| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ''See [[Theory of Relativity]]'' for a comprehensive treatment of this topic.'' | + | ''See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]''. |
| − | | + | <br>''See [[Theory of relativity]]'' for a more "general" description of relativity.'' |
| − | The '''General Theory of Relativity''' is an extension of [[Special theory of relativity|special relativity]], dealing with curved coordinate systems, accelerating frames of reference, curvilinear motion, and curvature of spacetime itself. It could be said that general relativity is to special relativity as vector calculus is to vector algebra. General relativity is best known for its formulation of gravity as a [[fictitious force]] arising from the curvature of spacetime. In fact, "general relativity" and "Einstein's formulation of gravity" are nearly synonymous in many people's minds.
| |
| | | | |
| | + | The '''General Theory of Relativity''' is an extension of [[Special theory of relativity|special relativity]], dealing with curved coordinate systems, accelerating frames of reference, curvilinear motion, and curvature of spacetime itself. It could be said that general relativity is to special relativity as vector calculus is to vector algebra. General relativity is best known for its formulation of gravity as a fictitious force arising from the curvature of spacetime. In fact, "general relativity" and "Einstein's formulation of gravity" are nearly synonymous in many people's minds. |
| | + | [[Image:Cvx432.jpg|right|thumbnail|right|200px|Bernhard Riemann created the mathematical underpinnings of differential geometry on curved (non-Euclidean) manifolds, that are the basis for General Relativity.]] |
| | The general theory of relativity was first published by Marcel Grossman in 1913 and [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] in 1916. | | The general theory of relativity was first published by Marcel Grossman in 1913 and [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] in 1916. |
| | However, "even though General Relativity has passed many tests, most physicists don’t believe it is ultimately correct because it conflicts with [[quantum mechanics]]." [http://newsdesk.org/2010/08/conservapedia-calls-theory-of-relativity-a-liberal-conspiracy/] | | However, "even though General Relativity has passed many tests, most physicists don’t believe it is ultimately correct because it conflicts with [[quantum mechanics]]." [http://newsdesk.org/2010/08/conservapedia-calls-theory-of-relativity-a-liberal-conspiracy/] |
| | | | |
| − | General relativity, like [[quantum mechanics]] (the other of the two theories comprising "modern physics") both have reputations for being notoriously complicated and difficult to understand. In fact, in the early decades of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, general relativity had a sort of cult status in this regard. General relativity and quantum mechanics are both advanced college-level and postgraduate level topics. Hence this article can't possibly give a comprehensive explation of general relativity at the expert level. But we will attempt to give a rough outline, for lay people, of the general relativistic formulation of gravity. | + | General relativity, like [[quantum mechanics]] (the other of the two theories comprising "modern physics") both have reputations for being notoriously complicated and difficult to understand. In fact, in the early decades of the 20th century, general relativity had a sort of cult status in this regard. General relativity and quantum mechanics are both advanced college-level and postgraduate level topics. Hence this article can't possibly give a comprehensive explanation of general relativity at the expert level. But we will attempt to give a rough outline, for lay people, of the general relativistic formulation of gravity. |
| | | | |
| − | In the [[weak field approximation]], where velocities of moving objects are low and gravitational fields are not very severe, the theory of general relativity is said to ''reduce to'' the law of universal gravitation. That is to say, under those circumstances the equations of general relativity are mathematically equivalent to the equations of Newtonian gravitation. | + | In the weak field approximation, where velocities of moving objects are low and gravitational fields are not very severe, the theory of general relativity is said to ''reduce to'' the law of universal gravitation. That is to say, under those circumstances the equations of general relativity are mathematically equivalent to the equations of Newtonian gravitation. |
| | | | |
