On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 5:31:35 PM UTC-6, [email protected] 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, [email protected] >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:34:31 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
