Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By MeteorWayne

Thread: Derivation of General Relativity

  1. #1 Derivation of General Relativity 
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Method 1 : From Newton's Gravity

    Start with Newtonian gravity field, the validity of which is locally verified for weak fields :



    which is, expressed in terms of the energy-momentum tensor



    Now attempt a first ansatz to formulate this in a Lorentz-invariant manner :



    which further leads to a covariant formulation of the form



    Our task will now be to determine the unknown tensor G. We impose the following conditions on that tensor :

    1. G is a Riemann tensor
    2. G is composed of the first and second derivatives of the metric tensor
    3. The energy-momentum tensor obeys the usual symmetry and conservation laws and ; these properties then by default must also apply to our tensor G
    4. The theory must reduce to Newton's gravity for weak fields

    Using the above four points, the Bianchi identities, as well as the general ansatz



    plus a little tensor algebra, one find that the easiest tensor which satisfies all of the above conditions is



    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Method 2 : Via the Principle of Least Action

    Start with the Hilbert action in the presence of matter fields



    Now apply the principle of least action



    which implies



    We also know that



    Putting this all together, and calculating the variations, one gets



    Last edited by Markus Hanke; September 21st, 2012 at 12:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Method 3 : From String Theory

    Start with the first quantized action of String Theory on a curved space-time background :



    The trace of energy-momentum tensor for this becomes



    wherein the beta functions represents deviation from scale invariance. Using background field methods, one can explicitly calculate the beta function for the space-time metric :



    Now perform a rescaling by



    and we get



    which are the Einstein equations. In other words, String theory in a curved space-time automatically yields General Relativity.
    KALSTER and Ascended like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    EDIT: Sorry, MW. You're right; changed and saved.

    But I do have a question for Markus. So basically GR can be mathematically derived in multiple ways from different models?
    Last edited by epidecus; September 22nd, 2012 at 09:06 AM.
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Please let's keep this thread serious. It's a good reference and I'd like to pin it. I may move fluffy posts to clean it up.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 When negative mass and positive mass coexisted, can you make filed equation? 
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Dear Markus Hanke!
    I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

    When negative energy(mass) and positive energy(mass) coexisted, can you make field equation?

    ----
    Delete conditions
    ----

    --- Icarus2
    Last edited by icarus2; September 22nd, 2012 at 02:06 PM. Reason: just question. I'm sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Not this crap again !
    Why must you highjack my thread with your unadulterated nonsense ? If you have a point to make then open your own thread !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Not this crap again !
    Why must you highjack my thread with your unadulterated nonsense ? If you have a point to make then open your own thread !
    I'm very sorry!, No highjack!, it is just question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    I'm very sorry!, No highjack!, it is just question.
    Ok, apology accepted. Just open a new thread for your topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    EDIT: Sorry, MW. You're right; changed and saved.

    But I do have a question for Markus. So basically GR can be mathematically derived in multiple ways from different models?
    Yes, absolutely. I have compiled three ways that I know of here on this thread. I find it fascinating that even completely unrelated models like String Theory automatically yield GR when closely examined - that is the main point of this thread.
    Even method 1 is interesting in itself, because it shows that GR is a direct mathematical consequence if you try to formulate Newton's gravity in a covariant manner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    EDIT: Sorry, MW. You're right; changed and saved.

    But I do have a question for Markus. So basically GR can be mathematically derived in multiple ways from different models?
    Yes, absolutely. I have compiled three ways that I know of here on this thread. I find it fascinating that even completely unrelated models like String Theory automatically yield GR when closely examined - that is the main point of this thread.
    Even method 1 is interesting in itself, because it shows that GR is a direct mathematical consequence if you try to formulate Newton's gravity in a covariant manner.
    Really interesting. That last fact must be considered a heavy add to GR's credibility, is it not?
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Tomorrow, I will remove posts not strictly related to the topic.
    ModeratorMW
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by epidecus View Post
    Really interesting. That last fact must be considered a heavy add to GR's credibility, is it not?
    Yeah, one could interpret it that way
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    That's pretty good. I see you know your math. I lift my hat to you on that.

