DOCSLIB.ORG

Einstein for Everyone Lecture 6: Introduction to General Relativity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Einstein for Everyone Lecture 6: Introduction to General Relativity Dr. Erik Curiel Munich Center For Mathematical Philosophy Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry 1 Introduction to General Relativity 2 Newtonian Gravity Kepler's Laws Inertia and Acceleration Gravity Conservatives vs. Einstein 3 Equivalence Principle Extending Relativity 4 Using the Equivalence Principle Gravitational Time Dilation Light Bending: Trajectory and Speed of Light 5 Rejection of Absolute Space 6 Euclidean Geometry Deductive Structure Fifth Postulate 7 non-Euclidean Geometry Introduction Spherical Geometry Hyperbolic Geometry Summary 8 Riemannian Geometry Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Curvature Geodesic Deviation Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Why a New Theory of Gravity? Newtonian Gravity Einstein's Special Relativity Incredibly empirically Newtonian ) Minkowski successful spacetime Force of gravity: Space and time observer - depends on spatial dependent, replaced by distance at a single invariant space-time instant of time interval - instantaneous interaction ) absolute simultaneity Challenge New theory of gravity compatible with special relativity? Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Responses to the Challenge Einstein's Contemporaries (Poincar´e,Minkowski, Max Abraham, Gustav Mie. ) - Reformulate gravity in Minkowski spacetime - Preserve special relativity, change theory of gravity Einstein's Approach - Relativity as an incomplete revolution - Change both \special relativity" and theory of gravity - Conceptual problems within Newtonian gravity - ) reformulate notion of relativistic spacetime - ) need to generalize notion of \geometry" Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Responses to the Challenge Einstein's Contemporaries (Poincar´e,Minkowski, Max Abraham, Gustav Mie. ) - Reformulate gravity in Minkowski spacetime - Preserve special relativity, change theory of gravity Einstein's Approach - Relativity as an incomplete revolution - Change both \special relativity" and theory of gravity - Conceptual problems within Newtonian gravity - ) reformulate notion of relativistic spacetime - ) need to generalize notion of \geometry" Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Why Geometry? Einstein's \rough and winding road" (1907-1915) 1905 Special relativity 1907 \Happiest thought of my life" (principle of equivalence) Equivalence between gravity and acceleration Need to extend relativity to accelerated frames 1909 Ehrenfest's Rotating Disk Acceleration ) Non-Euclidean Geometry 1912-13 Hole Argument 1915 General theory of relativity Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry 1 Introduction to General Relativity 2 Newtonian Gravity Kepler's Laws Inertia and Acceleration Gravity Conservatives vs. Einstein 3 Equivalence Principle Extending Relativity 4 Using the Equivalence Principle Gravitational Time Dilation Light Bending: Trajectory and Speed of Light 5 Rejection of Absolute Space 6 Euclidean Geometry Deductive Structure Fifth Postulate 7 non-Euclidean Geometry Introduction Spherical Geometry Hyperbolic Geometry Summary 8 Riemannian Geometry Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Curvature Geodesic Deviation Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Kepler's Laws Copernican Revolution Ptolemaic Hypothesis Copernican Hypothesis Images from Hevelius, Selenographica (1647) (courtesy of Trinity College, Cambridge) Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Kepler's Laws Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler's Innovations Orbit of Mars: Ellipse Motion of planets caused by sun, analogy with magnetism Kepler's \Laws" 1 Planets move along an ellipse with the sun at one focus. 2 They sweep out equal areas in equal times. 3 The radius of the orbit a is related Kepler's New Astronomy to the period P as P 2 / a3 (1609) Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Inertia and Acceleration Types of Motion Inertial Motion Motion in a straight line with uniform velocity (that is, covering equal distances in equal times). Accelerated Motion Change in velocity (speed up or slow down) or direction (e.g., rotation) Based on Newtonian space and time: Spatial Geometry: straight line; distances measured by measuring rods Time: time elapsed, measured by a clock Location over time: distance traveled over time Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Inertia and Acceleration Newton's First Law Law I Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed upon it. Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Inertia and Acceleration Newton's Second Law Law II A change in motion is proportional to the motive force impressed and takes place in the direction of the straight line along which that force is impressed. Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Inertia and Acceleration Force and Inertial Mass Modern formulation of second law: F = mia Force F Measured by departure Inertial Mass mi from inertial motion Intrinsic property of a Treated abstractly, body quantitatively Measures how much force Examples: impact, is required to accelerate a attraction (magnetism, body gravitation), dissipation Not equivalent to weight (friction), tension (oscillating string), . Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Gravity Newtonian Gravity Attractive force between interacting bodies M; m: Mgmg F = G r2 Dependence on Distance 1 - F / r2 1 - Move bodies twice as far apart, force decreases by 4 Dependence on Masses - Force depends on gravitational masses of both interacting bodies Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Gravity Newton's Argument for Universal Gravitation 1 1 Kepler's Laws ! Force F / r2 - Kepler's laws hold for planets and satellites 2 \Moon Test": this force is gravity! - Compare force on moon to force on falling bodies near Earth's surface 3 Dependence on Mass - Pendulum Experiments 4 Conclusion: universal, mutual attractive force Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Gravity Galileo on Freely Falling Bodies Bodies fall in the same way regardless of composition Two separate concepts of mass 1 Inertial mass: F = mia 2 Gravitational mass: Mg mg F = G r2 If mi = mg, then Galileo's result is true! Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Gravity Objections to Newton's Theory (ca. 1907) 1 Problems due to Special Relativity - Space and time no longer invariant - Instantaneous interaction 2 \Epistemological Defect" in Newton's theory - Why are inertial and gravitational mass equal? - Absolute space 3 Empirical Problems - Motion of Mercury - (Lunar motion, motion of Venus) Introduction to General Relativity Newtonian Gravity Equivalence Principle Using the Equivalence Principle Rejection of Absolute Space Euclidean Geometry non-Euclidean Geometry Riemannian Geometry Conservatives vs. Einstein Relativity Meets Gravity Problems due to Special Relativity Spatial distance between two bodies observer-dependent Time at which force acts observer-dependent Conservative Response Reformulate gravity in terms of space-time distance Minkowski, Poincar´e,Abraham, Mie, N¨ordstr¨om:several possibilities, fairly straightforward
Recommended publications
  • The Special Theory of Relativity

