Geodesics, General Relativity, And The Illusion Of Gravity! πŸš€

avatar

If anyone else have said it, people would think he's a crazy sociopath. But when non other than Albert Einstein says that the happiest thought of his life was when he imagined a man falling off the rooftop of a house, then it suddenly becomes a genius idea. Not because he said it, but because it simply is! [1]

What's so special about a man falling of the roof?

Well, it's freedom! Momentarily at least, that man would be in a "free fall" state.

For him, during the fall, there is no gravitational field. He won't feel his own weight, he would be completely weightless. And if this said man lets go of anything he is holding, the objects wouldn't fall down, they would stay relatively stationary to him, moving in a uniform motion.


⏰ πŸ•‘ πŸ•™ πŸ•š πŸ•– πŸ•˜ ⏰

Edited by @yaziris | Stock image from Pixabay, and Pixabay.


That whole thing is just exactly the same as if you were floating at rest or moving along at a constant velocity in deep space, with no large masses nearby. You'd feel no weight, and all objects in your near vicinity would remain stationary relative to you. Giving them a push, would cause them to move in a straight line at a constant velocity!

You'd be the perfect definition of an inertial observer.

When Einstein looked at those two examples, he said they are both completely equivalent. Physically speaking, they are exactly the same thing.
Even though the man falling of the roof is near the Earth and is accelerating, which would become very apparent once he crashes. Einstein's equivalence principle, however, tells us the one thing to focus on is the experience of the observer. If he feels weightless, then he is in an inertial frame of reference, and would remain so until the instant he crashes!

Our guy who is floating in deep space, wouldn't feel anything have changed if he passes near some planet. An outside distant observer would see the guy drifting towards that planet and accelerating, but the floating guy from his frame of reference wouldn't feel anything until the moment he crashes into that planet.



The Illusion Of Gravity

Image from Pixabay

So why does the floating guy drift towards the planet if there isn't any gravitational force or a gravitational fields?
The answer is:

Curved Spacetime!

From our floating in space guy's observation, he felt the whole time like he was moving at constant velocity in a straight line. And he was actually moving in a straight line through spacetime. However, spacetime around massive objects like planets is curved. So that's why his path appears curved to a distant observer.

This isn't as weird as it sounds, an airplane for example takes the shortest path between cities during its flight, which is a straight line.

PicsArt_01-11-09.55.29.jpg

But since the Earth's surface is curved, the shortest path doesn't look like a straight line, it would appear as curved.

PicsArt_01-11-09.57.21.jpg

Geodesics are lines representing the shortest paths on curved surfaces. [2]

It's like when you draw a straight line on a paper, then take that paper and tilt or fold it. The line is still a straight line on that surface, representing the shortest path between two points on that 2 dimentional plane.

Similarly, those are the straight line paths followed by inertial observers through curved spacetime.


Another analogy we can take a look into, is if you imagine two people, a mile apart from each other, moving in straight line towards north.

As they approach north they would seem to be moving closer to eachother, even though both were moving completely straight forward, until they eventually bump into one another once they reach the north pole.

PicsArt_01-11-09.54.32.jpg

It would appear as though there is a force pushing them closer to eachother, but in fact there is no such thing.

The only reason those two people in our example came together is because they were in straight paths on a curved surface (Geodesic). And gravity is exactly like that!



An astronaut in a space station moving around Earth feels weightless, and is moving in a straight line, but to a distant observer, it wouldn't look like a straight line, because of the curvature around massive objects, Earth in this case. He would appear to be going around it in circles.

PicsArt_01-11-09.53.06.jpg



"Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move"

~ John Wheeler
[3]

Now imagine if our guy in deep space was inside a rocket, and that rocket starts accelerating at (9.8 m/s).
An outside observer would see everything inside such a rocket stays stationary while the rocket's floor starts accelerating into them.

From inside the rocket, everything would appear to accelerate down to the ground, you would be feeling a force that is pushing up on your feet. EXACTLY as if you were standing at rest on the surface of Earth.

PicsArt_01-11-09.50.37.jpg

So, being "at rest" on Earth and accelerating in a rocket, is the exact same thing, we are in fact accelerating, and there is no gravitational field!

Gravitational fields do not exist.

The "gravity" we experience from Earth pushing on us, it is just a diviation from a geodesic path, it's just preventing us from following that path, pushing on us up, stopping us from continuing our path.

If Earth would suddenly disappeare, or if a hole would suddenly emerge through it, we would simply "continue" our path right through it.

We're simply accelerating along with everything else on Earth, and acceleration in general relativity has a new meaning other than the traditional one, it is defined as simply not going in a straight line path through spacetime, deviating from a geodesic!

In curved spacetime, you need to accelerate just so you can "stand still".



This is of course all well known in the physics community, and general relativity has been tested and proven to extreme precisions to be correct over and over again.

