4 ms·

s/Special relativity/General relativity Special relativity ignores gravity altogether, whereas general relativity sneaks gravity into the relativistic framewor

s/Special relativity/General relativity Special relativity ignores gravity altogether, whereas general relativity sneaks gravity into the relativistic framework by equating it with curvature. Both theories are, to me, frustratingly intangible. Like you said, we don't really know where gravity comes from. Really, we don't even have any sort of good intuitions for how to describe what it is. Stuff resists being shoved around. Stuff also attracts other stuff to itself. Einstein tells us these are both symptoms of stuff being curvature. It's all a bit too abstract for my taste (that is, I hope a more tangible/intuitive model will eventually win out). Field equations are predictive but not really descriptive. Is there a mechanism in there somewhere?

raverbashing 14y ago
Oops, true! I mixed GR and SR
klodolph 14y ago
The problem with tangible/intuitive models is that our sense of what is tangible/intuitive is based primarily on our millions of years living in the Newtonian realm of the universe.
chii 14y ago
> Both theories are, to me, frustratingly intangible Yes, and it is frustrating. However, like you, a lot of laymen assumes that these theories can be explained in terms of analogies with "everyday life" things. I recently watched all of Richard Feynmen's lectures (the easiest to understand is "the character of physical law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Character_of_Physical_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Character_of_Physical_Law),and in it, he explained, quite well, what it means to have a mathematical law. It goes on to some detail explanation of what quantum chromodynamics is, and how photons' behaviour cannot possibly be analogous to anything you can experience at the macro scale. I understand your frustration (since i feel the exact same) - why is it that we have advanced so much, and yet still have no idea what inertia really is? Or mass for that matter. We know how to predict things from using various mathematical laws, but i think we are no closer to understanding "the truth", than 100 years ago. Perhaps it is impossible. or perhaps, in the next century, or the next millenium, humans will look back, and see today's physics being just as primative as what we would see the cavemen's theories of the world is.

raverbashing 14y ago

Oops, true! I mixed GR and SR

klodolph 14y ago

The problem with tangible/intuitive models is that our sense of what is tangible/intuitive is based primarily on our millions of years living in the Newtonian realm of the universe.

chii 14y ago

> Both theories are, to me, frustratingly intangible Yes, and it is frustrating. However, like you, a lot of laymen assumes that these theories can be explained in terms of analogies with "everyday life" things. I recently watched all of Richard Feynmen's lectures (the easiest to understand is "the character of physical law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Character_of_Physical_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Character_of_Physical_Law),and in it, he explained, quite well, what it means to have a mathematical law. It goes on to some detail explanation of what quantum chromodynamics is, and how photons' behaviour cannot possibly be analogous to anything you can experience at the macro scale. I understand your frustration (since i feel the exact same) - why is it that we have advanced so much, and yet still have no idea what inertia really is? Or mass for that matter. We know how to predict things from using various mathematical laws, but i think we are no closer to understanding "the truth", than 100 years ago. Perhaps it is impossible. or perhaps, in the next century, or the next millenium, humans will look back, and see today's physics being just as primative as what we would see the cavemen's theories of the world is.