| | Modern science does not say that Newtonian (classical) gravity is wrong. It is obviously very very nearly correct. In the weak field approximation, such as one finds in our solar system, the differences between general relativity and Newtonian gravity are miniscule. It takes very sensitive tests to show the difference. The history of those tests is a fascinating subject, and will be covered near the end of this article. But in all tests conducted so far, where there are discrepancies between the predictions of general relativity and Newtonian gravity (or other competing theories for that matter), experimental results have shown general relativity to be a better description. | | Modern science does not say that Newtonian (classical) gravity is wrong. It is obviously very very nearly correct. In the weak field approximation, such as one finds in our solar system, the differences between general relativity and Newtonian gravity are miniscule. It takes very sensitive tests to show the difference. The history of those tests is a fascinating subject, and will be covered near the end of this article. But in all tests conducted so far, where there are discrepancies between the predictions of general relativity and Newtonian gravity (or other competing theories for that matter), experimental results have shown general relativity to be a better description. |
| Line 20: |
Line 21: |
| | The general theory of relativity is a ''metric theory,'' sometimes also called a ''geometric theory.'' Metric theories describe physical phenomena in terms of [[differential geometry]]. This stands in contrast to Isaac Newton's [[Law of Universal Gravitation]], which described gravity in terms of a [[vector field]]. In the case of general relativity, the theory relates ''stress-energy'' — an extension of the concept of [[mass]] — and the [[curvature]] of [[spacetime]]. In the words of physicist John Wheeler, "Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve."<ref>Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. ''Gravitation.'' (1973)</ref> | | The general theory of relativity is a ''metric theory,'' sometimes also called a ''geometric theory.'' Metric theories describe physical phenomena in terms of [[differential geometry]]. This stands in contrast to Isaac Newton's [[Law of Universal Gravitation]], which described gravity in terms of a [[vector field]]. In the case of general relativity, the theory relates ''stress-energy'' — an extension of the concept of [[mass]] — and the [[curvature]] of [[spacetime]]. In the words of physicist John Wheeler, "Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve."<ref>Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. ''Gravitation.'' (1973)</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | ==Coordinate Systems and Spacetime Diagrams== | + | ==Coordinate Systems, Spacetime Diagrams, and Fictitious Forces== |
| − | | |
| − | Figure 1 shows a "spacetime diagram", with my house, my neighbor's house, and my neighbor walking from his house to mine.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :This is the same kind of diagram that is used in explanations of special relativity. The "spacetime" is sometimes called "Minkowski space". Spacetime is actually four-dimensional, but we can only show two dimensions, so we leave out y and z. The single x spatial coordinate is good enough for our purposes, so the diagram has x going from left to right, and t (time) going upward. For the purposes of this explanation, don't worry about the considerations of special relativity such as the speed of light, the Lorentz transform, or light cones. None of that is important just now.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The diagram shows the calibration, in space (that is, x) and time. These measurements are made with respect to my (stationary) frame of reference. My house is at x=0, and my neighbor's house is at x=1250 (feet). My neighbor walks at 250 feet per minute.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The diagram shows some "events"—my house, now; my house, 5 minutes from now; and my neighbor's house now and 5 minutes from now. The diagonal line depicts my neighbor walking from his house to mine, arriving 5 minutes from now. That line is called his ''world line''. The line going straight up in my house is my own world line (I'm sitting at home.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | A car is driving down the street, from left to right. Figure 2 shows the same four events and two world lines, but with different calibration—the car's own coordinate system. The car is driving 500 feet per minute, but in the opposite direction. The event of my neighbor's arrival at my house is now at x=-2500. It's way behind the car, though the car was directly in front of my house at t=0.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Because the car's frame of reference is in motion, the calibration lines in figure 2 are not perpendicular. The formerly vertical lines are now slanted. But there is something very important to notice about the two coordinate systems: They are ''flat''<ref>The words "flat" and "curved" used in this article are the same terms used by differential topology experts.</ref>. The flatness comes from the fact that the calibration lines are straight and parallel. The boxes created by the lines are parallelograms. But note that the lines don't have to be perpendicular, and the boxes don't have to be rectangles. Straight parallel lines and parallelograms are all that is required.
