On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 5:31:35 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 6:41:00 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:40:31 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:34:31 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> *Even if gravitons are detected, and they account for "force" >>>> consistent with the other three forces, wouldn't there remain the task of >>>> changing the form of gravity to make it covariant? AG* >>>> >>>> >>>> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic >>>> particles and covariant. >>>> >>> >>> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not >>> the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for >>> this thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did >>> Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG * >>> >>>> >>>> *Would that require tensors? AG* >>>> >>>> >> General relativity is covariant, and curvature is expressed according to >> Riemann tensors. >> >> LC >> > > *Thanks, but I think you missed the thrust of my question; namely, if a > theory using gravitons is independent of GR, since it would have to be > covariant, could that be done without tenors, or are tensors nevertheless > necessary. AG* >
Tensors transform homogeneously with the Lorentz group and are thus covariant. Yep you need tensors. LC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
