A HUNDRED YEARS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Among physicists, this theory is regarded as Einstein’s greatest achievement, a towering scientific theory that remains unsurpassed in terms of its originality, elegance and predictive power. By replacing Newton’s force of gravity with a warping of space/time, Einstein transformed our view of space, time, force and gravitation, a revolution that continues to deliver astonishing insights into the world of the very large.


    We have alternative pushers that deride GR and science in general.
    I thought this would be a good time to sing the praises of Einstein, and many others that Einstein worked with, gathering ideas etc, to finally reach a conclusion.
    David Hilbert comes to mind.
    What are other's views in how big a part he played in GR.

    Over to all you science appreciators and lovers.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://www.isgrg.org/GR100events.php

    GR100 Events around the World


    The year 2015 marks the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's presentation of the complete Theory of General Relativity to the Prussian Academy. We list here conferences and other events in honor of this centenary from colleagues throughout the world. If you are aware of an appropriate event not listed here, please send a link to the event's website to beverlyberger@me.com.

    ISGRG-sponsored events:
    A Century of General Relativity, Berlin, Germany, 30 Nov 2015 - 5 Dec 2015. ISGRG has declared this event to be our official centenary conference due to its proximity in location and time of the year to Einstein's presentation.

    General Relativity & Gravitation: a Centennial Perspective, Pennsylvania State University, 8-12 June 2015. This conference will take place under the auspices of ISGRG and of the American Physical Society's Topical Group in Gravitation.

    Other events:
    32nd Winter School in Theoretical Physics: 100 years to General Relativity: From Theory to Experiment and Back, Jerusalem, 29 Dec 2014 - 8 Jan 2015.

    junior scientist Andrejewski Days: 100 years of General Relativity, Begegnungsstatte Schloss Gollwitz, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany, 22 March - 4 April 2015.

    The Next Detectors for Gravitational Wave Astronomy, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China, Beijing, 6 Apr - 8 May 2015.

    Books commemorating GR100:
    General Relativity: The most beautiful of theories - Applications and trends after 100 years, Carlo Rovelli (Ed.),De Gruyter Studies in Mathematical Physics 28.

    Public lectures by ISGRG members related to GR100:
    USA: Gary Horowitz, "Einstein and his Theory of General Rel
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One possible extrapolation of GR, in celebration of 100 years, is connected to the concept of relative GR. In SR, references are relative. From this we assume there are no preferred references within the universe and therefore no center of the universe.

    GR is treated in more absolute terms, because it depends on mass, with mass an invariant. A given amount of mass creates a given space-time well no matter where it is. This creates the paradox, if mass is invariant, doesn't a snap shot of the assumed mass distribution of the universe, imply a type of universal GR with a unique space-time well, from which a center can be inferred?

    One way to explain this paradox is the idea of Relative GR. In practical terms, we cannot directly measure mass at a long distance. We can't weigh a distant galaxy. The mass is inferred based on movement, position and bending of light. We makes use of SR, rendering these observations, relative. We use SR to infer the mass of GR, because were cannot directly measure the mass; relative GR.

    As a loose analogy, if we have two large pliable objects, with relative velocity V, and we assume there is no preferred reference, we can assume either one could be in motion or stationary. If we later learn that one object has mass=M and the other mass=2M and we give them a head on collision, the result can be two totally different collisions. Once we know mass, references have a hierarchy due to inertia.

    One cannot infer an accurate universal energy balance with relative reference. If we measure distant mass by inference, and we also assume no preferred reference, when a collision analogy appears, that is not correct (bad mass/energy balance) we will need to add dark energy and dark matter to close the energy balance. This addendum can be calculate with relative GR (RGR).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Once again thanks for adding a completely incorrect, misleading and nonscience perspective to the discussion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    No. You can't use SR to measure the curving of light due to mass, that's a GR effect.

    This appears to have nothing to do with any contemporary inference to the density of matter or dark energy in the universe.
     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    With the rest of you, I celebrate the creation of GR in its anniversary year. Without it, much of the technologies that actually work in the 21st century would not have been possible. But it all started with the theory of Special Relativity, and as far as I am concerned GR is really just SR with Newton's calculus applied to derive the necessary math for accelerated frames. As such, this is just making the best use of the tools that are already available, so what's the big deal? SR was Einstein's masterstroke.

    Hilbert spaces are a perfect example of a good mathematical idea employed too often in physics. Euclid and Pythagoras deserve as much or even more credit for what became know as Hilbert space. In my young life as a physics and math student, I was something of an uber geometry geek. This was obvious however only to my fellow students. While my less gifted peers were busy proving that they could trisect an angle with a compass and a straight edge, I had already proven to myself that it could not be done, and also developed a continuing fraction for pi, all of this while my analysis teachers were looking the other way and generally not noticing. I did notice that even those very few who surpassed me on the SAT assessments were not as engaged by geometry. "God loves geometry" meant a great deal to me for most of my life. Today, not so much.

    Hilbert spaces do not, for example, explain the number of elements and isotopes in the periodic table, nor the generations of particles in the Standard Model, nor the behavior of the few that don't quite fit in, like the neutrino. Hilbert's math is important, OK? Just not as important as some would have you believe. Absolute time and space expired in 1905, yet math folks like David Hilbert and wormhole physics people like Kip Thorne somehow keep on plotting origins and doing geometry as though it were actually possible to nail jello to a wall, but without either a wall or a nail. Geometry is useless for doing fluid dynamics, other than to calculate the volumes of containers, and the containers of the force of gravity described best by GR thus far, have no walls, and by the way, no fixed centers of origin, even for hyper massive black holes.

    I think of Hilbert as a latter-day Minkowski. Hilbert could have cared less about whether his infinitude of higher mathematical dimensions corresponded to physical reality or not. They don't, so let's not belabor the point. You can do the Pythagorean theorem in them all you want. It does not make them actually square.

    If you really want to commemorate some cutting edge physics, just hang around a while longer for the year we celebrate the pioneering work of Emmy Noether. Einstein himself said that she was a genius, and I agree.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Does anyone know of, or has knowledge of the latest GR manual update and subsequent predictions, , preferably one that is directed at the less mathematically inclined lay individual such as myself?
    Taking nothing away from the great man, but GR has been updated somewhat, especially with regards to BH,s which I believe Einstein did not really accept.
     
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Then you really are a buffoon. Why would you say something that so thoroughly shows your ignorance?

    Einstein had to invent a new kind of mathematics to invent GR.

    Really? What are their works about infinite dimensional spaces?

    No, you weren't.
     
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Is there really any practical use for "infinite" dimensional spaces? Did they tweak every single one, or just number them? What is it that distinguishes one from another? Every single one of those extra dimensional spaces is exactly like the first one then, isn't it? Sounds like Hilbert was just another lazy mathematical slacker to me.
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Jealous?
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    I wouldn't be

    Mathematicians' have yet to understand that shapes are the essence of mathematics

    Hence there is never a moment in time without substance being present

    Without substance there are no shapes
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Wow. Welcome to ancient Greece.
     

Share This Page