Newton's theory of gravity is covariant under Galilean transformations












1












$begingroup$


We know from classical mechanics that the gravitational field equation for the scalar potential takes the form $$nabla^2phi=4pi rho,$$ where $rho$ is mass density (which, can depend on time and space). Also, the associated EOM for point particle takes $$ddot{x}+nablaphi=0.$$ One of the basic requirement for a classical theory is that it should not depend on the inertial reference frame we are choosing. In particular, for a non-relativist theory such as the one described above, I would expect the theory to keep its form under Galilean transformations. I am, however, not sure how to do this rigorously with a general $phi$. Any ideas?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity inertial-frames galilean-relativity invariants







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The equation $nabla^2phi=4pirho$ is not a dynamical equation, it's more like a constraint. Cf. physics.stackexchange.com/a/20072/4552 . In your two equations, $rho$ only appears in one, so we can just take it as a definition of $rho$. Although $rho$ transforms trivially, even if it didn't, we wouldn't care; it wouldn't affect the truth-value of the equations. To make this a predictive theory, you need to couple your two equations somehow, probably by adding in an equation of continuity or something that relates motion of particles ($ddot{x}$) to changes in $rho$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    27 mins ago
















1












$begingroup$


We know from classical mechanics that the gravitational field equation for the scalar potential takes the form $$nabla^2phi=4pi rho,$$ where $rho$ is mass density (which, can depend on time and space). Also, the associated EOM for point particle takes $$ddot{x}+nablaphi=0.$$ One of the basic requirement for a classical theory is that it should not depend on the inertial reference frame we are choosing. In particular, for a non-relativist theory such as the one described above, I would expect the theory to keep its form under Galilean transformations. I am, however, not sure how to do this rigorously with a general $phi$. Any ideas?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity inertial-frames galilean-relativity invariants







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The equation $nabla^2phi=4pirho$ is not a dynamical equation, it's more like a constraint. Cf. physics.stackexchange.com/a/20072/4552 . In your two equations, $rho$ only appears in one, so we can just take it as a definition of $rho$. Although $rho$ transforms trivially, even if it didn't, we wouldn't care; it wouldn't affect the truth-value of the equations. To make this a predictive theory, you need to couple your two equations somehow, probably by adding in an equation of continuity or something that relates motion of particles ($ddot{x}$) to changes in $rho$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    27 mins ago














1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


We know from classical mechanics that the gravitational field equation for the scalar potential takes the form $$nabla^2phi=4pi rho,$$ where $rho$ is mass density (which, can depend on time and space). Also, the associated EOM for point particle takes $$ddot{x}+nablaphi=0.$$ One of the basic requirement for a classical theory is that it should not depend on the inertial reference frame we are choosing. In particular, for a non-relativist theory such as the one described above, I would expect the theory to keep its form under Galilean transformations. I am, however, not sure how to do this rigorously with a general $phi$. Any ideas?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity inertial-frames galilean-relativity invariants







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




We know from classical mechanics that the gravitational field equation for the scalar potential takes the form $$nabla^2phi=4pi rho,$$ where $rho$ is mass density (which, can depend on time and space). Also, the associated EOM for point particle takes $$ddot{x}+nablaphi=0.$$ One of the basic requirement for a classical theory is that it should not depend on the inertial reference frame we are choosing. In particular, for a non-relativist theory such as the one described above, I would expect the theory to keep its form under Galilean transformations. I am, however, not sure how to do this rigorously with a general $phi$. Any ideas?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity inertial-frames galilean-relativity invariants




newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity inertial-frames galilean-relativity invariants






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









G. Smith

6,6521023




6,6521023






New contributor




Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









CosmologeeCosmologee

63




63




New contributor




Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Cosmologee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    The equation $nabla^2phi=4pirho$ is not a dynamical equation, it's more like a constraint. Cf. physics.stackexchange.com/a/20072/4552 . In your two equations, $rho$ only appears in one, so we can just take it as a definition of $rho$. Although $rho$ transforms trivially, even if it didn't, we wouldn't care; it wouldn't affect the truth-value of the equations. To make this a predictive theory, you need to couple your two equations somehow, probably by adding in an equation of continuity or something that relates motion of particles ($ddot{x}$) to changes in $rho$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    27 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    The equation $nabla^2phi=4pirho$ is not a dynamical equation, it's more like a constraint. Cf. physics.stackexchange.com/a/20072/4552 . In your two equations, $rho$ only appears in one, so we can just take it as a definition of $rho$. Although $rho$ transforms trivially, even if it didn't, we wouldn't care; it wouldn't affect the truth-value of the equations. To make this a predictive theory, you need to couple your two equations somehow, probably by adding in an equation of continuity or something that relates motion of particles ($ddot{x}$) to changes in $rho$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    27 mins ago
















$begingroup$
The equation $nabla^2phi=4pirho$ is not a dynamical equation, it's more like a constraint. Cf. physics.stackexchange.com/a/20072/4552 . In your two equations, $rho$ only appears in one, so we can just take it as a definition of $rho$. Although $rho$ transforms trivially, even if it didn't, we wouldn't care; it wouldn't affect the truth-value of the equations. To make this a predictive theory, you need to couple your two equations somehow, probably by adding in an equation of continuity or something that relates motion of particles ($ddot{x}$) to changes in $rho$.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
27 mins ago




$begingroup$
The equation $nabla^2phi=4pirho$ is not a dynamical equation, it's more like a constraint. Cf. physics.stackexchange.com/a/20072/4552 . In your two equations, $rho$ only appears in one, so we can just take it as a definition of $rho$. Although $rho$ transforms trivially, even if it didn't, we wouldn't care; it wouldn't affect the truth-value of the equations. To make this a predictive theory, you need to couple your two equations somehow, probably by adding in an equation of continuity or something that relates motion of particles ($ddot{x}$) to changes in $rho$.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
27 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Under Galilean transformations, the potential $phi$ is a scalar satisying $phi’(mathbf{r}’, t)=phi(mathbf{r}, t)$. (Here $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}’$ represent the same point in two different reference frames.) So is the mass density $rho$. The Laplacian operator can be shown to be a scalar with transformation $nabla’^2=nabla^2$. The easy argument is that it is the scalar product of the gradient vector operator with itself. For a more careful argument, work out what happens to $partial^2/partial x^2+partial^2/partial y^2+partial^2/partial z^2$ under translations, rotations, and Galilean boosts.



(A translation looks like



$$x'=x-X\y'=y-Y\z'=z-Z$$



where $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are constants.



A rotation looks like



$$x_i'=R_{ij}x_j$$



where $R$ is a constant rotation matrix.



A boost looks like



$$x'=x-V_xt\y'=y-V_yt\z'=z-V_zt$$



where $V_x$, $V_y$, and $V_z$ are constants.)



Therefore this equation has the covariant form scalar=scalar under translations, rotations, and boosts. Put differently



$$nabla^2phi(mathbf{r},t)=4pirho(mathbf{r},t)$$



implies



$$nabla’^2phi’(mathbf{r’},t)=4pirho’(mathbf{r’},t),$$



which shows that it is form-invariant.



The second equation,



$$ddot{mathbf{r}}=-nablaphi,$$



is covariant because both acceleration and the gradient operator are vectors under rotations and scalars under translations and boosts; and the potential is a scalar under all three.



So under rotations, this equation has the covariant form vector=vector, and under translations and boosts it has the covariant form scalar=scalar.



Put another way, this equation implies



$$ddot{mathbf{r’}}=-nabla’phi’,$$



so it is form-invariant.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Cosmologee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459113%2fnewtons-theory-of-gravity-is-covariant-under-galilean-transformations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    Under Galilean transformations, the potential $phi$ is a scalar satisying $phi’(mathbf{r}’, t)=phi(mathbf{r}, t)$. (Here $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}’$ represent the same point in two different reference frames.) So is the mass density $rho$. The Laplacian operator can be shown to be a scalar with transformation $nabla’^2=nabla^2$. The easy argument is that it is the scalar product of the gradient vector operator with itself. For a more careful argument, work out what happens to $partial^2/partial x^2+partial^2/partial y^2+partial^2/partial z^2$ under translations, rotations, and Galilean boosts.



    (A translation looks like



    $$x'=x-X\y'=y-Y\z'=z-Z$$



    where $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are constants.



    A rotation looks like



    $$x_i'=R_{ij}x_j$$



    where $R$ is a constant rotation matrix.



    A boost looks like



    $$x'=x-V_xt\y'=y-V_yt\z'=z-V_zt$$



    where $V_x$, $V_y$, and $V_z$ are constants.)



    Therefore this equation has the covariant form scalar=scalar under translations, rotations, and boosts. Put differently



    $$nabla^2phi(mathbf{r},t)=4pirho(mathbf{r},t)$$



    implies



    $$nabla’^2phi’(mathbf{r’},t)=4pirho’(mathbf{r’},t),$$



    which shows that it is form-invariant.



    The second equation,



    $$ddot{mathbf{r}}=-nablaphi,$$



    is covariant because both acceleration and the gradient operator are vectors under rotations and scalars under translations and boosts; and the potential is a scalar under all three.



    So under rotations, this equation has the covariant form vector=vector, and under translations and boosts it has the covariant form scalar=scalar.



    Put another way, this equation implies



    $$ddot{mathbf{r’}}=-nabla’phi’,$$



    so it is form-invariant.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      Under Galilean transformations, the potential $phi$ is a scalar satisying $phi’(mathbf{r}’, t)=phi(mathbf{r}, t)$. (Here $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}’$ represent the same point in two different reference frames.) So is the mass density $rho$. The Laplacian operator can be shown to be a scalar with transformation $nabla’^2=nabla^2$. The easy argument is that it is the scalar product of the gradient vector operator with itself. For a more careful argument, work out what happens to $partial^2/partial x^2+partial^2/partial y^2+partial^2/partial z^2$ under translations, rotations, and Galilean boosts.



      (A translation looks like



      $$x'=x-X\y'=y-Y\z'=z-Z$$



      where $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are constants.



      A rotation looks like



      $$x_i'=R_{ij}x_j$$



      where $R$ is a constant rotation matrix.



      A boost looks like



      $$x'=x-V_xt\y'=y-V_yt\z'=z-V_zt$$



      where $V_x$, $V_y$, and $V_z$ are constants.)



      Therefore this equation has the covariant form scalar=scalar under translations, rotations, and boosts. Put differently



      $$nabla^2phi(mathbf{r},t)=4pirho(mathbf{r},t)$$



      implies



      $$nabla’^2phi’(mathbf{r’},t)=4pirho’(mathbf{r’},t),$$



      which shows that it is form-invariant.



      The second equation,



      $$ddot{mathbf{r}}=-nablaphi,$$



      is covariant because both acceleration and the gradient operator are vectors under rotations and scalars under translations and boosts; and the potential is a scalar under all three.



      So under rotations, this equation has the covariant form vector=vector, and under translations and boosts it has the covariant form scalar=scalar.



      Put another way, this equation implies



      $$ddot{mathbf{r’}}=-nabla’phi’,$$



      so it is form-invariant.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        Under Galilean transformations, the potential $phi$ is a scalar satisying $phi’(mathbf{r}’, t)=phi(mathbf{r}, t)$. (Here $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}’$ represent the same point in two different reference frames.) So is the mass density $rho$. The Laplacian operator can be shown to be a scalar with transformation $nabla’^2=nabla^2$. The easy argument is that it is the scalar product of the gradient vector operator with itself. For a more careful argument, work out what happens to $partial^2/partial x^2+partial^2/partial y^2+partial^2/partial z^2$ under translations, rotations, and Galilean boosts.



        (A translation looks like



        $$x'=x-X\y'=y-Y\z'=z-Z$$



        where $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are constants.



        A rotation looks like



        $$x_i'=R_{ij}x_j$$



        where $R$ is a constant rotation matrix.



        A boost looks like



        $$x'=x-V_xt\y'=y-V_yt\z'=z-V_zt$$



        where $V_x$, $V_y$, and $V_z$ are constants.)



        Therefore this equation has the covariant form scalar=scalar under translations, rotations, and boosts. Put differently



        $$nabla^2phi(mathbf{r},t)=4pirho(mathbf{r},t)$$



        implies



        $$nabla’^2phi’(mathbf{r’},t)=4pirho’(mathbf{r’},t),$$



        which shows that it is form-invariant.



        The second equation,



        $$ddot{mathbf{r}}=-nablaphi,$$



        is covariant because both acceleration and the gradient operator are vectors under rotations and scalars under translations and boosts; and the potential is a scalar under all three.



        So under rotations, this equation has the covariant form vector=vector, and under translations and boosts it has the covariant form scalar=scalar.



        Put another way, this equation implies



        $$ddot{mathbf{r’}}=-nabla’phi’,$$



        so it is form-invariant.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Under Galilean transformations, the potential $phi$ is a scalar satisying $phi’(mathbf{r}’, t)=phi(mathbf{r}, t)$. (Here $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}’$ represent the same point in two different reference frames.) So is the mass density $rho$. The Laplacian operator can be shown to be a scalar with transformation $nabla’^2=nabla^2$. The easy argument is that it is the scalar product of the gradient vector operator with itself. For a more careful argument, work out what happens to $partial^2/partial x^2+partial^2/partial y^2+partial^2/partial z^2$ under translations, rotations, and Galilean boosts.



