DOCSLIB.ORG

Information Exchange on Newtonian Gravity and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Information Exchange on Newtonian 1: Newton develops his gravity and Einstein's Theory of General theory Relativity Newton wasn't hit on the head It is 1918, Einstein published his General by an apple, but he may have Theory of Relativity just a couple years ago, watched one fall from an and has yet to test it in a regime that will set apple tree near his window. When he saw it apart from Newtonian Gravity. the apple fall, the light bulb that went off in his head was not that gravity existed – he We want to exchange information on these and his contemporaries already knew that. two theories, especially in regards to how Instead, Newton realized that gravity might they account for the orbits of the planets in extend so far above the Earth that it could be our Solar System. To that end, we will the force holding the moon in its orbit. attempt to answer the following questions for each of the theories: Newton published his law of universal gravitation on July 1687 in the Principia. With 1. How was the theory developed? the Principia, Newton became internationally 2. Give a description of the theory. recognized. 3. How does it explain the motions of the planets? 4. How does it solve the problem of Mercury's orbit? 5. What prediction does it make for the bending of light and the upcoming eclipse in 1919? 2: How Newton's gravity 3: Newton's gravity predicts works the planet, Neptune Newton showed that if the Since ancient times, people force of gravity decreased as have known about the planets the inverse square of the Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, distance, that he could calculate the Moon's Jupiter and Saturn. In 1781, William orbital period. He postulated that this same Herschel, a comet hunter, discovered Uranus force was responsible for other orbital in 1781. In 1821, Alexis Bourvard published motions, and so it was called "universal detailed tables of Uranus' orbit. However, gravitation". observations showed deviations from these tables, leading Bouvard to hypothesize a Newton's equation describing the perturbing body gravitational attraction of two objects of mass m1 and m2 separated by a distance, d, Independently, John Couch Adams (1845) is given by: and Urbain Le Verrier (1846) calculated an m m orbit for an 8th planet that would account for FG= 1 2 Uranus' motions. G d 2 The night in 1846 that Johann Gottfried Galle where FG is the force of gravity and G is the gravitational constant. began observations to search for this new planet he found it! The planet was within 1° Newton's laws of motion have stood up to of where Le Verrier had predicted (and 10° of intense scrutiny and testing for over 200 where Adams predicted). Observations over years. the next few nights confirmed that this new object was a planet, which was later named Neptune. 4b: How Newton's gravity 4a: Mercury's orbit explains Mercury's orbit All planets orbit the Sun in an Newton's theory of universal oval, as described by Kepler's gravitation has had wonderful Laws, so there is a point in that success in explaining the orbit that is closest to the Sun, motions of the planets in our called the perihelion. Solar System, even leading to the discovery of Neptune. However, given the known We observe that as Mercury orbits the Sun, planets in our Solar System, Newton's theory the perihelion advances by a small amount. does not fully explain the precession of Newton's theory does not fully explain this Mercury's orbit. precession of Mercury's perihelion. There is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy Some astronomers theorize that another between the Newtonian prediction (resulting planet, inside the orbit of Mercury, could from the gravitational tugs of the other account for the odd behavior of Mercury. planets) and the observed precession. This position is bolstered by the success in finding Neptune using the perturbations of Uranus' orbit to calculate an orbit of the undiscovered planet. The proposed planet between the Sun and Mercury has been named Vulcan, but has yet to be observed. 5a: Newtonian gravity bends 5b: Newtonian gravity's light eclipse predictions Newton's theory of gravitation On May 29, 1919, there will be a predicts that light will bend total eclipse of the Sun. This when traveling near a massive eclipse is ideal for measuring the object – the larger the mass of the object, bending of starlight by the Sun. the larger the effect of bending. Totality will last for over five minutes – one of the longest eclipses in recent history. Also, the Sun will be directly in front of the Hyades, a In 1801, Johann von Soldner performed 25 bright cluster of stars in the constellation pages of calculations to find that for Taurus. Newtonian gravity the deflection angle of light passing near an object is: Newtonian gravity predicts that the angle of a ≈ 2m/r deflection will be 0.87 arcseconds for the stars where m = GM/c2, M is the mass of the sun near the Sun during this eclipse. r is the closest approach distance of the photon to the sun. This solution is an approximation, since the full solution is an infinite sum of algebraic terms. The equation above gives the first (and largest) term of that series, which is a good approximation. The other terms of the series give small corrections to this solution, but those corrections would be too small to measure at the current time. 1a: Einstein develops his 1b: Einstein on how his theory gravity differs from Newton's From his library in his Berlin From an interview printed in apartment, Einstein saw a the New York Times, Dec 3, man fall from a nearby 1919, page 19: rooftop, fortunately onto a pile of soft [Quoting Einstein] rubbish. When the man described the event "Please imagine the earth removed, and in to Einstein, he said that he did not feel the its place suspended a box as big as a room sensation of gravity as he fell, which he or a whole house, and inside a man would have expected to pull him violently naturally floating in the centre, there being downward. no force whatever pulling him. Imagine, further, that this box begin, by a rope or While Einstein was extending his special other contrivance, suddenly jerked to one theory of relativity, which applies to systems side, which is scientifically termed 'difform undergoing uniform motion, to systems with motion,' as opposed to 'uniform motion.' non-uniform motion (what he calls difform This person would then naturally reach motion), he remembered the falling man, and bottom on the opposite side. The result realized that gravitation might be described would consequently be the same as if he as a "difform motion" (non-uniform motion) obeyed Newton's law of gravitation, while, in fact, there is no gravitation exerted He published his general theory of relativity whatever, which proves that difform motion in 1915. will in every case produce the same effects as gravitation." The concept Einstein describes above is known as the Equivalence Principle. 2: How Einstein's gravity 3: Einstein gravity explains works the planetary motions Einstein's theory proposes The Sun is the largest object in that space and time are one our Solar System, so, according entity – spacetime. Any to Einstein's General Theory of object with mass will curve spacetime, with Relativity, the Sun will "warp" spacetime in the mass of the object determining the the Solar System by the largest amount. The amount of curvature produced. Free-falling planets simply follow the shortest path objects follow "geodesics", or the shortest through spacetime around the Sun, thus path through the curved spacetime. We explaining their orbits. observe objects attracted to massive objects as they follow these paths. We call this gravity. Einstein's gravity becomes evident only in extreme conditions, such as near very massive objects, which cannot be replicated in today's laboratories. Because of this, the theory has yet to be put to any rigorous testing. 4b: How Einstein's gravity 4a: Mercury's orbit explains Mercury's orbit All planets orbit the Sun in an Albert Einstein’s General oval, as described by Kepler's Theory of Relativity provides a Laws, so there is a point in that full explanation for the orbit that is closest to the Sun, called the observed precession of Mercury's perihelion perihelion. without the need for an extra planet We observe that as Mercury orbits the Sun, As Mercury moves toward its perihelion (i.e. the perihelion advances by a small amount. closer to the Sun), it moves deeper into the Newton's theory does not fully explain this Sun's gravity well. Its motion into this region precession of Mercury's perihelion. There is a of greater curvature of space-time causes 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy the perihelion to advance. Einstein's Theory between the Newtonian prediction (resulting of General Relativity predicts exactly the from the gravitational tugs of the other amount of perihelion advance seen in planets) and the observed precession. Mercury. Einstein views this result as the most critical test of his theory to date. 5a: Einstein gravity bends 5b: Einstein gravity's eclipse light predictions Einstein's theory of gravitation On May 29, 1919, there will be a predicts that light will bend total eclipse of the Sun. This when traveling near a massive object – the eclipse is ideal for measuring the larger the mass of the object, the larger the bending of starlight by the Sun.
Recommended publications
  • On the Status of the Geodesic Principle in Newtonian and Relativistic Physics1

