Here is the first part of General Relativity. However......Do NOT be put off! Please read further!
Not a lot of people know this, but Einstein only published 3 papers. One on the explanation of Brownian motion (movement of atoms in a gas), another on the explanation of the photoelectric effect (what happens when a light is shone onto a metal), the latter of which was established from the then new quantum theory, and his triumph, “On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.
The third became known as “Special Relativity”, published in 1905. (hereafter, referred to as “SR”). It dealt with objects travelling very fast, but not being accelerated.
What has this to do with the gobbledegook you see here?He wanted to encompass it into a theory of relativity that took into account acceleration as well, and his idea led to THAT gobbledegook up there, of which this is only the first few lines.
It took a long time ( I think it is obvious why!), but in 1916 he came up with General Relativity (hereafter referred to as “GR”). In it, he incorporated acceleration, but at a cost. He had to introduce a fourth dimension, along with the other three we know and love (the straight lines of – “here-there”, “up-down”, “right-left”). The other dimension we also knew and loved was simply “time”. He called his new ‘creation’ , “Spacetime”, and it meant not one of the four could exist without the other three.
He even borrowed a branch of abstract math from some guy named Riemann that had hitherto no foreseen practical applications. Einstein needed equations in 4, not 3, dimensions. Ok, we math people who already know linear algebra, are aware that math can be carried out in any number of dimensions (some call it Matrix Algebra), but Einstein was the first to make use of it beyond three dimensions, and what is more, he was able to show that it could be proved practically, a fact not physically proved until 1919 with Eddington.
It is called ‘Tensor theory’. The “theory” bit, describing the mathematical, not the physical aspects. Einstein made tensor algebra real.
So how did this make physics better?
One BIG thing it altered, was the physical perception of ‘gravity’. It was now longer a 'force' (take note , Luke), but a physical , geometric effect.
Essentially what had happened was this: this guy Riemann, much earlier, had ‘culled’ a branch of math from nowhere called ‘Riemannian Geometry’, which dealt with the scenario that space need not be ‘flat’, as we know it , Jim.
Einstein simply applied it to the geometry of his Spacetime, PLUS, there was one complication…..mass. In the words of John Wheeler….”Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move”. There was a lot of math, and I MEAN a lot, and the example, given is just a taster.
Before you ask, yes, I do understand the components individually, that is, the spatial functions which descibe space itelf, the second order partial differentals which descibe it's curvature, and the trigonometric functions, which are an inevitable consquence of curves. This is calculus with a vengeance!
Anyway, the difference between SR and GR is that owing to the Principle of relativity (all physics laws remain the same no matter where or who or when you are), SR explains extreme velocities (speeds), GR explains extreme accelerations (changes in speeds). It is interesting to note that because of the Principle of relativity, accelerations are treated the same way as the state of being in a gravitational field.
The Principle of relativity is explained in a recent post.
BUT what most people do not realise , is that like SR, GR has also been venerated many times with practical demonstrations.
If Einstein is really 'wrong', he is only 'wrong' in the sense that Newton was.
Both scientists have been proven to be right.
Oh Woe to you people who 'believe' Einstein was 'wrong', as, in effect, you will have to 'prove' Newton 'wrong' too.
...and who can argue with that?
9 comments:
Are the physical geometric effects of GR at all analogous to the effects people describe as everything falling into place, falling in love, falling into a field of work or being drawn to something?
No.
I think you are not aware of recent work in the history of mathematics which is important in understanding Einstein as an advocate of natural mathematics. Above all, you should read Garciadiego on Russell. Here is a brief discussion of some of the new work:
Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085
Ah Mr John, the collected text to which you refer to is obviously too much for you to explain here, as I have seemingly successfully done so far, about my own posts.
Assuming you have read it, of course.
This blog is not about making references (and you are the first to misunderstand that), but about explaining true things about physics and math that anyone can understand.
If you cannot yourself find the effort to explain your reference, then I will not even dignify your reference with a similar effort to open it.
I also think you are unaware of the inanity of your first statement, and now that I DID research your profile AND blog, find that any effort to pursue any reference you may make would be completely pointless.
Hmmm! Welcome to the world Mr. John Ryskamp. That's it for now.
Thank you John your article is very interesting.
Mrs Aki, You never miss a beat and you are so cute when you get defensive.
But are you so sure it is not worthwhile looking for correspondences between general relativity and other fields such as biology, economics and psychology?
"are you so sure it is not worthwhile looking for correspondences between general relativity and other fields such as biology, economics and psychology?"
Are YOU so sure having tried it?
Do you know enough about GR to make such a comment? Sounds to me, like you do not know what even GR is. I thought I explained what the acronym meant in the text.
Ah well.....
And just WHO is this "MRS AKI" ????
Ms Ito you are correct, I can hardly even spell GR, let alone understand it properly, but I strongly believe in inter-disciplinary study and collaboration.
Maybe it is a bit much to think every facet of life can be reconciled together, something like a grand-grand unified theory for all the interactions that occur in this world. But if God doesn’t play dice, then perhaps this is the only explanation there is.
This is stepping more into metaphysics, which is full of charlatans and snake oil salesmen, so I am not going to pursue it any further.
I thank you for openly discussing relativity in a logical manner and apologise for asking a question somewhat irrelevant to your topic
Emmy, Gamsa-Hamnida, Salamat po, Muchas Gracias, Domo Arigato, Maraming Salamat, Merci Beaucoup, and Many Thanks.
You are the first guy in the history of this blog to realise that your comment was irrelevant to the post in question, and as such, you are special.
Post a Comment