        (A translation looks like



        $$x'=x-X\y'=y-Y\z'=z-Z$$



        where $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are constants.



        A rotation looks like



        $$x_i'=R_{ij}x_j$$



        where $R$ is a constant rotation matrix.



        A boost looks like



        $$x'=x-V_xt\y'=y-V_yt\z'=z-V_zt$$



        where $V_x$, $V_y$, and $V_z$ are constants.)



        Therefore this equation has the covariant form scalar=scalar under translations, rotations, and boosts. Put differently



        $$nabla^2phi(mathbf{r},t)=4pirho(mathbf{r},t)$$



        implies



        $$nabla’^2phi’(mathbf{r’},t)=4pirho’(mathbf{r’},t),$$



        which shows that it is form-invariant.



        The second equation,



        $$ddot{mathbf{r}}=-nablaphi,$$



        is covariant because both acceleration and the gradient operator are vectors under rotations and scalars under translations and boosts; and the potential is a scalar under all three.



        So under rotations, this equation has the covariant form vector=vector, and under translations and boosts it has the covariant form scalar=scalar.



        Put another way, this equation implies



        $$ddot{mathbf{r’}}=-nabla’phi’,$$



        so it is form-invariant.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 8 mins ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        G. SmithG. Smith

        6,6521023




        6,6521023






















            Cosmologee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Cosmologee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Cosmologee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Cosmologee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459113%2fnewtons-theory-of-gravity-is-covariant-under-galilean-transformations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Costa Masnaga

            Image
            .mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-div>div,.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-full-div>div{font-size:90%}.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-image div{width:52px}.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-full-div .hide-when-compact{display:block} Questa voce o sezione sull'argomento Lombardia non cita le fonti necessarie o quelle presenti sono insufficienti . Puoi migliorare questa voce aggiungendo citazioni da fonti attendibili secondo le linee guida sull'uso delle fonti. Segui i suggerimenti del progetto di riferimento. Costa Masnaga comune Localizzazione Stato   Italia Regione Lombardia Provincia Lecco Amministrazione Sindaco Sabina Panzeri (Al centro il cittadino) dall'08/06/2009 Territorio Coordinate 45°46′N 9°17′E  /  45.766667°N 9.283333°E 45.766667; 9.283333  ( Costa Masnaga ) Coordinate: 45°46′N 9°17′E  /  45.766667°N 9.283333°E 45.766667; 9.283333  ( Costa Masnaga ) Altitudine 318 m s.l.m...
            Read more

            Fotorealismo

            Image
            Guerrino Boatto, Venice's St. Barnaba Church and canal Il fotorealismo è un genere di pittura basato sull'uso di una o più fotografie dalle quali l'artista prende le informazioni necessarie da utilizzare poi nel processo della creazione dell'opera, in genere ad olio o ad acrilico, al fine di avere un aspetto finale il più simile possibile alla fotografia. Indice 1 Storia 2 Lista dei fotorealisti 3 Note 4 Voci correlate 5 Altri progetti Storia | Il fotorealismo è un movimento che nasce negli Stati Uniti d'America alla fine degli anni sessanta [1] sulla scia della Pop Art [2] [3] [4] , e insieme condividono il carattere reazionario verso la travolgente ascesa dei media, che alla metà del ventesimo secolo si trasforma in un fenomeno di massa talmente imponente da minacciare il valore dell'immagine nell'arte. [5] [6] Ne consegue così che, colto il gesto d'inizio che fu della Pop Art, i fotorealisti aprono ad un ...
            Read more

            Sidney Franklin

            Image
            Questa voce sull'argomento registi statunitensi è solo un abbozzo . Contribuisci a migliorarla secondo le convenzioni di Wikipedia. Sidney Franklin, foto di Carl Van Vechten Oscar alla memoria Irving G. Thalberg 1943 Sidney Franklin , all'anagrafe Sidney Arnold Franklin , (San Francisco, 21 marzo 1893 – Santa Monica, 18 maggio 1972), è stato un regista, produttore cinematografico e attore statunitense. Il 20 giugno 1963, si sposò con l'attrice australiana Enid Bennett. Il matrimonio durò fino alla morte dell'attrice, il 14 maggio 1969 [1] Indice 1 Filmografia 1.1 Regista 1.2 Aiuto regia (parziale) 1.3 Produttore 1.4 Attore (parziale) 2 Note 3 Altri progetti 4 Collegamenti esterni Filmografia | Regista | The Baby , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) The Rivals , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) Little Dick's First Case , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) Her Filmland Hero , co-...
            Read more