Anyone here interested in General Relativity, or perhaps physics in general?

[Abandoned Character]

So I have a project that has been eating away at my soul for the better part of two, almost three, years. I have to write a report that essentially summarizes the basics of general relativity and its philosophical and historical foundations.

If there is anyone else out there that enjoys learning about physics can maybe help me by engaging in a dialogue about the subject. You see, I'm finding it incredibly hard to write by myself and I figure maybe a dialogue would help get my thoughts out of my brain.

For the sake of the layman, I'll give an intro to the topic at hand: Formulated in 1915, General Relativity is the product of Albert Einstein's decade long investigation of the nature of gravity, which lead him to a deep insight regarding both space and time. You may be familiar with the term space-time, which is described exactly as you would expect--the unification of what we percieve to be space and what we percieve to be time.

You may have heard of special relativity, which Einstein formulated well before the general counterpart. The key differences between the two is that special relativity is only concerned with geometrically flat spacetime (spacetime having a geometry is a crazy concept to grasp, but I believe anybody can understand it), whereas general relativity is concerned with flat and curved geometries (such as the discussion of distant light bending around our sun).

Of course, there are limitations to the theory as often emphasized when trying to understand very very small phenomona. This part is a weak spot of mine, as I do not have a super good understanding of why general relativity fails to describe quantum phenomona. The most I can say is that general relativity seeks to create a continuum of spacetime, where as quantum theory chops up reality into very discrete bits.

There are also several other theories of gravity that look to describe what general relativity fails to do. Of particular interest to me is Julian Barbour's construction of Shape Dynamics, which takes the fundamental relations of shape and geometry and makes them the only thing to consider. Barbour does a great job at identifying the failure of general relativity by discussing reference frames and, in particular, inertial reference frames and the ultimate non-inertial reference frame. (My understanding here is a bit watery so it makes sense if this does not click to you, I need to refine this part for myself)

Anyway, I've kind of word-vomitted here. Please let me know if something confuses you, or you have a question, or something fun to add. Whatever it is, I am happy to hear. Thanks.

 

[alltoomuch2]

So I have a project that has been eating away at my soul for the better part of two, almost three, years. I have to write a report that essentially summarizes the basics of general relativity and its philosophical and historical foundations.

If there is anyone else out there that enjoys learning about physics can maybe help me by engaging in a dialogue about the subject. You see, I'm finding it incredibly hard to write by myself and I figure maybe a dialogue would help get my thoughts out of my brain.

For the sake of the layman, I'll give an intro to the topic at hand: Formulated in 1915, General Relativity is the product of Albert Einstein's decade long investigation of the nature of gravity, which lead him to a deep insight regarding both space and time. You may be familiar with the term space-time, which is described exactly as you would expect--the unification of what we percieve to be space and what we percieve to be time.

You may have heard of special relativity, which Einstein formulated well before the general counterpart. The key differences between the two is that special relativity is only concerned with geometrically flat spacetime (spacetime having a geometry is a crazy concept to grasp, but I believe anybody can understand it), whereas general relativity is concerned with flat and curved geometries (such as the discussion of distant light bending around our sun).

Of course, there are limitations to the theory as often emphasized when trying to understand very very small phenomona. This part is a weak spot of mine, as I do not have a super good understanding of why general relativity fails to describe quantum phenomona. The most I can say is that general relativity seeks to create a continuum of spacetime, where as quantum theory chops up reality into very discrete bits.

There are also several other theories of gravity that look to describe what general relativity fails to do. Of particular interest to me is Julian Barbour's construction of Shape Dynamics, which takes the fundamental relations of shape and geometry and makes them the only thing to consider. Barbour does a great job at identifying the failure of general relativity by discussing reference frames and, in particular, inertial reference frames and the ultimate non-inertial reference frame. (My understanding here is a bit watery so it makes sense if this does not click to you, I need to refine this part for myself)

Anyway, I've kind of word-vomitted here. Please let me know if something confuses you, or you have a question, or something fun to add. Whatever it is, I am happy to hear. Thanks.wi

I will definitely read this more carefully later as I think it will interest me. My physics level of knowledge is basic school level many years ago but I'm looking for a new interest and this could be it

 

[Leiot]

I've heard people try to integrate Quantum Mechanics and philosophy but never GR. Sounds interesting. When you said you've been working on a report, are you talking about a thesis?

Back in the day (1800s) physics was called Natural Philosophy so they agreed with you.

Maybe take the math out of it. QM sounds like philosophy if you take the math out of it; e.g.; By looking at something you've changed it; that sort of thing. GR has universal constants (c), objects can bend reality, time isn't a constant, everything is connected to everything else, etc.

Have you read any of Lisa Randall's stuff? She has the simplest description of higher order spatial dimensions I've ever read. She may have some stuff that could apply.

My personal view is that all physics is really is a model that describes reality. It may or may not be what's really there. A good example of that is the Bohr model of the atom. You have a distinct nucleus, electron shells, all of that. Not even close to what's there. But it explains everything you'd want to know in chemistry. GR could be the same thing. People may not be able to integrate QM & GR because one (or both) of them are just wrong, or more likely incomplete. But that doesn't change the fact that relativity has been measured accurately - GPS doesn't work unless you take it into account.

Philosophy is the same thing. It's something that tries to explain reality and our place in it.

Anyway, just babbling here. Let me know what you come up with.

 

[alltoomuch2]

I've heard people try to integrate Quantum Mechanics and philosophy but never GR. Sounds interesting. When you said you've been working on a report, are you talking about a thesis?

Back in the day (1800s) physics was called Natural Philosophy so they agreed with you.

Maybe take the math out of it. QM sounds like philosophy if you take the math out of it; e.g.; By looking at something you've changed it; that sort of thing. GR has universal constants (c), objects can bend reality, time isn't a constant, everything is connected to everything else, etc.

Have you read any of Lisa Randall's stuff? She has the simplest description of higher order spatial dimensions I've ever read. She may have some stuff that could apply.

My personal view is that all physics is really is a model that describes reality. It may or may not be what's really there. A good example of that is the Bohr model of the atom. You have a distinct nucleus, electron shells, all of that. Not even close to what's there. But it explains everything you'd want to know in chemistry. GR could be the same thing. People may not be able to integrate QM & GR because one (or both) of them are just wrong, or more likely incomplete. But that doesn't change the fact that relativity has been measured accurately - GPS doesn't work unless you take it into account.

Philosophy is the same thing. It's something that tries to explain reality and our place in it.

Anyway, just babbling here. Let me know what you come up with.

Keep babbling. I'm enjoying it :-)

 

[Leiot]

I haven't thought about any of this in a long time. Yeah, what Einstein figured out was in one way brilliant and in another way so simple that anyone should have figured it out. He just asked questions and didn't take what was accepted as 'truth'. In that way he was no different than any of the philosophers that came before him.

Ha! I remember I told one of my professors that I put Dark Matter right up there with the Luminiferous Aether. That didn't go over well at all. (I have a pretty strong sarcastic streak) Let's see.. there's some mysterious stuff that doesn't interact with light but most of the matter in the universe is made up of it, and they came up with this because of seeing space-time seemed to be bent without anything being there. But who says space is flat to begin with? We've detected gravity waves, and they bend space-time without anything being there.. Nope. Dark Matter is the answer. Geez..