    Keeping serious and on the topic of general relativity, I am very familiar with it. I'd like to do a little test of seeing how you people see the derivation of general relativity from the actual observable behavior of the natural universe.

    Are there people here who believe in "objects of different mass falling/accelerating at the same rate" relative to an stationary observer sitting on Earth and observing the fall? The old school way of testing gravity

    Here's a thought experiment, let's say that two gravitational fall occurrences are observed:
    1. an unmanned drone airplane (mass 2000 kg) is observed to free fall to the ground from the altitude of 8.0 kilometers
    2. a UFO (the same mass as the moon) uses "anti-gravity tech" to hover at the altitude of 8.0 kilometers and the tech malfunctions and the craft free falls to Earth

    The question now is that do you believe that in relativistic terms an observer on Earth will observe these two objects fall at the same rate of acceleration? Assume proportional net effect of air resistance to be equal for both.
    Last edited by grandi; September 23rd, 2012 at 04:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    The question now is that do you believe that in relativistic terms an observer on Earth will observe these two objects fall at the same rate of acceleration?
    Could you provide a quick comment on how this is connected to the topic of this thread, i.e. how to derive GR ?
    Perhaps it might be better to put this into a new thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    The question now is that do you believe that in relativistic terms an observer on Earth will observe these two objects fall at the same rate of acceleration?
    Could you provide a quick comment on how this is connected to the topic of this thread, i.e. how to derive GR ?
    Perhaps it might be better to put this into a new thread.
    There are two distinct modes of derivation of scientific models:
    1. how they are derived from other models (this alone is not complete natural science, but only hypothetical maneuvering)
    2. how they are derived from observations of the natural universe (this is real hard core natural science)

    Do you not want to include the real observable world into your discussions?
    Understanding is not by choice - no man can choose to understand.

    karrrrrri grandi - kaikkien janoisten sankari
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post

    There are two distinct modes of derivation of scientific models:
    1. how they are derived from other models (this alone is not complete natural science, but only hypothetical maneuvering)
    2. how they are derived from observations of the natural universe (this is real hard core natural science)

    Do you not want to include the real observable world into your discussions?
    I still don't get this, since no one has ever actually observed an object with a mass comparable to that of the moon free fall towards earth ( or else we wouldn't be here now to have this discussion ). The immediate problem here is that the moon has a mass of approximately 1/81 of that of the earth, so the gravitational interaction between the two cannot easily be ignored. What I mean by that is that the object with the mass of the moon falls towards earth, but at the same time earth also falls towards that heavy object, making this whole scenario a little difficult.

    Anyway, to answer the question we shall assume that the earth is stationary - in that case both the drone and the UFO fall towards earth at the exact same rate of acceleration ( all other things being equal of course ). The underlying reason for that, in terms of general relativity is that free-falling objects in gravitational fields follow geodesics through space-time, and the length of this geodesic is



    As you can see this length depends on the geometry of the gravitational field, but not on the mass of the test particle. The geodesic has the same length no matter how massive the test particle, all other things being equal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post

    There are two distinct modes of derivation of scientific models:
    1. how they are derived from other models (this alone is not complete natural science, but only hypothetical maneuvering)
    2. how they are derived from observations of the natural universe (this is real hard core natural science)

    Do you not want to include the real observable world into your discussions?
    I still don't get this, since no one has ever actually observed an object with a mass comparable to that of the moon free fall towards earth ( or else we wouldn't be here now to have this discussion ). The immediate problem here is that the moon has a mass of approximately 1/81 of that of the earth, so the gravitational interaction between the two cannot easily be ignored. What I mean by that is that the object with the mass of the moon falls towards earth, but at the same time earth also falls towards that heavy object, making this whole scenario a little difficult.

    Anyway, to answer the question we shall assume that the earth is stationary - in that case both the drone and the UFO fall towards earth at the exact same rate of acceleration ( all other things being equal of course ). The underlying reason for that, in terms of general relativity is that free-falling objects in gravitational fields follow geodesics through space-time, and the length of this geodesic is



    As you can see this length depends on the geometry of the gravitational field, but not on the mass of the test particle. The geodesic has the same length no matter how massive the test particle, all other things being equal.
    We haven't observed that, it is true. However, we can discuss what GR predicts we should observe.

