The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the main difference between Special and General Relativity?  (Read 572 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Personally I believe it is negative kinetic energy which is absent in SR. What do you think?
« Last Edit: 15/10/2016 11:05:36 by chris »


 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
What about the treatment of acceleration?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Since the direction of the force is towards the centre of mass then both acceleration and the induced kinetic energy are negative. They go hand in hand. At the moment I am examining both the shell theorem and the Yukawa potential and may have more thoughts.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
... At the moment I am examining both the shell theorem and the Yukawa potential and may have more thoughts.
Look forward with interest.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
In the meantime, as a slight aside, this looks interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force#possible_evidence

The link doesn't appear to move to the possible evidence section so you may have to scroll down. The whole article is worth a read.
« Last Edit: 16/10/2016 21:18:16 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If instead of treating Planck's constant h as a constant we define u = E0t where E0 is the emission energy. We can determine an energy equation of the form E = uf0 where f 0 is the emission frequency. The equivalent mass term is then m = E/c^2.

The Yukawa potential is V(r) = -g^2[e-kmr/r]. For the electromagnetic field g = 1 and since m = 0 we have a potential of 1/r. If we use our new mass term then the energy based on action varies with radial distance. This describes what sounds like the gravitational field. Except that the value of the constant k has not been determined.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Please note. I have severe doubts about the validity of the formulas in the previous post. I need to think through the implications.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The Yukawa potential has to do with exchange particles so the above formula no longer expresses this. It may be that this represents the potential for action at points in the field.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2016 04:55:58 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
On a related note.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_action

Feel free to kick me into new theories at any time.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Consider a situation where we have two positions within a gravitational field labeled A and B. Define them to be at different gravitational potentials. Then if a photon with frequency f0 is emitted at A and travels to B its frequency there is f1. If a photon is emitted at position B with frequency f1 then to balance the books the final frequency upon arrival at position A should be f0. So that emission energy is a variable and potential is a function of the emission energy and the position in the field. Mapping action potentials to the field then makes sense.
 

Offline phyti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
I thought it was formulation in a gravitational environment.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums