Talk:Asymptotically flat spacetime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMathematics B‑class Mid‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject iconPhysics: Relativity Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Need coordinate-free description of AF[edit]

I think this description: "An asymptotically flat spacetime is a spacetime in which the metric approaches the Minkowski metric very far from the gravitating object."

is too confining, because it is coordinate-dependent.

I would tend to say:

"An asymptotically flat spacetime is a spacetime in which the geometry approaches that of Minkowski space at large distances from the source or sources of gravity."

That allows more arbitrary coordinates. Your definition would not even allow Minkowski spacetime with spherical coordinates for the space part. We need to move from coordinate-dependent statements to more geometry-dependent statements were possible in my opinion. Pdn 18:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but I think my definition would still include Minkowski spacetime by default (it's just using a different coordinate system - Minkowski in spherical polars approaches Minkowski in spherical polars). Whatever the Minkowski metric looks like in a given coordinate system, one can always bring it into the standard form (diag{1,1,1,-1}) using a non-singular coordinate transformation. However, I do agree that a more geometric definition is better. Mpatel 11:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up. Actually, the original writing said "Minkowski metric" which is diag(1,-1,-1,-1,-1) or its negative depending on which signature you use. Spherical polar coordinates have some powers of r and sine squared in the metric. So although I am perhaps close to splitting hairs, I believe I was right insofar as the accuracy of description goes. Of course, in a more general case, one might run into Minkowski spacetime even better disguised, so one has to look to geometry, not to the metric. A good example is the bookFoundations of Radiation Hydrodynamics Author(s): Mihalas, Dimitri; Mihalas, Barbara Weibel. ISBN: 0195034376. Pub. Date: 1/1/1985. Oxford Univ Press. This book has metrics, tensors, and Christoffel symbols galore and purports to be general-relativistic, but the Riemann tensor is in all cases zero. Of course, by correctly using the tensors and so on in flatspace, one may (sic) make the material portable to G.R. but that's not guaranteed. Pdn 15:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Sources of gravity", to me, means sources of geometry, so approaching a 'flat spacetime' is another way of changing geometry. Also, I have a question. When humanity discovered electricity, did it allow us to use electricity to change any other part of "natural" nature, or to change electricity itself? When we discovered how to split the atom, did it allow us to change any other part of "natural" nature, or to change the quarks? Moreover, just because humanity understands how to control the affects of nature, does not mean that we can control the essence of nature. Therefore, I now seek how to create a geometry the same way we currently have it, rather than seeking to change it's essence. Chadyoung (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also got from separate personal research that flat spacetime is free of gravitation. Chadyoung (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major rewrite[edit]

This article is presently in an awful state. I got sick of seeing it so messed up, so am trying to completely rewrite it. Naturally, this turns out to involve writing or rewriting other articles, and I am being called away in the middle of the work. I'll try to finish it later tonight, so am leaving the flag. Note that this article cannot even pretend to be acceptable until a definition is given!---CH [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 22:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is too darn slow/unstable for me to continue. I'll have to wait for better service to try to pick up the thread.---CH [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 01:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Roberts[edit]

The version of this article prior to the heavily rewritten one by myself was due in part to User:Markdroberts, who cited his own preprint, which I think most experts in the field would agree is quite weakly/incoherently argued and even, in places, misleading. In my revision, I left in the citation, in fact I devoted much space to discussing the objections which Roberts raises, but I tried to give a more balanced discussion, with citations which in my view better represent the state of the art regarding rotating fluid solutions.

This raises yet again the problem of academic mavericks (or at least academically trained mavericks) writing biased articles on technical subjects or introducing bias simply by citing only a very small and non-mainstream portion of the relevant literature. This example is particularly troubling because even physicists with other specialities than classical gravitation might not realize at a glance how misleading the previous discussion was.

Disappointed, CH [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 01:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minority of "one"[edit]

This wikipedia article mentions a "minority of one" physicist that oppose GR as an acceptable theory. Is this "one" physicist Mark Roberts? Why is the article written in this contrived style? I don't think this is an acceptable way of writing an article. Can someone fix this?

... A tiny minority of physicists (actually, a minority of one) appear to believe that general relativity is unacceptable because it does not allow sufficiently general asymptotically flat solutions... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section removed due to probable WP:UNDUE and being unclear. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The asymptotic flatness is an orphaned stub with no content that isn't already in this duplicate article. I've marked both pages with merge tags, but I suggest simply deleting asymptotic flatness.-- (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done by a simple redirect. The old Asymptotic flatness article did have some additional (unsourced) information, so I invite anyone who knows more about this topic than I to check if that's worth salvaging. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asymptotically flat spacetime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]