| |
| − | | |
| − | These two flat coordinate systems have a very important physical property: Neither I, sitting at home, nor a passenger in the car, experiences any "[[fictitious force]]s". That is, people in the car don't feel any recoil from acceleration, or centrifugal force, or Coriolis force. These frames of reference are said to be ''inertial''. This leads to an important principle of geometrical physics:
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*''Inertial frames of reference have flat coordinate systems. Flat coordinate systems lead to an absence of fictitious forces.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | Now consider figure 3. The coordinate system is once again that of the car, but the car is accelerating, starting at a standstill in front of my house at t=0. Its world line is curved. Once again, it crosses paths with my neighbor. This case is very different from the other two. The calibration lines are curved, and the boxes that they create are not parallelograms. This coordinate system is ''curved''. Another thing to notice is that people in the car will feel a fictitious force—a "recoil" force agains the back of the seat. This frame of reference is not inertial.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*''Accelerating frames of reference have curved coordinate systems. Curved coordinate systems lead to fictitious forces.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::: .... !!!! We need these three diagrams, of course. I'll do them, but they will take a lot of work. If anyone else has the tools and expertise to do this, and more skill than I, feel free to make them, or to communicate with me (PatrickD).
| |
| | | | |
| − | ... In progress ... | + | See the "Study Guide" at the bottom of the page linked in the References section<ref>[http://www.thefullwiki.org/Introduction_to_general_relativity Introduction to general relativity]</ref> for an explanation of how fictitious forces (e.g. gravity) arise from "curved" coordinate systems on "spacetime". |
| | | | |
| | ==Qualitative Introduction to General Relativity== | | ==Qualitative Introduction to General Relativity== |
| Line 76: |
Line 55: |
| | | | |
| | ===Orbits=== | | ===Orbits=== |
| − | General relativity provides one explanation for the precession of Mercury's perihelion, which was moving at a different speed than that predicted by a simple application of Newton's law of universal gravitation. (Previous scientists had attempted to explain it by the gravitational pull of a hypothetical planet inside Mercury's orbit, which they called [[Vulcan]]. This could also be explained by altering the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but that was disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.) | + | General relativity provides the best known explanation for the precession of Mercury's perihelion, which was discovered in the 1840s to be following an orbit that was slowly precessing (rotating), rather than being fixed in space as Newtonian gravitation requires. Actually, the effects of other planets on the precession has been known for a long time, but, when those effects are accounted for, there was still an "anomalous precession" of 43 arc seconds (an extremely tiny amount) per century. Previous scientists had attempted to explain it by the gravitational pull of a hypothetical planet inside Mercury's orbit, which they called [[Vulcan]]; no such planet was found. It could also have been explained, by a hypothesis put forward by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, by altering the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity. That theory was discarded, in the very early 20th century, when it was found to give wrong values for the orbit of the Moon. |
| | | | |
| | ===Gravitational Lensing=== | | ===Gravitational Lensing=== |
| | ''Main article:'' [[Gravitational lensing]] | | ''Main article:'' [[Gravitational lensing]] |
| | | | |
| − | General relativity predicts that the path of light will be distorted when it passes near a massive object. In 1919, Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, used this to test general relativity by observing the bending of starlight around the sun during a total [[solar eclipse]].<ref>Paul Johnson, British historian</ref>. (A smaller degree of bending could also be consistent with Newton's theory, if one hypothesized light to consist of particles. However, that [[particle theory of light]] had gone out of favor previously.) Eddington detected a bending of light, but his range of error overlapped both Einstein's and Newton's predictions. Upon his return to England, Eddington declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. His experiment was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions. | + | General relativity predicts that the path of light will be distorted when it passes near a massive object. In 1919, Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, used this to test general relativity by observing the bending of starlight around the sun during a total [[solar eclipse]].<ref>Paul Johnson, British historian</ref> (A smaller degree of bending could also be consistent with Newton's theory, if one hypothesized light to consist of particles. However, that [[particle theory of light]] had gone out of favor previously.) Eddington detected a bending of light, but his range of error overlapped both Einstein's and Newton's predictions. Upon his return to England, Eddington declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. His experiment was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]].<ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref>[http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing]</ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref> Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions. |
| | | | |
| | ::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref> | | ::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref> |
| Line 93: |
Line 72: |
| | {{Relativity}} | | {{Relativity}} |
| | | | |
| − | ==External Links== | + | ==External links== |
| | *Einstein, Albert (1916), [http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"] (PDF), Annalen der Physik 49 | | *Einstein, Albert (1916), [http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"] (PDF), Annalen der Physik 49 |
| | *[http://www.rareuniverse.org/general_science/general_relativity.html A simple explanation of General Relativity] | | *[http://www.rareuniverse.org/general_science/general_relativity.html A simple explanation of General Relativity] |