home | index | units | counting | geometry | algebra | trigonometry & functions | calculus
analysis | sets & logic | number theory | recreational | misc | nomenclature & history | physics

Final Answers
© 2000-2009 Gérard P. Michon, Ph.D.

General Theory
of Relativity

The general theory of relativity can be conceived only as a field theory.
It could not have
[been] developed if one  Albert Einstein 
1879-1955 had held on to the view 
that the real world consists of material points which move 
 under the influence of forces acting between them.

Albert Einstein,  in his last scientific paper (December 1954).

Gravity is a myth;  the Earth sucks !  (Anonymous)

Related articles on this site:

Related Links (Outside this Site)

The Rigid Rotating Disk in Relativity   by  Michael Weiss.
Tensors and Relativity   by  Peter Dunsby  (University of Cape Town, 1996).
General Relativity  by  David M. Harrison  (University of Toronto).
The Speed of Light by  R.F. Egerton  (University of Alberta).
Reflections on Relativity  by  Kevin S. Brown.
General Relativity Tutorial  by  John Baez.
About Black Holes...  by  Chris Hillman.
 
Wikipedia :   Einstein field equations:   |   The Tipler Machine (time travel)

Stephen Hawking's Universe   (Video)

Episode 1:  Seeing is Believing  [  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  ]
Episode 2:  The Big Bang  [  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  ]
Episode 3:  Cosmic Alchemy  [  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  ]
Episode 4:  On the Dark Side  [  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  ]
Episode 5:  Black Holes & Beyond  [  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  ]
Episode 6:  Answer to Everything  [  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  ]
Sidney Colemean, Fay Dowker, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,
Lee Smolin, Michio Kaku, Ed Witten, Neil Turok...

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Lectures by Leonard Susskind
Continuing Education at Stanford University: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

 
border
border

General Relativity

Introduction :   In classical mechanics, it's often convenient to describe motion in non-inertial frames of reference  (e.g., a rotating coordinate system).  In such a system, the laws of mechanics won't hold unless we use particular expressions for the derivative of a vector  (the acceleration and rotation vector of the frame of reference itself are involved).  Alternately, we may apply to any frame of reference the laws of mechanics in the form they assume in an inertial frame, provided  we introduce special  fictitious forces  proportional to the mass of the object  (like the centrifugal force or the Coriolis force).
 
We could always bypass either approach and analyze the problem with respect to an inertial coordinate system  (no matter how contrived a construction this inertial system may be).  We did just that in our analysis of the Coriolis effect in free fall and the Sagnac effect.
 
Albert Einstein remarked that the force exerted by gravity on a object  [which we call the  weight  of that object]  is strictly proportional to its inertial mass, just like any of the aforementioned fictitious forces.  He dubbed this observation the  equivalence principle  (i.e., inertial mass and gravitational mass are one and the same)  and drew all the consequences of putting gravitational forces and fictitious forces on the same footing.
 
The only difference between gravity and an ordinary fictitious force field is that the former cannot (usually) be reduced to a mere artifact of coordinate motion.  So, with gravity, we no longer have the luxury of going back at will to an "inertial frame" where physical laws are simpler.  Instead, we're stuck with a system of coordinates corresponding to whatever the local geometry becomes because of the presence of gravity.  The corresponding mathematical framework is the stage for the General Theory of Relativity.
 
This stage was not left empty by Einstein, who came up with a compatible description of how gravity is produced by mass  (or, rather, energy).  This ends up relating the curvature of spacetime with the distribution of energy in it.  The result is  Einstein's field equations.  The mathematics involved may be intimidating but the basic principles  (stated above)  are quite simple.  The implications are mind-boggling.


Louis Vlemincq  (2005-07-25; e-mail)   Observer on a Rotating Disc
Does the  Harress-Sagnac effect  contradict  General Relativity ?

Mann muss immer generalizierenEdward "Ned" van Vleck  (1916)
(whose son, John Hasbrouck van Vleck,  earned a Nobel prize in 1977)

In the main, the version of the Sagnac effect which involves mirrors rather than fiber optics is  nonrelativistic.  In our introduction to the Sagnac effect, we've shown that  special  relativity implies that a Sagnac apparatus made from fiber optics works exactly like a mirrored one enclosing the same surface  (regardless of the refractive index  n  of the optical cable used).

A Sagnac apparatus normally rotates much too slowly to make  general relativity  quantitatively relevant.  However, the study of the  Sagnac effect  is a  great  introduction to the concepts involved in  general relativity  (GR).