    Why would we assume that the Earth is stationary when we know that it isn't? That is inadequate for modeling the observational reality in relativistic terms. The actual relativistic answer to the question is trivial. Do you see the answer?
    Understanding is not by choice - no man can choose to understand.

    karrrrrri grandi - kaikkien janoisten sankari
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Why would we assume that the Earth is stationary when we know that it isn't?
    I meant stationary with respect to the falling UFO. If we do away with this, we are faced with a relativistic Kepler problem, which is not at all trivial.

    The actual relativistic answer to the question is trivial. Do you see the answer?
    So long as we ensure that all things are equal apart from the mass of the falling objects then the answer is indeed trivial, and given by



    which is invariant for all observers. Both objects will fall at the same rate of acceleration as measured by an observer on the surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I would assume that in each case, both the UFO and drone would fall at the same rate relative to their starting points, while the earth will accelerate away faster from it's starting position towards the UFO than to the drone. That would be the Newtonian answer, which would be closely mirrored by the relativistic answer I presume?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I would assume that in each case, both the UFO and drone would fall at the same rate relative to their starting points, while the earth will move away faster from it's starting position towards the UFO than to the drone. That would be the Newtonian answer, which would be closely mirrored by the relativistic answer I presume?
    The original question was as to the rate of acceleration from the perspective of an observer on the earth's surface. The assumption that the earth remains stationary and does not move towards the UFO is necessary to obtain a closed solution under General Relativity. If we abandon this assumption we are suddenly faced with the full relativistic two-body problem, which is highly non-trivial and has only approximate numerical solutions :

    Two-body problem in general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Interesting, but it should still closely mirror the Newtonian answer, no? At least in this scenario?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Interesting, but it should still closely mirror the Newtonian answer, no? At least in this scenario?
    Probably in this scenario it would be very close to the Newtonian answer, since we are talking weak fields here. For strong fields, e.g. two neutron stars orbiting each other, you would likely get very different results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I would assume that in each case, both the UFO and drone would fall at the same rate relative to their starting points, while the earth will accelerate away faster from it's starting position towards the UFO than to the drone. That would be the Newtonian answer, which would be closely mirrored by the relativistic answer I presume?
    Yes. This is the correct answer derived from the Newtonian view point. What this shows us is that while from the initial spatial positions the two objects (the drone and the massive UFO) will be accelerating at the same rate towards Earth, Earth will also be accelerating towards these objects and faster in the gravitational field of the UFO. Demonstrating that mathematically the models dictate that the myth of observers seeing objects fall at the same rate on Earth is false. We just can not measure the difference of acceleration rates between small objects, it is so minuscule.

    The relativistic notion is that the observer will *observe* the drone accelerate at approximately 9-10 m/s² (it is varying, compensated with the distance). The UFO will be *observed* to accelerate relative to the observer at approx. 11-12 m/s² (also increasing as the distance shortens).

    This is how the mathematics of the gravity model dictates the observations.
    Understanding is not by choice - no man can choose to understand.

    karrrrrri grandi - kaikkien janoisten sankari
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post

    Yes. This is the correct answer derived from the Newtonian view point. What this shows us is that while from the initial spatial positions the two objects (the drone and the massive UFO) will be accelerating at the same rate towards Earth, Earth will also be accelerating towards these objects and faster in the gravitational field of the UFO. Demonstrating that mathematically the models dictate that the myth of observers seeing objects fall at the same rate on Earth is false. We just can not measure the difference of acceleration rates between small objects, it is so minuscule.
    The relativistic notion is that the observer will *observe* the drone accelerate at approximately 9-10 m/s² (it is varying, compensated with the distance). The UFO will be *observed* to accelerate relative to the observer at approx. 11-12 m/s² (also increasing as the distance shortens).
    This is how the mathematics of the gravity model dictates the observations.
    So then I must repeat my question - what does this have to do with the topic of this thread, i.e. how to derive General Relativity ? I still don't get that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post