    On the Status of the Geodesic Principle in Newtonian and Relativistic Physics1

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilSci Archive On the Status of the Geodesic Principle in Newtonian and Relativistic Physics1 James Owen Weatherall2 Logic and Philosophy of Science University of California, Irvine Abstract A theorem due to Bob Geroch and Pong Soo Jang [\Motion of a Body in General Relativ- ity." Journal of Mathematical Physics 16(1), (1975)] provides a sense in which the geodesic principle has the status of a theorem in General Relativity (GR). I have recently shown that a similar theorem holds in the context of geometrized Newtonian gravitation (Newton- Cartan theory) [Weatherall, J. O. \The Motion of a Body in Newtonian Theories." Journal of Mathematical Physics 52(3), (2011)]. Here I compare the interpretations of these two the- orems. I argue that despite some apparent differences between the theorems, the status of the geodesic principle in geometrized Newtonian gravitation is, mutatis mutandis, strikingly similar to the relativistic case. 1 Introduction The geodesic principle is the central principle of General Relativity (GR) that describes the inertial motion of test particles. It states that free massive test point particles traverse timelike geodesics. There is a long-standing view, originally due to Einstein, that the geodesic principle has a special status in GR that arises because it can be understood as a theorem, rather than a postulate, of the theory. (It turns out that capturing the geodesic principle as a theorem in GR is non-trivial, but a result due to Bob Geroch and Pong Soo Jang (1975) 1Thank you to David Malament and Jeff Barrett for helpful comments on a previous version of this paper and for many stimulating conversations on this topic.
  • A Mathematical Derivation of the General Relativistic Schwarzschild

