This is awesome to those interested in science.

[corndog36]

I'm not a physicist, so perhaps someone can help me out with this. Is this frame dragging a case where the flat space-time paradigm can not be applied as well as the curved space-time paradigm, or simple another confirmation of General Relativity? Also, since wormholes have been brought up, does the existence of wormholes depend on the flat space-time paradigm being dis-proven?

[lilphil1989]

I'm not a physicist, so perhaps someone can help me out with this. Is this frame dragging a case where the flat space-time paradigm can not be applied as well as the curved space-time paradigm, or simple another confirmation of General Relativity? Also, since wormholes have been brought up, does the existence of wormholes depend on the flat space-time paradigm being dis-proven?

The "curved space-time paradigm" is general relativity. Frame dragging would not be expected in the flat space-time of special relativity, it's a purely general relativistic effect.

The "flat space-time paradigm" has already been disproved. GR describes spacetime as a curved (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold and there is a large body of evidence in it's favour.

[corndog36]

I'm not a physicist, so perhaps someone can help me out with this. Is this frame dragging a case where the flat space-time paradigm can not be applied as well as the curved space-time paradigm, or simple another confirmation of General Relativity? Also, since wormholes have been brought up, does the existence of wormholes depend on the flat space-time paradigm being dis-proven?

The "curved space-time paradigm" is general relativity. Frame dragging would not be expected in the flat space-time of special relativity, it's a purely general relativistic effect.

The "flat space-time paradigm" has already been disproved. GR describes spacetime as a curved (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold and there is a large body of evidence in it's favour.

I'm thinking of the flat space-time paradigm as described by Kip Thorne in his book; Black Holes and Time Warps. He asks the question: Is spacetime really curved? He then goes on to show that all the predictions of GR can be explained by a flat spacetime where the measurements of "perfect" clocks and rulers are distorted by the gravitational field. He states:

Since the two viewpoints (curved spacetime and flat) agree on the results of all experiments, they are physically equivalent. Which viewpoint tells the real truth is irrelevant for experiments; it is a matter for philosophers to debate, not physicists.

The book doesn't mention frame dragging and I was curious if it might be a case where the flat spacetime paradigm didn't work, but on rereading the chapter I'm thinking not.

[lilphil1989]

I'm thinking of the flat space-time paradigm as described by Kip Thorne in his book; Black Holes and Time Warps. He asks the question: Is spacetime really curved? He then goes on to show that all the predictions of GR can be explained by a flat spacetime where the measurements of "perfect" clocks and rulers are distorted by the gravitational field. He states:

Since the two viewpoints (curved spacetime and flat) agree on the results of all experiments, they are physically equivalent. Which viewpoint tells the real truth is irrelevant for experiments; it is a matter for philosophers to debate, not physicists.

The book doesn't mention frame dragging and I was curious if it might be a case where the flat spacetime paradigm didn't work, but on rereading the chapter I'm thinking not.

As far as I can tell from a quick browse of book reviews, he asserts that they are the same, instead of demonstrating it (although such a demonstration would probably be too "heavy-going" for a popsci book anyway).
Doubtless he's right, he's one of the most knowledgeable people around as far as GR is concerned, although I would like to see how you can get full gravitational lensing, for example, in a flat spacetime description.

Do you have links to any calculations?

[corndog36]

I'm thinking of the flat space-time paradigm as described by Kip Thorne in his book; Black Holes and Time Warps. He asks the question: Is spacetime really curved? He then goes on to show that all the predictions of GR can be explained by a flat spacetime where the measurements of "perfect" clocks and rulers are distorted by the gravitational field. He states:

Since the two viewpoints (curved spacetime and flat) agree on the results of all experiments, they are physically equivalent. Which viewpoint tells the real truth is irrelevant for experiments; it is a matter for philosophers to debate, not physicists.

The book doesn't mention frame dragging and I was curious if it might be a case where the flat spacetime paradigm didn't work, but on rereading the chapter I'm thinking not.

As far as I can tell from a quick browse of book reviews, he asserts that they are the same, instead of demonstrating it (although such a demonstration would probably be too "heavy-going" for a popsci book anyway).
Doubtless he's right, he's one of the most knowledgeable people around as far as GR is concerned, although I would like to see how you can get full gravitational lensing, for example, in a flat spacetime description.

Do you have links to any calculations?

As you say he doesn't get into heavy mathematics, as it is a book for layman. I was able to find a link that appears to be a demonstration of the lensing aspect of it. I can't be certain, since the math is above my paygrade, but you could undoubtedly make sense of it.

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/201...rical.html