What I don't understand, however, is why the insistance on trying to prove things that shouldn't even exist, like the Graviton for example? Which honestly in the light of general relativity, to me at least, doesn't make any sense at all.



β€’ ●

● Thank you for reading ●

● β€’





Note: The purpose of this post is to explore the concept of gravity in general relativity without getting into the technicalities.




Banner by #theterminal

All content and in this post are courtesy of me, unless stated otherwise. Images created using Picsart App
Β© 2022 @yaziris.


0
0
0.000
19 comments
avatar

Congratulations @yaziris! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):

You made more than 500 comments.
Your next target is to reach 600 comments.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Hive Power Up Month - Feedback from day 10
0
0
0.000
avatar

QuoteSo this also proves that the universe is able to pull two soulmates together?!πŸ˜‚

I like your use of graphics, the physics, wow! You're a genuis thou.
Brilliant and Well written YazπŸ‘πŸ˜Ž

0
0
0.000
avatar

So this also proves that the universe is able to pull two soulmates together aswell apart?!πŸ˜‚

I like your use of graphics, the physics, wow! You're a genuis thou.
Brilliant and Well written YazπŸ‘πŸ˜Ž

0
0
0.000
avatar

There, you have the universe all figured out! And you say I'm the genius? πŸ˜…

Thank you for reading and for the compliment, I'm just some crazy dude though. 😜

!PIZZA

0
0
0.000
avatar

There, you have the universe all figured out! And you say I'm the genius? πŸ˜…

Thank you for reading and for the compliment, I'm just some crazy dude though. 😜

PS. You confused me, which comment to reply to, so I did to both..

0
0
0.000
avatar

I tried to edit and remove the "Qoute" on first, then add" pull apart"
But my network just messed it upπŸ˜ƒ

PS. You confused me, which comment to reply to, so I did to both

untitled.gif

Fantastic, i'm doing a great job ayyeπŸ˜ƒπŸ€˜
Looking forward to your next post⭐

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

PIZZA! PIZZA! PIZZA!

PIZZA Holders sent $PIZZA tips in this post's comments:
yaziris tipped queenstarr (x1)
@yaziris(4/5) tipped @alexanderalexis (x1)
yaziris tipped iskafan (x1)

Join us in Discord!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I like science writing, because by writing it adds knowledge and can remember the lessons that I have learned at school

0
0
0.000
avatar

Good to hear .πŸ‘

Thanks for stopping by!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for this nice piece of text. I can try to provide an answer to the following:

What I don't understand, however, is why the insistance on trying to prove things that shouldn't even exist, like the Graviton for example? Which honestly in the light of general relativity, to me at least, doesn't make any sense at all.

The three other fundamental interactions are based on gauge theories and thus photons, gluons, W-bosons and Z-bosons emerge (and have been found experimentally). From there, we may be tempted to say that it would be nice that gravity is also based on gauge interactions, and so were gravitons.

However the story is more complicated than this, as you know : gravity and quantum mechanics does not like much each other and there is not any observation of a graviton (this may also be very hard, even impossible, to achieve). However, this could be doable in the framework of various beyond the Standard Model theories (for instance in higher-dimensional frameworks).

We may like it or not, but it is good to explore the possibility. Not doing so would be a problem in my opinion (we need to be pragmatic and try every option). Note that I don't think there is any insistence, at least not much more than for the exploration of any other theory beyond the Standard Model.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for this explanation. Yes of course, it's always good to explore every option.

However, this could be doable in the framework of various beyond the Standard Model theories (for instance in higher-dimensional frameworks).

Yes, in fact I was reading some article "Is Space Pixelated?" relevant to this, about new collaboration to try and tackle the quantization of gravity with string theory.

Which was what gave me the idea on writing this post. As I saw what they're doing as just another attempt to justify string theory.

But yeah, as you said "We may like it or not, but it is good to explore the possibility".

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!

Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).

Thanks for including @stemsocial as a beneficiary, which gives you stronger support.Β 
Β 

0
0
0.000
avatar

No, come, how were you able to pull this off? I mean try breaking physics into an enjoyable reading? I'll love to do it too. Teach me, please πŸ₯Ί

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm glad that it was enjoyable, thank you for reading. πŸ™‚

I'd say take the math out of it, and try to give real life (everyday life) examples about the subject.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'd say take the math out of it, and try to give real life (everyday life) examples about the subject.

Uhmm... I think that makes a lot of sense. I might try it but I would need more time to be good at it the way you are. πŸ₯Ί

0
0
0.000
avatar

As long as you know well about the subject, and do proper sourcing, go ahead and give it a try.

I would need more time
Are you in a rush? πŸ˜…

Thank you for the nice words. But I don't think I'm really that good, though I try. And hopefully can improve with time. 😊

Have some !PIZZA
0
0
0.000
avatar

This is a nicely-explained primer on this topic.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you, glad you like it.

Thanks for stopping by!

!PIZZA

0
0
0.000