View source for Talk:General relativity

{{Talk header|archive_age=90|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=FA|subpage=Physics}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC
|action1date=04:21, 4 December 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/General relativity/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=91826424

|action2=PR
|action2date=01:31, 7 June 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/General relativity/archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=217658345

|action3=FAC
|action3date=04:29, 27 June 2008
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/General relativity
|action3result=promoted
|action3oldid=221943431

|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=April 19, 2012
}}
{{Old AfD multi|page=General relativity (2nd nomination)|date=1 April 2012|result='''speedy keep'''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Astronomy|cosmology=yes|class=FA|importance=top}}
{{maths rating|frequentlyviewed=yes|class=FA|importance=Top|field=Mathematical physics}}
{{WikiProject Physics| class=FA | importance=top|relativity=yes}}
{{WikiProject Time|class=FA|importance=Top}}
{{WP1.0 |v0.7=pass |class=FA |category=Natsci |importance=Low}}
}}
{{press|date=August 15, 2015|url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150814145711.htm|title=On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage|org=''[[Science Daily]]''|author=[[Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies]]}}
{{Tmbox
|type  = content
|image = {{nowrap|Got a question?}}
|text  = <div>
*[http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/einsteinathome/ask/index.html Ask a Physicist] at Einstein@Home
*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/relativity.html Ask an Astrophysicist] at NASA
*Post a question in [http://www.physicsforums.com/ Physics Forums]
*Post a question in [http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research?lnk=gschg&hl=en sci.physics.research]
*Ask one of us in [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science]]
</div>
|imageright = {{nowrap|Don't ask here!}}
}}
{{Archive box|
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 1|Sep 2001 &ndash; Apr 2005]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 2|Apr 2005 &ndash; Jun 2005]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 3|Jun 2005 &ndash; Aug 2005]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 4|Aug 2005 &ndash; Dec 2005]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 5|Dec 2005 &ndash; Apr 2006]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 6|May 2006 &ndash; Aug 2006]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 7|Aug 2006 &ndash; Sep 2006]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 8|Sep 2007 &ndash; Apr 2007]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 9|May 2007 &ndash; Jun 2007]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 10|Jul 2007 &ndash; Sep 2007]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 11|Oct 2007 &ndash; Jan 2010]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 12|Jan 2010 &ndash; Nov 2013]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 13|Dec 2013 &ndash; ??]]
# [[Talk:General relativity/Archive 14|?? &ndash; ??]]
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 80K
|counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:General relativity/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== Possible incorrect equation? ==

Under "Total force in general relativity":

Applying <math>F(r) = - \frac{\partial U}{\partial r}</math> to the given formula for potential energy gives <math>\frac{GMm}{r^2} - \frac{L^2}{mr^3} + \frac{3GML^2}{mc^2 r^4}</math>. Is the force equation currently in the article incorrect?
TeX seems reluctant to parse minus signs...  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Compoteleon|Compoteleon]] ([[User talk:Compoteleon#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Compoteleon|contribs]]) 12:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:<small>Please [[wp:signature|sign]] all your talk page messages with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) — See [[Help:Using talk pages]]. Thanks.</small>
:{{rto|Compoteleon}} There currently is a problem with rendering minus signs in Chrome and Edge. Firefox is doing fine. See [[Talk:Fourier transform#Maybe a mistake in time shift property?]] - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 14:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

== Unclear sentence ==

The intended structure of the following sentence is unclear to me: “Reconciliation of general relativity with the laws of quantum physics remains a problem however, as there is a lack of a self-consistent theory of quantum gravity; and how gravity can be unified with the three non-gravitational forces—strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.”

A minor issue is that a comma seems necessary before “however.” A more important issue is how the part after the semicolon is related to what comes before. Would the following rewrite be correct? Or would something else be better?

“Reconciliation of general relativity with the laws of quantum physics remains a problem, however, as there is a lack of a self-consistent theory of quantum gravity, and how gravity can be unified with the three non-gravitational forces—strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces—is not yet known.”

[[User:Tomgally|Tom Gally]] ([[User talk:Tomgally|talk]]) 13:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

:Your suggested change would be an improvement. However, I personally would not want to suggest that gravity theory must change to accommodate those other theories. Perhaps they need to change instead. Or perhaps our four-dimensional space-time continuum should be embedded in a higher dimensional space with a more uniform structure, like [[Minkowski space]]? [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 15:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::Thank you for the reply. I am afraid I don’t understand the issues well enough to feel confident about making any changes to the article (other than adding a comma before "however"). Can you, or someone else, use my suggestion above as a basis for fixing the structure of that sentence? As it is, it doesn’t make sense grammatically. [[User:Tomgally|Tom Gally]] ([[User talk:Tomgally|talk]]) 06:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
:::To me, the major issue is the forced mashing together of multiple sentences into a single sentence via the semicolon. How about this? “Reconciliation of general relativity with the laws of quantum physics remains a problem, however, as there is a lack of a self-consistent theory of quantum gravity. It not yet known how gravity can be unified with the three non-gravitational forces—strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.” [[User:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog|Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog|talk]]) 06:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
::::I like this, so I'll 'be bold' and put it in. [[User:David spector|David Spector]] ([[User Talk:David spector|talk]]) 00:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Many thanks to all of you for your replies and for fixing that sentence! I’ll try to be '''bold'''er next time. [[User:Tomgally|Tom Gally]] ([[User talk:Tomgally|talk]]) 12:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

== "The relativistic effect" ==

In section [[General relativity#Total force in general relativity|Total force in general relativity]], the two-body forces generated by GR are listed as Newton's force of gravity, centrifugal force, and the relativistic effect. What does "the relativistic effect" mean? Does it refer to SR or GR? What is it intuitively? Is it what happens in the gravitational lensing of galaxies? Was it described in previous sections? Could the wording be improved? [[User:David spector|David Spector]] ([[User Talk:David spector|talk]]) 23:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

:See [[Two-body problem in general relativity#Effective radial potential energy]]. According to that article, it is a GR effect. For particles traveling at the speed of light, it doubles the Newtonian bending. So it explains half of the lensing. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 05:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

== A generalization of the Einstein-Maxwell equations ==

I think the solutions I have obtained will be of interest to the readers of this wikipedia article. Since I am the author, I cannot make any related edits. The article has been published open access CC BY 4.0.
Cotton, F.W. A generalization of the Einstein–Maxwell equations. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 162 (2021). 
      https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01115-6 [[Special:Contributions/71.183.235.5|71.183.235.5]] ([[User talk:71.183.235.5|talk]]) 19:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

: Thanks for sharing. So far Google Scholar only produces [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20generalization%20of%20the%20Einstein%E2%80%93Maxwell%20equations this]. When this is noticed, picked up and sufficiently cited in the relevant literature, it could be ready for being mentioned in Wikipedia. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 20:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

== Wikipedia is written for narrow experts?  ==

Wikipedia is written for narrow experts? What is the point of placing the forms of writing incomprehensible not to a narrow specialist? For example 

<math> R_{\mu\nu} - {\textstyle 1 \over 2}R\,g_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda\ g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}\, T_{\mu\nu} </math>

is non-understandable form of writing. Why is the non-understandable form of writing is used unless an understandable form of writing for tensors? But the understandable form of writing is something like this:

<math>\mathop {\mu,\nu}\limits_{ \ge 0}^{n \le } \left\{ {R_{\mu\nu} - {\textstyle 1 \over 2}R\,g_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda\ g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}\, T_{\mu\nu}} \right. </math>

or

<math> \mathop \mu\limits_{ \ge 0}^{n \le } \left\{ {\mathop \nu\limits_{ \ge 0}^{n \le } \left\{ R_{\mu\nu} - {\textstyle 1 \over 2}R\,g_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda\ g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}\, T_{\mu\nu} \right.} \right. </math>

or

<math> \mathop {\left\{ {} \right.}\limits_{\mu = 0}^n \mathop {\left\{ {} \right.}\limits_{\nu = 0}^n R_{\mu\nu} - {\textstyle 1 \over 2}R\,g_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda\ g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}\, T_{\mu\nu} </math>

These forms of writing clearly indicate the system of equations and quantity of this equations. At the same time, this form is the same short. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find literature that would prove the importance of using such forms for better understanding by readers. At the same time, I do not understand why this problem is not obvious for writers. [[User:Voproshatel|Voproshatel]] ([[User talk:Voproshatel|talk]]) 08:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

== Poincare ==
Lorentz thought that gravity was electromagnetic, but not Poincare. Poincare did have a relativistic gravity theory. See [http://scottwalter.free.fr/papers/2007-genesis-walter.html]. So I do not think the last edit is correct. [[User:Schlafly|Roger]] ([[User talk:Schlafly|talk]]) 05:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

: Weinstein translates a crucial passage from his 1905 note (which he expanded to a full paper in 1906) as follows: "If we were to admit the postulate of relativity, we would find the same number in the law of gravitation and the laws of electromagnetism – the speed of light – and we would find it again in all other forces of any origin whatsoever. This state of affairs may be explained in one of two ways: either everything in the universe would be of electromagnetic origin, or this aspect – shared, as it were, by all physical phenomena – would be a mere epiphenomenon, something due to our methods of measurement".<ref name="Weinstein">{{cite web |last1=Weinstein |first1=Galina |title=Poincaré's Dynamics of the Electron – A Theory of Relativity? |url=https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.6576.pdf |website=arXiv.org |publisher=Cornell University |access-date=24 July 2023}}</ref>
: In other words, Poincare expressed a faith that either (1) gravitation would ultimately prove to be of electromagnetic origin, or (2) both gravitation and electromagnetism would be "epiphenomena" of some deeper theory.
: In both 1905 note and his 1906 article, Poincare argued against against an infinite speed of gravitation as representing a violation of the principle of relativity, which he considered absolute. Asserting that gravitational forces must obey the principle of relativity is, in my opinion, a far cry from being able to state that Poincare had anything resembling a relativistic theory of gravity. However, it would be correct to state that Poincare derived some results in what would today be called "relativistic gravitation".<ref name="Damour">{{cite web |last1=Damour |first1=Thibault |title=Poincaré, the Dynamics of the Electron, and Relativity |url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.00706.pdf |website=arXiv.org |publisher=Cornell University |access-date=24 July 2023}}</ref> [[User:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog|Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog|talk]]) 08:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}