    The Special Theory of Relativity

    THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY Lecture Notes prepared by J D Cresser Department of Physics Macquarie University July 31, 2003 CONTENTS 1 Contents 1 Introduction: What is Relativity? 2 2 Frames of Reference 5 2.1 A Framework of Rulers and Clocks . 5 2.2 Inertial Frames of Reference and Newton’s First Law of Motion . 7 3 The Galilean Transformation 7 4 Newtonian Force and Momentum 9 4.1 Newton’s Second Law of Motion . 9 4.2 Newton’s Third Law of Motion . 10 5 Newtonian Relativity 10 6 Maxwell’s Equations and the Ether 11 7 Einstein’s Postulates 13 8 Clock Synchronization in an Inertial Frame 14 9 Lorentz Transformation 16 9.1 Length Contraction . 20 9.2 Time Dilation . 22 9.3 Simultaneity . 24 9.4 Transformation of Velocities (Addition of Velocities) . 24 10 Relativistic Dynamics 27 10.1 Relativistic Momentum . 28 10.2 Relativistic Force, Work, Kinetic Energy . 29 10.3 Total Relativistic Energy . 30 10.4 Equivalence of Mass and Energy . 33 10.5 Zero Rest Mass Particles . 34 11 Geometry of Spacetime 35 11.1 Geometrical Properties of 3 Dimensional Space . 35 11.2 Space Time Four Vectors . 38 11.3 Spacetime Diagrams . 40 11.4 Properties of Spacetime Intervals . 41 1 INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS RELATIVITY? 2 1 Introduction: What is Relativity? Until the end of the 19th century it was believed that Newton’s three Laws of Motion and the associated ideas about the properties of space and time provided a basis on which the motion of matter could be completely understood.
  • Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk

    Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk

    Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk O.E. Rössler Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, 72076 F.R.G. Abstract A recent mathematical re-interpretation of the Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein equations implies global constancy of the speed of light c in fulfilment of a 1912 proposal of Max Abraham. As a consequence, the horizon lies at the end of an infinitely long funnel in spacetime. Hence black holes lack evaporation and charge. Both features affect the behavior of miniblack holes as are expected to be produced soon at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. The implied nonlinearity enables the “quasar-scaling conjecture.“ The latter implies that an earthbound minihole turns into a planet-eating attractor much earlier than previously calculated – not after millions of years of linear growth but after months of nonlinear growth. A way to turn the almost disaster into a planetary bonus is suggested. (September 27, 2007) “Mont blanc and black holes: a winter fairy-tale.“ What is being referred to is the greatest and most expensive and potentially most important experiment of history: to create miniblack holes [1]. The hoped-for miniholes are only 10–32 cm large – as small compared to an atom (10–8 cm) as the latter is to the whole solar system (1016 cm) – and are expected to “evaporate“ within less than a picosecond while leaving behind a much hoped-for “signature“ of secondary particles [1]. The first (and then one per second and a million per year) miniblack hole is expected to be produced in 2008 at the Large Hadron Collider of CERN near Geneva on the lake not far from the white mountain.
  • Hypercomplex Algebras and Their Application to the Mathematical

    Hypercomplex Algebras and Their Application to the Mathematical

    Hypercomplex Algebras and their application to the mathematical formulation of Quantum Theory Torsten Hertig I1, Philip H¨ohmann II2, Ralf Otte I3 I tecData AG Bahnhofsstrasse 114, CH-9240 Uzwil, Schweiz 1 [email protected] 3 [email protected] II info-key GmbH & Co. KG Heinz-Fangman-Straße 2, DE-42287 Wuppertal, Deutschland 2 [email protected] March 31, 2014 Abstract Quantum theory (QT) which is one of the basic theories of physics, namely in terms of ERWIN SCHRODINGER¨ ’s 1926 wave functions in general requires the field C of the complex numbers to be formulated. However, even the complex-valued description soon turned out to be insufficient. Incorporating EINSTEIN’s theory of Special Relativity (SR) (SCHRODINGER¨ , OSKAR KLEIN, WALTER GORDON, 1926, PAUL DIRAC 1928) leads to an equation which requires some coefficients which can neither be real nor complex but rather must be hypercomplex. It is conventional to write down the DIRAC equation using pairwise anti-commuting matrices. However, a unitary ring of square matrices is a hypercomplex algebra by definition, namely an associative one. However, it is the algebraic properties of the elements and their relations to one another, rather than their precise form as matrices which is important. This encourages us to replace the matrix formulation by a more symbolic one of the single elements as linear combinations of some basis elements. In the case of the DIRAC equation, these elements are called biquaternions, also known as quaternions over the complex numbers. As an algebra over R, the biquaternions are eight-dimensional; as subalgebras, this algebra contains the division ring H of the quaternions at one hand and the algebra C ⊗ C of the bicomplex numbers at the other, the latter being commutative in contrast to H.
  • (Special) Relativity

    (Special) Relativity

    (Special) Relativity With very strong emphasis on electrodynamics and accelerators Better: How can we deal with moving charged particles ? Werner Herr, CERN Reading Material [1 ]R.P. Feynman, Feynman lectures on Physics, Vol. 1 + 2, (Basic Books, 2011). [2 ]A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K¨orper, Ann. Phys. 17, (1905). [3 ]L. Landau, E. Lifschitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Vol2. (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1975) [4 ]J. Freund, Special Relativity, (World Scientific, 2008). [5 ]J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, 1998 ..) [6 ]J. Hafele and R. Keating, Science 177, (1972) 166. Why Special Relativity ? We have to deal with moving charges in accelerators Electromagnetism and fundamental laws of classical mechanics show inconsistencies Ad hoc introduction of Lorentz force Applied to moving bodies Maxwell’s equations lead to asymmetries [2] not shown in observations of electromagnetic phenomena Classical EM-theory not consistent with Quantum theory Important for beam dynamics and machine design: Longitudinal dynamics (e.g. transition, ...) Collective effects (e.g. space charge, beam-beam, ...) Dynamics and luminosity in colliders Particle lifetime and decay (e.g. µ, π, Z0, Higgs, ...) Synchrotron radiation and light sources ... We need a formalism to get all that ! OUTLINE Principle of Relativity (Newton, Galilei) - Motivation, Ideas and Terminology - Formalism, Examples Principle of Special Relativity (Einstein) - Postulates, Formalism and Consequences - Four-vectors and applications (Electromagnetism and accelerators) § ¤ some slides are for your private study and pleasure and I shall go fast there ¦ ¥ Enjoy yourself .. Setting the scene (terminology) .. To describe an observation and physics laws we use: - Space coordinates: ~x = (x, y, z) (not necessarily Cartesian) - Time: t What is a ”Frame”: - Where we observe physical phenomena and properties as function of their position ~x and time t.
  • Principle of Relativity in Physics and in Epistemology Guang-Jiong