The example of the  rotating disc  is what convinced Einstein himself that Euclidean geometry was inadequate in a general coordinate system where an observer at rest would see masses  accelerate  from either of two equivalent causes:  gravitational fields  or  nonuniform motion  (with respect to a local Lorentzian "inertial" system).

 Sagnac's Rotating
 Interferometer  

We've established elsewhere the following expression for the  time lag  in the respective returns of two light beams traveling in oppositite directions around a circular loop of radius R, rotating around its axis at a rotation rate  w.

Dt     =       4p R 2 w
vinculum
c 2 - w 2 R 2

This expression is valid for an inertial [nonrotating] observer who does not move with respect to the loop's center of rotation.  The main reason for the observed nonzero  lag time  Dt  is that each beam must travel a different  distance  to reach the half-silvered mirror which moves with the loop.  A careful analysis with fiber optics reveals that  Dt  does not depend on the index of refraction  (n)  and is the same for a mirrored apparatus as well  (n = 1).

It's  enlightening  to ponder the above expression, which we may rewrite: 

Dt     =       ( 4 / c2 W . S
vinculum
1 - (r)2 / c2

Note the bold type indicating  vectorial  quantities, defined as follows:

  • r  is the 3D position, relative to an origin on the axis of rotation.
  • W  is the axial rotation vector  (cf. usual sign convention).   || W ||  = w
  • S  is the loop's  vectorial surface, an axial vector which depends not only on the conventional orientation of space but also on which direction is chosen as  positive  to travel around the loop.  In Euclidean geometry,  S  may be defined by a contour integral around the  oriented  loop  (C+).

S     =     ½   òC+   r ´ dr

For a closed loop  C+  this defining integral does not depend on the arbitrary origin chosen for the position vector  r.  Anybody encountering this for the first time is encouraged to work out  S  explicitely for a circle of radius  R,  with the following parametric equations  (0 < q < 2p).

x   =   a  +  R cos q     ;     y   =   b  +  R sin q     ;     z   =   c

Now, the denominator in the above looks like a relativistic correction  (indeed it is)  which we may discard at first

 Come back later, we're
 still working on this one...

Sagnac Time Lag  (observer tied to the loop)
Dt'     =       W . S
vinculum
c 2


(2005-07-29)   Solid in Relativistic Motion
A rigid motion is a state of equilibrium, which can change only so fast.

In classical mechanics, a  solid  is a body whose parts always remain at the same distances from each other, in what's called  rigid motion.  In such a motion there must be a  rotation vector  W  which ties the velocities of any pair  A and B  of the solid's points, via the following relation  ( W  is an axial vector whose sign depends on space "orientation").

vA  -  W ´ A     =     vB  -  W ´ B

This is only a good approximation to physical reality if any change in the velocity of a point is somehow made known  instantly  throughout the solid so that the relative distance of all pairs of its points can be maintained...

In practice, however, such information can be propagated no faster than the speed of sound in the material the solid is built from.  Loosely speaking, a change in rotation which starts at the axis of rotation will propagate at the slower  tranverse  speed, while other changes propagate at a speed intermediary between this speed (S-waves) and the speed of sound (P-waves).

In classical mechanics, the assumption is made that the damped vibrations which enforce "solid" motion are fast enough (and small enough) to be neglected.

This is true in relativistic mechanics also, but only if  changes  in speed and rotation are slow enough compared to what changes them  (namely  sound).  This usually makes a relativistic treatment virtually useless, except in the stationary cases:  a "solid" may have been put in rapid rotation quite violently, but its ultimate state is an unchanging state of equilibrium which may be worth studying.  (Even so, it's fallacious to consider a solid with parts moving faster than light !)


(2003-11-03)   Covariant Derivatives

 Come back later, we're
 still working on this one...


(2009-07-07)   Motion of a Free-Falling Particle
Proper time is extremal along the spacetime path of freefall.

One basic tenet of  General Relativity  is that gravity is part of the geometry  (curvature)  of spacetime.  The spacetime path of a particle in free fall is simply a  geodesic  of spacetime; a path along which the ellapsed proper time is extremal.

One is reminded of the principles of  least time (Fermat, 1655) or least action (Maupertuis, 1744) which helped define the variational principles of mechanics  (Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc.)  which do apply here.

As "time" is just one of the spacetime coordinates, another arbitrary parameter  l  is used to describe a spacetime path  Q(l)  of fixed extremities along which the Lagrangian integrand is simply proportional to the interval of  proper time :

[ g mn(Q)   dx m dx n ] ½

This is a straight variational problem with a Lagrangian  L(Q,V)  proportional to

[ g mn(Q)   v m v n ] ½

 Come back later, we're
 still working on this one...


