2
$\begingroup$

This wikipedia article claims that there are two interpretations of Nordstrom's scalar theory of gravity:

1) A scalar field theory on flat space. The reason why an apple falls is that its mass is coupled to $\phi$, which causes it to deviate from a geodesic.

2) A theory of curved space-time. $R = k T$. The metric of space-time is $g = \phi^2(x) \eta$. The falling apple travels on a geodesic.

My question is, why are these considered two interpretations of the same theory, and not two separate theories? Although both give the same predictions for the trajectories of a particles, shouldn't the time elapsed on a watch differ by a factor of $\sim \phi$ between the two theories?

In other words, suppose that a particle gets displaced a small amount $\delta x$ in space-time. The proper time elapsed on its watch is according to 1) is $\delta \tau^2 \sim \eta \delta x \delta x$, and in 2) isn't $\delta \tau^2 \sim \phi^2 \delta x \delta x$? On the other hand, wiki says:

which metric is the one which according to Nordström can be measured locally by physical experiments? The answer is: the curved spacetime is the physically observable one in this theory (as in all metric theories of gravitation); the flat background is a mere mathematical fiction

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Wiki says : "Einstein and Fokker observed that the Lagrangian for Nordström's equation of motion for test particles, $L = \phi^2 \, \eta_{ab} \, {u}^a \, {u}^b$ , is the geodesic Lagrangian for a curved Lorentzian manifold with metric tensor $g_{ab} = \phi^2 \, \eta_{ab}$ ."

[Remark : here $u^a = \frac{dx^a}{ds}$, so no "dot" here on the $u^a$, I think there is an error in wiki]

This means that the Euler-Lagrange equations applying to the lagrangian $L$ (in a Minkowski space-time), are equivalent to a geodesic equation with the metric tensor $g_{ab}$, so, in a curved space-time.

So, the Lagrangian point of view (in a flat space-time) is an alternative mathematical presentation (possible due to the simplicity of the metrics), but the physical point of view is that there is a curved spacetime. So, the correct physical proper time is given, as usual, by $ds^2= g_{ab} dx^a dx^b$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, but I don't see how this addresses the question. I see how both interpretations give rise to the same trajectories; I don't see why the proper times elapsed should be the same under both interpretations. In what sense is the curved space-time interpretation more physical? $\endgroup$ – hwlin Nov 25 '13 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ The true theory (the second theory) is a curved space time with $R=kT$. It is an equation for the gravitational field. In the first theory, there is no equation for the gravitational field. There is only a mathematical correspondence, for the movement of a particle in the first theory, from Lagrange-Euler equations, and a geodesic in the second theory. $\endgroup$ – Trimok Nov 25 '13 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ Said differently, The first theory cannot seriously represent a theory of gravitation, if there is no equation for the gravitational field. It is just some mathematical game about the movements of particles in the gravitational field. $\endgroup$ – Trimok Nov 25 '13 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.