frozen in time compared to each other.
so you can see how motion and time is tightly related.
it just so happens also, that more speed not only moves through space faster but also through time.
so the faster you go, the more fast forward the outside world moves, not just seems, actually moves. so this would have the effect that you, moving really fast would age more slowly than the rest of people stuck moving slowly on earth for example.
but this does not imply that things have already occurred.
light is the closest thing to that, because it already is where it is going. from its perspective. but we are stuck experiencing time so we can notice light moving. but still things have not yet occurred in our time frame, at our speed.
the evolution of time, is the motion of things. they are moving constantly, but they have not already travelled where they will travel yet. so nothing of the future has yet occurred.
and you will notice that things can either move (at various different speeds in any direction) or be stationary compared to something else but they cannot unmove.
and time can move forward at various speeds, but not backwards. for the exact reason that things cannot unmove, they cannot go in reverse. the universe has a play pause and fastforward button but no rewind.
this has no implications for free will.
but i think that just the fact that like all things we understand are completely predictable and follow specific rules that cannot be broken, and really only those we don't fully understand, nor do we claim to, do not have this feature. i think this is a very strong indication free will doesn't exist.
your brain is just a thing in a certain shape and when events occur it reacts in a certain way given the laws of physics. and that's not free will. free will needs a "you" that exists outside the body and the brain, an entity of its own, somehow controlling matter, though it is not matter itself. such a thing doesn't exist. the "you" is your brain, the shape, partly dictated by your genes and partly by your experiences and how your genes reacted to them. and this happening is what you are aware of.
you can't control how smart you are right? because your intelligence is a structure in your mind, your process of thinking is physical events occurring in your mind, same thing with your memories, and so your conclusions are as well. and all this creates a very nice illusion of free will. and it sooort of is in a way.
but that free will does not exist does not mean the future has occurred, it just means that it is in theory predictable. so long as you don't let the prediction affect the present, meaning if you calculated the future, you could only read the prediction after the event occurred, because knowing the prediction would itself affect the future. and you could not calculate the result of a prediction that includes it's own conclusion in the result because it has come to a conclusion yet. so that renders predicting the future useless.
so i think we have an undetermined future, and no free will.
How does the precession of Mercury's orbit relate to relativity?
I understand that the changes in its orbit, and I understand that Newtonian mechanics could not explain this. What I can't seem to get is how relativity does explain its precession? What is the fundamental difference that relativity accounts for, and kinematics leaves out?|||As Mercury goes deeper in the Sun's gravitational well, the "local time rate" is slower, and the Sun's "frame dragging", pulls Mercury forward a bit more than Newton can describe.
What are the minimum assumptions of general relativity?
For Special Relativity, it's that space-time is rotationally symmetric, translationally symmetric and locally isometric. According to Relativity Without Light, by N. David Mermin, from that you can prove that there is some maximum speed at which massless particles go and time dilation/length contraction, E=mc^2, etc.
I believe that you need the assumptions of special relativity together with Mach's equivalence principal, but I'm not really sure. Does anybody know?|||Those are not sufficient postulates to derive special relativity. Assumptions of homogeneity, isotropy, memorylessness, reciprocity, and relativity only imply the relationship between inertial frames up to a constant, but cannot determine if that constant is positive, negative or zero. Hence it is more usual to use the twin assumptions of the principle of relativity and the invariance of the spacetime interval. These two can be used to derive the tranformation laws of SR.
GR needs in addition the principle of equivlance. The Mach Principle - which is poorly defined in any event - is again not of itself sufficient. While Mach's Principle led Einstein in his thinking, the principle of equivlance is stonger and more robustly defined, and gives precise form to GR.|||Sure, gravity is equivalent to acceleration (principle of equivalence), but this does not quantify the source of gravity (the stress-energy tensor).
|||General relativity is the result of Einstein's Field Equation. The Field Equation indicates that the curvature of space Tensor is directly proportional to the stress energy Tensor.
The ratio of curvature tensor to the stress energy Tensor is a constant equal to "G"
|||General relativity is the result of Einstein's Field Equation. The Field Equation indicates that the curvature of space Tensor is directly proportional to the stress energy Tensor.
The ratio of curvature tensor to the stress energy Tensor is a constant equal to "G"
|||Thus Einstein proved the validity of Newton's Universal constant "G".
|||In addition to isotropy and space and time invariance, as you state, special relativity assumes that the speed of light is reference frame invariant. Mach's Principle is not a assumption, but something consistent and more precise can be derived from GR.
The two main assumptions one adds to get GR are the local principle of equivalence between gravity and acceleration (what curvature does) and that space-time curves in proportion to the mass energy tensor as defined by the Einstein Field Equations (the source of curvature).
I'm not sure what the latter means in terms of a qualitative principle analogous to the other principles. It gets a bit hand wavy in that regard, from what I've read. But basically, it goes something like the EFE's being the simplest and most "elegant" tensor representation that reduces to Newtonian physics in the proper limit.|||minimum assumptions:
1) everything in the universe is constantly in motion
2) in the absence of what is not, what is isn't.
3) matter is always attracted to itself
I believe that you need the assumptions of special relativity together with Mach's equivalence principal, but I'm not really sure. Does anybody know?|||Those are not sufficient postulates to derive special relativity. Assumptions of homogeneity, isotropy, memorylessness, reciprocity, and relativity only imply the relationship between inertial frames up to a constant, but cannot determine if that constant is positive, negative or zero. Hence it is more usual to use the twin assumptions of the principle of relativity and the invariance of the spacetime interval. These two can be used to derive the tranformation laws of SR.
GR needs in addition the principle of equivlance. The Mach Principle - which is poorly defined in any event - is again not of itself sufficient. While Mach's Principle led Einstein in his thinking, the principle of equivlance is stonger and more robustly defined, and gives precise form to GR.|||Sure, gravity is equivalent to acceleration (principle of equivalence), but this does not quantify the source of gravity (the stress-energy tensor).
Report Abuse
|||General relativity is the result of Einstein's Field Equation. The Field Equation indicates that the curvature of space Tensor is directly proportional to the stress energy Tensor.
The ratio of curvature tensor to the stress energy Tensor is a constant equal to "G"
Report Abuse
|||General relativity is the result of Einstein's Field Equation. The Field Equation indicates that the curvature of space Tensor is directly proportional to the stress energy Tensor.
The ratio of curvature tensor to the stress energy Tensor is a constant equal to "G"
Report Abuse
|||Thus Einstein proved the validity of Newton's Universal constant "G".
Report Abuse
|||In addition to isotropy and space and time invariance, as you state, special relativity assumes that the speed of light is reference frame invariant. Mach's Principle is not a assumption, but something consistent and more precise can be derived from GR.
The two main assumptions one adds to get GR are the local principle of equivalence between gravity and acceleration (what curvature does) and that space-time curves in proportion to the mass energy tensor as defined by the Einstein Field Equations (the source of curvature).
I'm not sure what the latter means in terms of a qualitative principle analogous to the other principles. It gets a bit hand wavy in that regard, from what I've read. But basically, it goes something like the EFE's being the simplest and most "elegant" tensor representation that reduces to Newtonian physics in the proper limit.|||minimum assumptions:
1) everything in the universe is constantly in motion
2) in the absence of what is not, what is isn't.
3) matter is always attracted to itself
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)