    Yes. This is the correct answer derived from the Newtonian view point. What this shows us is that while from the initial spatial positions the two objects (the drone and the massive UFO) will be accelerating at the same rate towards Earth, Earth will also be accelerating towards these objects and faster in the gravitational field of the UFO. Demonstrating that mathematically the models dictate that the myth of observers seeing objects fall at the same rate on Earth is false. We just can not measure the difference of acceleration rates between small objects, it is so minuscule.
    The relativistic notion is that the observer will *observe* the drone accelerate at approximately 9-10 m/s² (it is varying, compensated with the distance). The UFO will be *observed* to accelerate relative to the observer at approx. 11-12 m/s² (also increasing as the distance shortens).
    This is how the mathematics of the gravity model dictates the observations.
    So then I must repeat my question - what does this have to do with the topic of this thread, i.e. how to derive General Relativity ? I still don't get that.
    In terms of natural science this relates the derivation of the relativistic model from actual observations. I gave identical mass to the moon for the UFO because we can observe these accelerations from the Earth-moon system. The barycenter of that system is slightly below Earth's surface.
    Understanding is not by choice - no man can choose to understand.

    karrrrrri grandi - kaikkien janoisten sankari
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    In terms of natural science this relates the derivation of the relativistic model from actual observations.
    And how, exactly, would you do that ? The mere fact that two bodies attract each other is already well known from Newtonian mechanics - I do not see the connection to GR. So far as I can tell the difference between GR and Newton in this particular scenario would be so small as to be unobservable. So how do you get GR from this, mathematically ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    In terms of natural science this relates the derivation of the relativistic model from actual observations.
    And how, exactly, would you do that ? The mere fact that two bodies attract each other is already well known from Newtonian mechanics - I do not see the connection to GR. So far as I can tell the difference between GR and Newton in this particular scenario would be so small as to be unobservable. So how do you get GR from this, mathematically ?
    You are correct in that the difference between the two models (GR and Newton) in this scenario is unobservable and the distinction of between the two models can not be mathematically derived from the observational data of this scenario. But that was not the point, the point was simply to make the notion of how GR as a whole can also be understood to fit the observational data.
    Understanding is not by choice - no man can choose to understand.

    karrrrrri grandi - kaikkien janoisten sankari
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    how GR as a whole can also be understood to fit the observational data.
    All tests of GR have shown a very close fit between theory and observation.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    But that was not the point, the point was simply to make the notion of how GR as a whole can also be understood to fit the observational data.
    Well, yes. All theories must fit observational data, or else they are obviously useless. GR owes its success to the fact that it fits observational data to a very high degree - refer also here :

    Modern Tests of Relativity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    We have the precession of Mercury for that, a perfect example of observed facts validating GR, as well as the wealth of other experimental verifications given as a sticky in this section.

    By the way, the myth of falling bodies is only a myth among those who do not understand the physics involved.

    I will separate all of this out a bit later.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    By the way, the myth of falling bodies is only a myth among those who do not understand the physics involved.
    That's true, but it is actually a really good approximation so long as the mass of one of the bodies is very much smaller than the mass of the other, like in the drone and the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,411
    So basically if I've undershood this correctly GR would be either the end (classical limit) or the beginning, or at least Maxwell's equations would, for trying to understand quantum electrodynamics.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    So basically if I've undershood this correctly GR would be either the end (classical limit) or the beginning, or at least Maxwell's equations would, for trying to understand quantum electrodynamics.
    I think GR is a low-energy approximation for a more comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, whatever this will turn out to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Method 1 : From Newton's Gravity

    Start with Newtonian gravity field, the validity of which is locally verified for weak fields :



    which is, expressed in terms of the energy-momentum tensor



    Now attempt a first ansatz to formulate this in a Lorentz-invariant manner :



    which further leads to a covariant formulation of the form



    Our task will now be to determine the unknown tensor G. We impose the following conditions on that tensor :

    1. G is a Riemann tensor
    2. G is composed of the first and second derivatives of the metric tensor
    3. The energy-momentum tensor obeys the usual symmetry and conservation laws and ; these properties then by default must also apply to our tensor G
    4. The theory must reduce to Newton's gravity for weak fields

