This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DVdm (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 30 July 2022 (→A generalization of the Einstein-Maxwell equations: so far). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:33, 30 July 2022 by DVdm (talk | contribs) (→A generalization of the Einstein-Maxwell equations: so far)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General relativity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
General relativity is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2012. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
Got a question? |
| Don't ask here! |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Books
Shall we create a separate page for the notable books on general relativity at various levels? This article is already long in its current state. We do have pages for lists of textbooks in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, and in electromagnetism. Nerd271 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
4D Spacetime: 3D Regular Space + 1D Time
Einstein recognized the 4 dimensions of spacetime: 3D regular space + 1D time. 2601:589:4800:9090:489:97E6:2CC8:D11E (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Possible incorrect equation?
Under "Total force in general relativity":
Applying to the given formula for potential energy gives . Is the force equation currently in the article incorrect? TeX seems reluctant to parse minus signs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compoteleon (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
- @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? - 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.”
Tom Gally (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? 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. Tom Gally (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.” Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like this, so I'll 'be bold' and put it in. 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 bolder next time. Tom Gally (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like this, so I'll 'be bold' and put it in. David Spector (talk) 00:01, 24 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.” Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 06:39, 19 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. Tom Gally (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
"The relativistic effect"
In section 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? 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. 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 71.183.235.5 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing. So far Google Scholar only produces this. When this is noticed, picked up and sufficiently cited in the relevant literature, it could be ready for being mentioned in Misplaced Pages. - DVdm (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Cosmology articles
- FA-Class mathematics articles
- Top-priority mathematics articles
- FA-Class physics articles
- Top-importance physics articles
- FA-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class relativity articles
- Relativity articles
- FA-Class Time articles
- Top-importance Time articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press