    A Mathematical Derivation of the General Relativistic Schwarzschild

    A Mathematical Derivation of the General Relativistic Schwarzschild Metric An Honors thesis presented to the faculty of the Departments of Physics and Mathematics East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors Scholar and Honors-in-Discipline Programs for a Bachelor of Science in Physics and Mathematics by David Simpson April 2007 Robert Gardner, Ph.D. Mark Giroux, Ph.D. Keywords: differential geometry, general relativity, Schwarzschild metric, black holes ABSTRACT The Mathematical Derivation of the General Relativistic Schwarzschild Metric by David Simpson We briefly discuss some underlying principles of special and general relativity with the focus on a more geometric interpretation. We outline Einstein’s Equations which describes the geometry of spacetime due to the influence of mass, and from there derive the Schwarzschild metric. The metric relies on the curvature of spacetime to provide a means of measuring invariant spacetime intervals around an isolated, static, and spherically symmetric mass M, which could represent a star or a black hole. In the derivation, we suggest a concise mathematical line of reasoning to evaluate the large number of cumbersome equations involved which was not found elsewhere in our survey of the literature. 2 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................. 2 1 Introduction to Relativity ...................... 4 1.1 Minkowski Space ....................... 6 1.2 What is a black hole? ..................... 11 1.3 Geodesics and Christoffel Symbols ............. 14 2 Einstein’s Field Equations and Requirements for a Solution .17 2.1 Einstein’s Field Equations .................. 20 3 Derivation of the Schwarzschild Metric .............. 21 3.1 Evaluation of the Christoffel Symbols .......... 25 3.2 Ricci Tensor Components .................
  • Kaluza-Klein Gravity, Concentrating on the General Rel- Ativity, Rather Than Particle Physics Side of the Subject

    Kaluza-Klein Gravity, Concentrating on the General Rel- Ativity, Rather Than Particle Physics Side of the Subject

    Kaluza-Klein Gravity J. M. Overduin Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3055, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8W 3P6 and P. S. Wesson Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 and Gravity Probe-B, Hansen Physics Laboratories, Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A. 94305 Abstract We review higher-dimensional unified theories from the general relativity, rather than the particle physics side. Three distinct approaches to the subject are identi- fied and contrasted: compactified, projective and noncompactified. We discuss the cosmological and astrophysical implications of extra dimensions, and conclude that none of the three approaches can be ruled out on observational grounds at the present time. arXiv:gr-qc/9805018v1 7 May 1998 Preprint submitted to Elsevier Preprint 3 February 2008 1 Introduction Kaluza’s [1] achievement was to show that five-dimensional general relativity contains both Einstein’s four-dimensional theory of gravity and Maxwell’s the- ory of electromagnetism. He however imposed a somewhat artificial restriction (the cylinder condition) on the coordinates, essentially barring the fifth one a priori from making a direct appearance in the laws of physics. Klein’s [2] con- tribution was to make this restriction less artificial by suggesting a plausible physical basis for it in compactification of the fifth dimension. This idea was enthusiastically received by unified-field theorists, and when the time came to include the strong and weak forces by extending Kaluza’s mechanism to higher dimensions, it was assumed that these too would be compact. This line of thinking has led through eleven-dimensional supergravity theories in the 1980s to the current favorite contenders for a possible “theory of everything,” ten-dimensional superstrings.
  • Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory Adam Daniels Old Dominion University, Adani005@Odu.Edu

    Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory Adam Daniels Old Dominion University, [email protected]