    Principle of Relativity in Physics and in Epistemology Guang-Jiong

    Principle of Relativity in Physics and in Epistemology Guang-jiong Ni Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433,China Department of Physics , Portland State University, Portland,OR97207,USA (Email: [email protected]) Abstract: The conceptual evolution of principle of relativity in the theory of special relativity is discussed in detail . It is intimately related to a series of difficulties in quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory as well as to new predictions about antigravity and tachyonic neutrinos etc. I. Introduction: Two Postulates of Einstein As is well known, the theory of special relativity(SR) was established by Einstein in 1905 on two postulates (see,e.g.,[1]): Postulate 1: All inertial frames are equivalent with respect to all the laws of physics. Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same value c. The postulate 1 , usually called as the “principle of relativity” , was accepted by all physicists in 1905 without suspicion whereas the postulate 2 aroused a great surprise among many physicists at that time. The surprise was inevitable and even necessary since SR is a totally new theory out broken from the classical physics. Both postulates are relativistic in essence and intimately related. This is because a law of physics is expressed by certain equation. When we compare its form from one inertial frame to another, a coordinate transformation is needed to check if its form remains invariant. And this Lorentz transformation must be established by the postulate 2 before postulate 1 can have quantitative meaning. Hence, as a metaphor, to propose postulate 1 was just like “ to paint a dragon on the wall” and Einstein brought it to life “by putting in the pupils of its eyes”(before the dragon could fly out of the wall) via the postulate 2[2].
  • Reconsidering Time Dilation of Special Theory of Relativity

    Reconsidering Time Dilation of Special Theory of Relativity

    International Journal of Advanced Research in Physical Science (IJARPS) Volume 5, Issue 8, 2018, PP 7-11 ISSN No. (Online) 2349-7882 www.arcjournals.org Reconsidering Time Dilation of Special Theory of Relativity Salman Mahmud Student of BIAM Model School and College, Bogra, Bangladesh *Corresponding Author: Salman Mahmud, Student of BIAM Model School and College, Bogra, Bangladesh Abstract : In classical Newtonian physics, the concept of time is absolute. With his theory of relativity, Einstein proved that time is not absolute, through time dilation. According to the special theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other. As a result a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. Through some thought experiments, Einstein proved the time dilation. Here in this article I will use my thought experiments to demonstrate that time dilation is incorrect and it was a great mistake of Einstein. 1. INTRODUCTION A central tenet of special relativity is the idea that the experience of time is a local phenomenon. Each object at a point in space can have it’s own version of time which may run faster or slower than at other objects elsewhere. Relative changes in the experience of time are said to happen when one object moves toward or away from other object. This is called time dilation. But this is wrong. Einstein’s relativity was based on two postulates: 1.
  • Einstein, Nordström and the Early Demise of Scalar, Lorentz Covariant Theories of Gravitation

    Einstein, Nordström and the Early Demise of Scalar, Lorentz Covariant Theories of Gravitation

