Relativity Homework

A busy weekend, so here is some weekend thoughts (and associated reading) for you. It's all to do with relativity and are linked with some blog posts.

Time does not flow: To paraphrase Shakespeare, All the world is a 4D manifold, and all its players are but worldlines. Basically, General Relativity tells us that the Universe is a 4D canvas and our paths are traced out. It's all there, past, present and future (from any individual's perspective). The Universe does not unfold as we progress into the future. It's all already written out (like a path on a map). Enter the philosophers and discussions on freewill, but taking relativity at face-value, there isn't any. Heck, it doesn't even tell us which direction our experience of time flows in, we set that with a decision on dt/dτ.

Energy is not conserved: In general, energy is not conserved in General Relativity. This one usually freaks out the students, but it caused Einstein a whole host of headaches as well. When the Universe expends, photons are redshifted. They "lose energy". Where does this energy go? You can do some groovy handwaving and say "into curvature", but the answer is "Don't worry about it, energy is not conserved".

Space does not expand: This is one I have been involved with for a long time, and, again, it freaks people out, especially with the wealth of popular science and textbooks that talk about expanding space. You have to be careful here, and a paper I wrote a number of years ago now, Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?, discusses this in some detail. It comes as a shock to students of relativity to realise that, almost a hundred years after the discovery of the expanding Universe, that the meaning of the expansion is still a matter of debate. I'll close this with a quote from Steven Weinberg and Martin Rees, reported in New Scientist a few years ago;
Popular accounts, and even astronomers, talk about expanding space. But how is it possible for space, which is utterly empty, to expand? How can ‘nothing’ expand?
“Good question,” says Weinberg. “The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space – but they should know better.” Rees agrees wholeheartedly. “Expanding space is a very unhelpful concept,” he says. “Think of the Universe in a Newtonian way – that is simply, in terms of galaxies exploding away from each other.”

Comments

  1. Phillip Helbig25 August 2011 at 04:42

    I agree with you on 2 and 3; not sure about 1.

    "Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy."

    ---Albert Einstein

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Falling into a black hole: Just what do you see?

Image
Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff. A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?" Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes. What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did. ...
Read more

Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun

Image
There was a movie, in the old days, Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun  (also known as Doppleganger) which (spoiler alert) posits that there is a mirror version of the Earth hidden on the other side of the Sun, sharing the orbit with our Earth. The idea is that this planet would always be hidden behind the Sun, and so we would not know it there there. This idea comes up a lot, over and over again. In fact, it came up again last week on twitter. But there's a problem. It assumes the Earth is on a circular orbit. I won't go into the details here, but one of the greatest insights in astronomy was the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary motion , telling us that planets move on elliptical orbits. With this, there was the realisation that planets can't move at uniform speeds, but travel quickly when closer to the Sun, while slowing down as their orbits carry them to larger distance.  There has been a lot of work examining orbits in the Solar System, and you can  s...
Read more

Moving Charges and Magnetic Fields

Image
Still struggling with grant writing season, so another post which has resulted in my random musings about the Universe (which actually happens quite a lot). In second semester, I am teaching  electricity and magnetism to our First Year Advanced Class . I really enjoy teaching this class as the kids are on the ball and can ask some deep and meaningful questions. But the course is not ideal. Why? Because we teach from a textbook and the problem is that virtually all modern text books are almost the same. Science is trotted out in an almost historical progression. But it does not have to be taught that way. In fact, it would be great if we could start with  Hamiltonian and Lagrangian  approaches, and derive physics from a top down approach. We're told that it's mathematically too challenging, but it really isn't. In fact, I would start with a book like  The Theoretical Minimum , not some multicoloured compendium of physics. We have to work with what we have! ...
Read more