    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Faculty-Sponsored Student Research Electrical & Computer Engineering 2017 Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory Adam Daniels Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/engineering_students Part of the Elementary Particles and Fields and String Theory Commons, Engineering Physics Commons, and the Quantum Physics Commons Repository Citation Daniels, Adam, "Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory" (2017). Faculty-Sponsored Student Research. 1. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/engineering_students/1 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Electrical & Computer Engineering at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty-Sponsored Student Research by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Unification of Gravity and Quantum Theory Adam D. Daniels [email protected] Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Old Dominion University Norfolk, Virginia, United States Abstract- An overview of the four fundamental forces of objects falling on earth. Newton’s insight was that the force that physics as described by the Standard Model (SM) and prevalent governs matter here on Earth was the same force governing the unifying theories beyond it is provided. Background knowledge matter in space. Another critical step forward in unification was of the particles governing the fundamental forces is provided, accomplished in the 1860s when James C. Maxwell wrote down as it will be useful in understanding the way in which the his famous Maxwell’s Equations, showing that electricity and unification efforts of particle physics has evolved, either from magnetism were just two facets of a more fundamental the SM, or apart from it.
  • Post-Newtonian Approximation

    Post-Newtonian Approximation

    Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame Relativistic binary systems Effective one-body formalism Post-Newtonian Approximation Piotr Jaranowski Faculty of Physcis, University of Bia lystok,Poland 01.07.2013 P. Jaranowski School of Gravitational Waves, 01{05.07.2013, Warsaw Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame Relativistic binary systems Effective one-body formalism 1 Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy 2 Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame 3 Relativistic binary systems Leading-order waveforms (Newtonian binary dynamics) Leading-order waveforms without radiation-reaction effects Leading-order waveforms with radiation-reaction effects Post-Newtonian corrections Post-Newtonian spin-dependent effects 4 Effective one-body formalism EOB-improved 3PN-accurate Hamiltonian Usage of Pad´eapproximants EOB flexibility parameters P. Jaranowski School of Gravitational Waves, 01{05.07.2013, Warsaw Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame Relativistic binary systems Effective one-body formalism 1 Post-Newtonian gravity and gravitational-wave astronomy 2 Polarization waveforms in the SSB reference frame 3 Relativistic binary systems Leading-order waveforms (Newtonian binary dynamics) Leading-order waveforms without radiation-reaction effects Leading-order waveforms with radiation-reaction effects Post-Newtonian corrections Post-Newtonian spin-dependent effects 4 Effective one-body formalism EOB-improved 3PN-accurate Hamiltonian Usage of Pad´eapproximants EOB flexibility parameters P. Jaranowski School of Gravitational Waves, 01{05.07.2013, Warsaw Relativistic binary systems exist in nature, they comprise compact objects: neutron stars or black holes. These systems emit gravitational waves, which experimenters try to detect within the LIGO/VIRGO/GEO600 projects.
  • “Geodesic Principle” in General Relativity∗

    “Geodesic Principle” in General Relativity∗

    A Remark About the “Geodesic Principle” in General Relativity∗ Version 3.0 David B. Malament Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science 3151 Social Science Plaza University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-5100 [email protected] 1 Introduction General relativity incorporates a number of basic principles that correlate space- time structure with physical objects and processes. Among them is the Geodesic Principle: Free massive point particles traverse timelike geodesics. One can think of it as a relativistic version of Newton’s first law of motion. It is often claimed that the geodesic principle can be recovered as a theorem in general relativity. Indeed, it is claimed that it is a consequence of Einstein’s ∗I am grateful to Robert Geroch for giving me the basic idea for the counterexample (proposition 3.2) that is the principal point of interest in this note. Thanks also to Harvey Brown, Erik Curiel, John Earman, David Garfinkle, John Manchak, Wayne Myrvold, John Norton, and Jim Weatherall for comments on an earlier draft. 1 ab equation (or of the conservation principle ∇aT = 0 that is, itself, a conse- quence of that equation). These claims are certainly correct, but it may be worth drawing attention to one small qualification. Though the geodesic prin- ciple can be recovered as theorem in general relativity, it is not a consequence of Einstein’s equation (or the conservation principle) alone. Other assumptions are needed to drive the theorems in question. One needs to put more in if one is to get the geodesic principle out. My goal in this short note is to make this claim precise (i.e., that other assumptions are needed).
  • Introduction to General Relativity

    Introduction to General Relativity

    INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL RELATIVITY Gerard 't Hooft Institute for Theoretical Physics Utrecht University and Spinoza Institute Postbox 80.195 3508 TD Utrecht, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ Version November 2010 1 Prologue General relativity is a beautiful scheme for describing the gravitational ¯eld and the equations it obeys. Nowadays this theory is often used as a prototype for other, more intricate constructions to describe forces between elementary particles or other branches of fundamental physics. This is why in an introduction to general relativity it is of importance to separate as clearly as possible the various ingredients that together give shape to this paradigm. After explaining the physical motivations we ¯rst introduce curved coordinates, then add to this the notion of an a±ne connection ¯eld and only as a later step add to that the metric ¯eld. One then sees clearly how space and time get more and more structure, until ¯nally all we have to do is deduce Einstein's ¯eld equations. These notes materialized when I was asked to present some lectures on General Rela- tivity. Small changes were made over the years. I decided to make them freely available on the web, via my home page. Some readers expressed their irritation over the fact that after 12 pages I switch notation: the i in the time components of vectors disappears, and the metric becomes the ¡ + + + metric. Why this \inconsistency" in the notation? There were two reasons for this. The transition is made where we proceed from special relativity to general relativity.
  • General Relativity Fall 2019 Lecture 11: the Riemann Tensor

    General Relativity Fall 2019 Lecture 11: the Riemann Tensor

    General Relativity Fall 2019 Lecture 11: The Riemann tensor Yacine Ali-Ha¨ımoud October 8th 2019 The Riemann tensor quantifies the curvature of spacetime, as we will see in this lecture and the next. RIEMANN TENSOR: BASIC PROPERTIES α γ Definition { Given any vector field V , r[αrβ]V is a tensor field. Let us compute its components in some coordinate system: σ σ λ σ σ λ r[µrν]V = @[µ(rν]V ) − Γ[µν]rλV + Γλ[µrν]V σ σ λ σ λ λ ρ = @[µ(@ν]V + Γν]λV ) + Γλ[µ @ν]V + Γν]ρV 1 = @ Γσ + Γσ Γρ V λ ≡ Rσ V λ; (1) [µ ν]λ ρ[µ ν]λ 2 λµν where all partial derivatives of V µ cancel out after antisymmetrization. σ Since the left-hand side is a tensor field and V is a vector field, we conclude that R λµν is a tensor field as well { this is the tensor division theorem, which I encourage you to think about on your own. You can also check that explicitly from the transformation law of Christoffel symbols. This is the Riemann tensor, which measures the non-commutation of second derivatives of vector fields { remember that second derivatives of scalar fields do commute, by assumption. It is completely determined by the metric, and is linear in its second derivatives. Expression in LICS { In a LICS the Christoffel symbols vanish but not their derivatives. Let us compute the latter: 1 1 @ Γσ = @ gσδ (@ g + @ g − @ g ) = ησδ (@ @ g + @ @ g − @ @ g ) ; (2) µ νλ 2 µ ν λδ λ νδ δ νλ 2 µ ν λδ µ λ νδ µ δ νλ since the first derivatives of the metric components (thus of its inverse as well) vanish in a LICS.
  • JOHN EARMAN* and CLARK GL YMUURT the GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT AS a TEST of GENERAL RELATIVITY: HISTORY and ANALYSIS

    JOHN EARMAN* and CLARK GL YMUURT the GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT AS a TEST of GENERAL RELATIVITY: HISTORY and ANALYSIS

    JOHN EARMAN* and CLARK GL YMUURT THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT AS A TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: HISTORY AND ANALYSIS CHARLES St. John, who was in 1921 the most widely respected student of the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectra, began his contribution to a symposium in Nncure on Einstein’s theories of relativity with the following statement: The agreement of the observed advance of Mercury’s perihelion and of the eclipse results of the British expeditions of 1919 with the deductions from the Einstein law of gravitation gives an increased importance to the observations on the displacements of the absorption lines in the solar spectrum relative to terrestrial sources, as the evidence on this deduction from the Einstein theory is at present contradictory. Particular interest, moreover, attaches to such observations, inasmuch as the mathematical physicists are not in agreement as to the validity of this deduction, and solar observations must eventually furnish the criterion.’ St. John’s statement touches on some of the reasons why the history of the red shift provides such a fascinating case study for those interested in the scientific reception of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. In contrast to the other two ‘classical tests’, the weight of the early observations was not in favor of Einstein’s red shift formula, and the reaction of the scientific community to the threat of disconfirmation reveals much more about the contemporary scientific views of Einstein’s theory. The last sentence of St. John’s statement points to another factor that both complicates and heightens the interest of the situation: in contrast to Einstein’s deductions of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion and of the bending of light, considerable doubt existed as to whether or not the general theory did entail a red shift for the solar spectrum.
  • The Spin, the Nutation and the Precession of the Earth's Axis Revisited

    The Spin, the Nutation and the Precession of the Earth's Axis Revisited

    The spin, the nutation and the precession of the Earth’s axis revisited The spin, the nutation and the precession of the Earth’s axis revisited: A (numerical) mechanics perspective W. H. M¨uller [email protected] Abstract Mechanical models describing the motion of the Earth’s axis, i.e., its spin, nutation and its precession, have been presented for more than 400 years. Newton himself treated the problem of the precession of the Earth, a.k.a. the precession of the equinoxes, in Liber III, Propositio XXXIX of his Principia [1]. He decomposes the duration of the full precession into a part due to the Sun and another part due to the Moon, to predict a total duration of 26,918 years. This agrees fairly well with the experimentally observed value. However, Newton does not really provide a concise rational derivation of his result. This task was left to Chandrasekhar in Chapter 26 of his annotations to Newton’s book [2] starting from Euler’s equations for the gyroscope and calculating the torques due to the Sun and to the Moon on a tilted spheroidal Earth. These differential equations can be solved approximately in an analytic fashion, yielding Newton’s result. However, they can also be treated numerically by using a Runge-Kutta approach allowing for a study of their general non-linear behavior. This paper will show how and explore the intricacies of the numerical solution. When solving the Euler equations for the aforementioned case numerically it shows that besides the precessional movement of the Earth’s axis there is also a nu- tation present.
  • Tensor-Spinor Theory of Gravitation in General Even Space-Time Dimensions

    Tensor-Spinor Theory of Gravitation in General Even Space-Time Dimensions

    Physics Letters B 817 (2021) 136288 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Physics Letters B www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb Tensor-spinor theory of gravitation in general even space-time dimensions ∗ Hitoshi Nishino a, ,1, Subhash Rajpoot b a Department of Physics, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, California State University, 2345 E. San Ramon Avenue, M/S ST90, Fresno, CA 93740, United States of America b Department of Physics & Astronomy, California State University, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840, United States of America a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: We present a purely tensor-spinor theory of gravity in arbitrary even D = 2n space-time dimensions. Received 18 March 2021 This is a generalization of the purely vector-spinor theory of gravitation by Bars and MacDowell (BM) in Accepted 9 April 2021 4D to general even dimensions with the signature (2n − 1, 1). In the original BM-theory in D = (3, 1), Available online 21 April 2021 the conventional Einstein equation emerges from a theory based on the vector-spinor field ψμ from a Editor: N. Lambert m lagrangian free of both the fundamental metric gμν and the vierbein eμ . We first improve the original Keywords: BM-formulation by introducing a compensator χ, so that the resulting theory has manifest invariance = =− = Bars-MacDowell theory under the nilpotent local fermionic symmetry: δψ Dμ and δ χ . We next generalize it to D Vector-spinor (2n − 1, 1), following the same principle based on a lagrangian free of fundamental metric or vielbein Tensors-spinors rs − now with the field content (ψμ1···μn−1 , ωμ , χμ1···μn−2 ), where ψμ1···μn−1 (or χμ1···μn−2 ) is a (n 1) (or Metric-less formulation (n − 2)) rank tensor-spinor.
  • Thomas Precession Is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space Preston Guynn

    Thomas Precession Is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space Preston Guynn

    Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space Preston Guynn To cite this version: Preston Guynn. Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space. 2018. hal- 02628032 HAL Id: hal-02628032 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02628032 Submitted on 26 May 2020 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. Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space Einstein's theory of special relativity was incomplete as originally formulated since it did not include the rotational effect described twenty years later by Thomas, now referred to as Thomas precession. Though Thomas precession has been accepted for decades, its relationship to particle structure is a recent discovery, first described in an article titled "Electromagnetic effects and structure of particles due to special relativity". Thomas precession acts as a velocity dependent counter-rotation, so that at a rotation velocity of 3 / 2 c , precession is equal to rotation, resulting in an inertial frame of reference. During the last year and a half significant progress was made in determining further details of the role of Thomas precession in particle structure, fundamental constants, and the galactic rotation velocity.