    JOHN D. NORTON EINSTEIN, NORDSTRÖM AND THE EARLY DEMISE OF SCALAR, LORENTZ COVARIANT THEORIES OF GRAVITATION 1. INTRODUCTION The advent of the special theory of relativity in 1905 brought many problems for the physics community. One, it seemed, would not be a great source of trouble. It was the problem of reconciling Newtonian gravitation theory with the new theory of space and time. Indeed it seemed that Newtonian theory could be rendered compatible with special relativity by any number of small modifications, each of which would be unlikely to lead to any significant deviations from the empirically testable conse- quences of Newtonian theory.1 Einstein’s response to this problem is now legend. He decided almost immediately to abandon the search for a Lorentz covariant gravitation theory, for he had failed to construct such a theory that was compatible with the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Positing what he later called the principle of equivalence, he decided that gravitation theory held the key to repairing what he perceived as the defect of the special theory of relativity—its relativity principle failed to apply to accelerated motion. He advanced a novel gravitation theory in which the gravitational potential was the now variable speed of light and in which special relativity held only as a limiting case. It is almost impossible for modern readers to view this story with their vision unclouded by the knowledge that Einstein’s fantastic 1907 speculations would lead to his greatest scientific success, the general theory of relativity. Yet, as we shall see, in 1 In the historical period under consideration, there was no single label for a gravitation theory compat- ible with special relativity.
  • Albert Einstein's Key Breakthrough — Relativity

    Albert Einstein's Key Breakthrough — Relativity

    { EINSTEIN’S CENTURY } Albert Einstein’s key breakthrough — relativity — came when he looked at a few ordinary things from a different perspective. /// BY RICHARD PANEK Relativity turns 1001 How’d he do it? This question has shadowed Albert Einstein for a century. Sometimes it’s rhetorical — an expression of amazement that one mind could so thoroughly and fundamentally reimagine the universe. And sometimes the question is literal — an inquiry into how Einstein arrived at his special and general theories of relativity. Einstein often echoed the first, awestruck form of the question when he referred to the mind’s workings in general. “What, precisely, is ‘thinking’?” he asked in his “Autobiographical Notes,” an essay from 1946. In somebody else’s autobiographical notes, even another scientist’s, this question might have been unusual. For Einstein, though, this type of question was typical. In numerous lectures and essays after he became famous as the father of relativity, Einstein began often with a meditation on how anyone could arrive at any subject, let alone an insight into the workings of the universe. An answer to the literal question has often been equally obscure. Since Einstein emerged as a public figure, a mythology has enshrouded him: the lone- ly genius sitting in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland, thinking his little thought experiments until one day, suddenly, he has a “Eureka!” moment. “Eureka!” moments young Einstein had, but they didn’t come from nowhere. He understood what scientific questions he was trying to answer, where they fit within philosophical traditions, and who else was asking them.
  • Equivalence Principle (WEP) of General Relativity Using a New Quantum Gravity Theory Proposed by the Authors Called Electro-Magnetic Quantum Gravity Or EMQG (Ref

    Equivalence Principle (WEP) of General Relativity Using a New Quantum Gravity Theory Proposed by the Authors Called Electro-Magnetic Quantum Gravity Or EMQG (Ref

    WHAT ARE THE HIDDEN QUANTUM PROCESSES IN EINSTEIN’S WEAK PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE? Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk 48 O’HARA PLACE, Brampton, Ontario, L6Y 3R8 [email protected] Monday April 12, 2000 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank R. Mongrain (P.Eng) for our lengthy conversations on the nature of space, time, light, matter, and CA theory. ABSTRACT We provide a quantum derivation of Einstein’s Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) of general relativity using a new quantum gravity theory proposed by the authors called Electro-Magnetic Quantum Gravity or EMQG (ref. 1). EMQG is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 2 and 4), and is also based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia, QI). QI states that classical Newtonian Inertia is a property of matter due to the strictly local electrical force interactions contributed by each of the (electrically charged) elementary particles of the mass with the surrounding (electrically charged) virtual particles (virtual masseons) of the quantum vacuum. The sum of all the tiny electrical forces (photon exchanges with the vacuum particles) originating in each charged elementary particle of the accelerated mass is the source of the total inertial force of a mass which opposes accelerated motion in Newton’s law ‘F = MA’. The well known paradoxes that arise from considerations of accelerated motion (Mach’s principle) are resolved, and Newton’s laws of motion are now understood at the deeper quantum level. We found that gravity also involves the same ‘inertial’ electromagnetic force component that exists in inertial mass.
  • Max Abraham's and Tullio Levi-Civita's Approach to Einstein

    Max Abraham's and Tullio Levi-Civita's Approach to Einstein

    Alma Mater Studiorum Universita` di · Bologna DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN Matematica Ciclo XXV Settore concorsuale di afferenza: 01/A4 Settore Scientifico disciplinare: MAT/07 Max Abraham’s and Tullio Levi-Civita’s approach to Einstein Theory of Relativity Presentata da: Michele Mattia Valentini Coordinatore Dottorato: Relatore: Chiar.ma Prof.ssa Chiar.mo Prof. Giovanna Citti Sandro Graffi Esame finale anno 2014 Introduction This thesis deals with the theory of relativity and its diffusion in Italy in the first decades of the XX century. Albert Einstein’s theory of Special and General relativity is deeply linked with Italy and Italian scientists. Not many scientists really involved themselves in that theory understanding, but two of them, Max Abraham and Tullio Levi-Civita left a deep mark in the theory development. Max Abraham engaged a real battle against Ein- stein between 1912 and 1914 about electromagnetic theories and gravitation theories, while Levi-Civita played a fundamental role in giving Einstein the correct mathematical instruments for the general relativity formulation since 1915. Many studies have already been done to explain their role in the develop- ment of Einstein theory from both a historical and a scientific point of view. This work, which doesn’t have the aim of a mere historical chronicle of the events, wants to highlight two particular perspectives. 1. Abraham’s objections against Einstein focused on three important con- ceptual kernels of theory of relativity: the constancy of light speed, the relativity principle and the equivalence hypothesis. Einstein was forced by Abraham to explain scientific and epistemological reasons of the formulation of his theory.
  • Ether and Electrons in Relativity Theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter

    Ether and Electrons in Relativity Theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter

    Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter To cite this version: Scott Walter. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911). Jaume Navarro. Ether and Moder- nity: The Recalcitrance of an Epistemic Object in the Early Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, 2018, 9780198797258. hal-01879022 HAL Id: hal-01879022 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01879022 Submitted on 21 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900–1911) Scott A. Walter∗ To appear in J. Navarro, ed, Ether and Modernity, 67–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018 Abstract This chapter discusses the roles of ether and electrons in relativity the- ory. One of the most radical moves made by Albert Einstein was to dismiss the ether from electrodynamics. His fellow physicists felt challenged by Einstein’s view, and they came up with a variety of responses, ranging from enthusiastic approval, to dismissive rejection. Among the naysayers were the electron theorists, who were unanimous in their affirmation of the ether, even if they agreed with other aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity. The eventual success of the latter theory (circa 1911) owed much to Hermann Minkowski’s idea of four-dimensional spacetime, which was portrayed as a conceptual substitute of sorts for the ether.
  • PPN Formalism

    PPN Formalism

    PPN formalism Hajime SOTANI 01/07/2009 21/06/2013 (minor changes) University of T¨ubingen PPN formalism Hajime Sotani Introduction Up to now, there exists no experiment purporting inconsistency of Einstein's theory. General relativity is definitely a beautiful theory of gravitation. However, we may have alternative approaches to explain all gravitational phenomena. We have also faced on some fundamental unknowns in the Universe, such as dark energy and dark matter, which might be solved by new theory of gravitation. The candidates as an alternative gravitational theory should satisfy at least three criteria for viability; (1) self-consistency, (2) completeness, and (3) agreement with past experiments. University of T¨ubingen 1 PPN formalism Hajime Sotani Metric Theory In only one significant way do metric theories of gravity differ from each other: ! their laws for the generation of the metric. - In GR, the metric is generated directly by the stress-energy of matter and of nongravitational fields. - In Dicke-Brans-Jordan theory, matter and nongravitational fields generate a scalar field '; then ' acts together with the matter and other fields to generate the metric, while \long-range field” ' CANNOT act back directly on matter. (1) Despite the possible existence of long-range gravitational fields in addition to the metric in various metric theories of gravity, the postulates of those theories demand that matter and non-gravitational fields be completely oblivious to them. (2) The only gravitational field that enters the equations of motion is the metric. Thus the metric and equations of motion for matter become the primary entities for calculating observable effects.