(2005-08-22)   Einstein's Field Equations

Einstein's Law of the Gravitational Field
( Rmn - ½ gmn R )  +  L gmn   =     8 p G   Tmn
vinculum
c 2

The symbols in this expression have the following meanings :

  • gmn   is the tensor of the gravitational potential.
  • Rmn   is Riemann's second-rank curvature tensor  (the  Ricci tensor ).
  • R  =  gmn Rmn   is the  scalar curvature  (or  Ricci scalar ).
  • Tmn   is the stress-energy tensor (expressing the presence of energy).
  • G  is Newton's constant of gravity  (about  6.67428(67) ´ 10-11  SI  ).
  • L  is the controversial  cosmological constant, which could be zero. 
  • Rmn - ½ gmn R   =   Gmn   is the Einstein tensor.

 Come back later, we're
 still working on this one...

Newtonian gravity can be summarized as a relation between the mass density  r  and the Laplacian of the gravitational potential  f  (which is a negative quantity):

D f   =   4 p r


meglovessims (Yahoo! 2007-08-11)   What is  mass ?
Is  mass  a property of matter?

Relativistic mass can be defined in two different ways:

  • Inertial mass.  The more mass an object has, the more difficult it is to change its motion.  You multiply mass by velocity to obtain momentum. 
  • Gravitational mass.  The more mass an object has, the greater the force (called "weight") a given gravitational field exerts on it.  Technically, you multiply mass by gravity to obtain weight.

The fact that those two approaches end up defining  exactly  the same thing is the  equivalence principle,  the basic tenet of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

A distinction must be made between ordinary mass  (which you may call "rest mass" if you must)  and the above "relativistic mass", which is strictly proportional to the total energy E.  Nowadays, people rarely use the concept of relativistic mass anymore, since the proportionality with E makes it look like a waste of an otherwise badly needed symbol (m).

Neither concept is reserved to particles of matter (fermions).  Both properties can also be assigned  (at least in some cases)  to the force messengers (bosons).  This is especially true for  relativistic mass,  which is associated to anything with nonzero energy.  For example, a photon of frequency n has an energy  hn  and, therefore, a  relativistic mass  hn/c2  (where  h  is Planck's constant).  Photons have inertia and are deflected by gravity  (and  conversely  cause some gravity).  Yet, they have no proper mass; they cannot exist at rest.  Any object of zero mass can only have nonzero energy if it travels  exactly  at the speed of light (c).


(2005-08-21)   Unruh Radiation and Unruh Temperature
An accelerated observer experiences a  heat bath  of photons.

In 1976, Bill Unruh  (of the University of British Columbia)  showed that an observer submitted to an acceleration  g  (or, equivalently, a gravitational field  g)  experiences a bath of photons whose temperature is proportional to  g.

Unruh temperature  T  for an acceleration  g
kT= g h / (4p2c)         [ Any coherent units ]
T=g / 2p         [ In  natural units ]

The corresponding thermal radiation is due to the fact that, for an accelerated observer, there is an event horizon which may trap one of two paired particles in a particle-antiparticle creation.  Unruh radiation is thus similar to the better-known Hawking radiation for black holes, which is described by the same formula  (for Hawking radiation,  g  is the gravity on the black hole's  event horizon).


(2005-07-16)   Tensorial Form of Electromagnetism
The equations of electromagnetism have  simple  relativistic expressions.

Covariant Potential and the Faraday Tensor

The electromagnetic fields form a convariant antisymmetric tensor  F  which is the 4-dimensional rotational of the covariant potential  A:

Covariant Electromagnetic Potential
An   =   ( -f/c, Ax, Ay, Az )   =   ( -f/c, A )

Covariant Faraday Tensor   F  =  - Rot A
Fmn     =     An,m - Am,n     =     An;m - Am;n

bracket
F00F01F02F03
F10F11F12F13
F20F21F22F23
F30F31F32F33
bracket     =     bracket
0-Ex /c-Ey /c-Ez /c
Ex /c0Bz-By
Ey /c-Bz0Bx
Ez /cBy-Bx0
bracket
bracket   bracket bracket   bracket
bracket bracket bracket bracket

 Come back later, we're
 still working on this one...

(2007-08-09)   Harvard Tower Experiment
A delicate demonstration of the gravitational redshift.

 Come back later, we're
 still working on this one...


(2009-04-10)   Shapiro Delay   (Irwin I. Shapiro, 1964)
Gravitational time dilation causes apparent delays in radar signals.

 Come back later, we're
 still working on this one...

Wikipedia :   Shapiro Delay

border
border
visits since August 14, 2007
 (c) Copyright 2000-2009, Gerard P. Michon, Ph.D.