    Using the above four points, the Bianchi identities, as well as the general ansatz



    plus a little tensor algebra, one find that the easiest tensor which satisfies all of the above conditions is

    Not correct. See Hynecek, Physics Essays 22, 4, (2009).
    I would upload this file if I knew how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Method 1 : From Newton's Gravity

    Start with Newtonian gravity field, the validity of which is locally verified for weak fields :



    which is, expressed in terms of the energy-momentum tensor



    Now attempt a first ansatz to formulate this in a Lorentz-invariant manner :



    which further leads to a covariant formulation of the form



    Our task will now be to determine the unknown tensor G. We impose the following conditions on that tensor :

    1. G is a Riemann tensor
    2. G is composed of the first and second derivatives of the metric tensor
    3. The energy-momentum tensor obeys the usual symmetry and conservation laws and ; these properties then by default must also apply to our tensor G
    4. The theory must reduce to Newton's gravity for weak fields

    Using the above four points, the Bianchi identities, as well as the general ansatz



    plus a little tensor algebra, one find that the easiest tensor which satisfies all of the above conditions is

    I would upload the file, but it is a bit too large.
    Physics Essays,22,4,2009
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanford View Post
    Not correct. See Hynecek, Physics Essays 22, 4, (2009).
    I would upload this file if I knew how.
    Perhaps you should explain, rather than simply say "not correct". Do you understand the contents of the paper and the theory it argues against?

    Anyway, I'm not sure why you don't know how to go to the website of said journal and find the article:

    http://physicsessays.org/doi/pdf/10.4006/1.3239584

    Incidentally, I see that Stephen J Crothers is also a prolific contributor to that journal. I can't see many respected contributors there, and above paper has citations from nobody except the author.

    Just adding to the fluff.

    EDIT: Oh, the article is behind a pay-wall. Well in that case we cannot read it, and nor should you upload it.

    You'll have to explain it then. I would recommend you start your own thread to do that, rather than post it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I believe Mr Crothers is als an editor of the "journal" I've gone a few rounds with him before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanford View Post
    Not correct. See Hynecek, Physics Essays 22, 4, (2009).
    I would upload this file if I knew how.
    Perhaps you should explain, rather than simply say "not correct". Do you understand the contents of the paper and the theory it argues against?

    Anyway, I'm not sure why you don't know how to go to the website of said journal and find the article:

    An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

    Incidentally, I see that Stephen J Crothers is also a prolific contributor to that journal. I can't see many respected contributors there, and above paper has citations from nobody except the author.

    Just adding to the fluff.

    EDIT: Oh, the article is behind a pay-wall. Well in that case we cannot read it, and nor should you upload it.

    You'll have to explain it then. I would recommend you start your own thread to do that, rather than post it here.
    Can't explain it. Too complicated. Write the author.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanford
    Write the author.
    Or not.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanford View Post
    I would upload the file, but it is a bit too large.
    Physics Essays,22,4,2009
    It is very much correct, unless you can show us exactly where the error lies. Are you a troll of some kind, or what is your agenda ? This is the standard derivation for the GR field equations.
    The exact same derivation can be found in the following university textbook on General Relativity, which is my primary source :

    Fliessbach, Prof Torsten: Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, Mannheim : Wien : Zürich : BI-Wiss.-Verl. 1990, ISBN 3-411-14331-2

    Torsten Fliessbach is a professor of theoretical physics at the university of Siegen in Germany, and has published several well known textbooks in the areas of quantum mechanics, QFT and General Relativity. You will find all his credentials and publications here :

    Homepage von Torsten Fließbach

    Can't explain it. Too complicated. Write the author.
    In other words - you really don't know what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanford View Post
    Can't explain it. Too complicated. Write the author.
    Is this the most feeble excuse since Fermat?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. General Relativity
    By JamesTuffnell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 8th, 2012, 03:48 PM
  2. General Relativity
    By Faldo_Elrith in forum Physics
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: July 29th, 2008, 01:43 PM
  3. General Relativity
    By Vroomfondel in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 10:33 AM
  4. Help with general relativity?
    By Trogdor in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 14th, 2007, 02:52 AM
  5. general relativity
    By veli in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 9th, 2006, 01:13 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •