Equivalence principle - are all accelerations actually equivalent to gravity?

In summary, the equivalence principle states that there is no difference between being in a gravitational field and being in an accelerating reference frame. This means that the effects of gravity can be simulated by acceleration, and vice versa. However, this principle only applies to cases of proper acceleration, not coordinate acceleration. In other words, if a person is in free fall, they will not feel any weight or acceleration, regardless of whether it is caused by gravity or acceleration. The equivalence principle has its limits, as seen in scenarios where the acceleration is too great for the human body to handle, such as sustained and gradually building acceleration.
  • #1
arindamsinha
181
0
I have read the basis of the the equivalence principle, that inertial mass = gravitational mass, and that it leads to the conclusion that any acceleration = equivalent gravitational field intensity. (I believe 'gravitational field intensity' is the same as 'gravitational acceleration'.)

Einstein used an elevator example for this - one in a gravitational field and another accelerating in deep space.

Modifying that slightly, let us consider the following scenarios:
- A person in a rocket accelerating using its engines at something like 20g will probably get crushed against the floor and die soon, because the human body cannot take that kind of acceleration for any extended period
- A person in a rocket that is being accelerated at 20g by a gravitational force would be happily alive, and wouldn't feel the acceleration at all, because he is in 'free fall'

My question is, provided the above thinking is correct, how strictly true is the equivalence principle, and what are its limits? (And, if the above thinking is not correct, what am I getting wrong?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
arindamsinha said:
Modifying that slightly, let us consider the following scenarios:
- A person in a rocket accelerating using its engines at something like 20g will probably get crushed against the floor and die soon, because the human body cannot take that kind of acceleration for any extended period
- A person in a rocket that is being accelerated at 20g by a gravitational force would be happily alive, and wouldn't feel the acceleration at all, because he is in 'free fall'

Add a third scenario to that list: the rocket has landed on the surface of a planet. It's a super-massive planet with a surface gravity 20 times that of earth.

As in your first scenario, the person is crushed against the floor and dies. The equivalence principle asserts that this case is equivalent to the first case and that both are different from the second scenario, the free-fall one.

Your second scenario is analogous to what would happen in Einstein's elevator example if we were to cut the cable and allow the elevator to fall: the person inside the elevator would be in free fall and wouldn't feel the acceleration at all (until the free fall ends with a collision with the bottom of the elevator).
 
  • #3
Nugatory said:
Add a third scenario to that list: the rocket has landed on the surface of a planet. It's a super-massive planet with a surface gravity 20 times that of earth.

As in your first scenario, the person is crushed against the floor and dies. The equivalence principle asserts that this case is equivalent to the first case and that both are different from the second scenario, the free-fall one.

Your second scenario is analogous to what would happen in Einstein's elevator example if we were to cut the cable and allow the elevator to fall: the person inside the elevator would be in free fall and wouldn't feel the acceleration at all (until the free fall ends with a collision with the bottom of the elevator).

I am talking about a sustained and gradually building acceleration, not an impulse (shock) acceleration, so the scenario you mention does not hold.

Look at it this way - the rocket does not go from 1g to 20 g in a split second, but gradually climbs in acceleration by 1g/hour, reaching 20g in 20 hours. I believe the person would still die by crushing some time within those 20 hours.

If the rocket's acceleration was climbing in the same way though gravitation, going from 1g to 20g over 20 hours, I believe the person would not feel a thing, and would be alive and well after 20 hours.

Are you saying this is incorrect?
 
  • #4
arindamsinha said:
I am talking about a sustained and gradually building acceleration, not an impulse (shock) acceleration, so the scenario you mention does not hold.

There's no impulse or shock involved in the third scenario, the one that is equivalent to the first in the way that the elevator suspended at rest in a gravitational field is equivalent to the elevator accelerating in empty space. The ship is just sitting quietly on the surface of the planet.
 
  • #5
arindamsinha said:
If the rocket's acceleration was climbing in the same way though gravitation, going from 1g to 20g over 20 hours, I believe the person would not feel a thing, and would be alive and well after 20 hours.

Are you saying this is incorrect?

Yes. If we're accelerating at 20g at a particular moment, then at that moment we feel 20 times heavier than on earth. It doesn't matter what we were doing a moment before or will be doing a moment later.

[EDIT - I wrote the above, but it's completely wrong - I misread the question. My feelings won't be hurt if a moderator just deletes this post for me].
 
Last edited:
  • #6
arindamsinha said:
- A person in a rocket that is being accelerated at 20g by a gravitational force would be happily alive, and wouldn't feel the acceleration at all, because he is in 'free fall'

This person is not being accelerated; he feels no weight. He is in free fall. The equivalence principle does not say that free fall is the same as feeling weight.

"Acceleration" in the equivalence principle means proper acceleration; the "acceleration" of the person in the quote above is coordinate acceleration only.
 
  • #7
arindamsinha said:
If the rocket's acceleration was climbing in the same way though gravitation, going from 1g to 20g over 20 hours, I believe the person would not feel a thing, and would be alive and well after 20 hours.

Since he would be in free fall the whole time, yes, he would be alive and well. He would also never have been accelerated at all, according to the EP. See my previous post.
 
  • #8
Nugatory said:
If we're accelerating at 20g at a particular moment, then at that moment we feel 20 times heavier than on earth.

Only if it's proper acceleration. If you are being "accelerated at 20g" by gravity, you are actually not being accelerated at all; you are in free fall. See my previous posts.
 
  • #9
In Newtonian gravity only the linear (time dependent) accelerations are "equivalent" to gravity. In GR all accelerations are locally equivalent to gravity.
 
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
Only if it's proper acceleration. If you are being "accelerated at 20g" by gravity, you are actually not being accelerated at all; you are in free fall. See my previous posts.

I completely agree. I misread OP's question. Will fix my post if the edit window is still open.
 
  • #11
arindamsinha said:
I have read the basis of the the equivalence principle, that inertial mass = gravitational mass, and that it leads to the conclusion that any acceleration = equivalent gravitational field intensity. (I believe 'gravitational field intensity' is the same as 'gravitational acceleration'.)

Einstein used an elevator example for this - one in a gravitational field and another accelerating in deep space.

Modifying that slightly, let us consider the following scenarios:
- A person in a rocket accelerating using its engines at something like 20g will probably get crushed against the floor and die soon, because the human body cannot take that kind of acceleration for any extended period
- A person in a rocket that is being accelerated at 20g by a gravitational force would be happily alive, and wouldn't feel the acceleration at all, because he is in 'free fall'

My question is, provided the above thinking is correct, how strictly true is the equivalence principle, and what are its limits? (And, if the above thinking is not correct, what am I getting wrong?)
You are completely missing the point of the equivalence principle. Accelerating in empty space at 20 g is equivalent to being at rest in a 20 g flat gravitational field (both accelerometers read 20 g). Being in free fall in a flat gravitational field is equivalent to traveling inertially in the absence of gravity (both accelerometers read 0 g).
 
  • #12
Nugatory said:
There's no impulse or shock involved in the third scenario, the one that is equivalent to the first in the way that the elevator suspended at rest in a gravitational field is equivalent to the elevator accelerating in empty space. The ship is just sitting quietly on the surface of the planet.

Yes, now I see what you meant.

PeterDonis said:
This person is not being accelerated; he feels no weight. He is in free fall. The equivalence principle does not say that free fall is the same as feeling weight

"Acceleration" in the equivalence principle means proper acceleration; the "acceleration" of the person in the quote above is coordinate acceleration only.

I see the difference clearly now. Thanks.

DaleSpam said:
You are completely missing the point of the equivalence principle. Accelerating in empty space at 20 g is equivalent to being at rest in a 20 g flat gravitational field (both accelerometers read 20 g). Being in free fall in a flat gravitational field is equivalent to traveling inertially in the absence of gravity (both accelerometers read 0 g).

You've hit the nail on the head. I was missing the point completely. Very stupid of me. Don't know why I didn't realize it in the first place.
 
  • #13
arindamsinha said:
Modifying that slightly, let us consider the following scenarios:
- A person in a rocket accelerating using its engines at something like 20g will probably get crushed against the floor and die soon, because the human body cannot take that kind of acceleration for any extended period
- A person in a rocket that is being accelerated at 20g by a gravitational force would be happily alive, and wouldn't feel the acceleration at all, because he is in 'free fall'

The equivalence principle relates (1) accelerating at 20g through gravity-free space, and (2) being at rest in a gravitational field of strength 20g.

Alternatively, it relates (3) traveling at constant velocity in gravity-free space, and (4) falling in a gravitational field.

Of course, comparing (1) and (4) or comparing (2) and (3) you'll see a huge difference.
 
  • #14
Does not anybody cares about the locality which is inherent in equivalence principle
 
  • #15
In free fall all your molecules feel the same acceleration, that's why you don't perceive it and experience weightlessness. When you are standing still your feet are crushed by all the mass above them. Imagine 'standing' on your palms for a change. Your palms now feel the pressure of your feet.

In another scenario when you fall towards a black hole you experience spaghettification. So free fall on a black hole is radically different that free fall on earth. It's just that gravity is very weak so you experience almost exactly the same weightlessness as you would in deep space.
 

1. What is the equivalence principle?

The equivalence principle is a fundamental concept in physics that states that there is no way to distinguish between the effects of gravity and the effects of acceleration. This means that any acceleration, whether it be due to a rocket, a car, or a falling object, is equivalent to the force of gravity.

2. How does the equivalence principle relate to gravity?

The equivalence principle states that all accelerations are equivalent to the force of gravity. This means that the force experienced by an object due to gravity is equivalent to the force experienced by the same object when it is accelerating at the same rate.

3. Why is the equivalence principle important?

The equivalence principle is important because it helps us understand the nature of gravity and its effects on objects. It also forms the basis for theories such as general relativity, which have been crucial in our understanding of the universe.

4. Are there any exceptions to the equivalence principle?

While the equivalence principle is a fundamental concept in physics, there are some situations where it may not hold true. For example, at very small scales, such as the quantum level, the effects of gravity and acceleration may not be equivalent.

5. How was the equivalence principle first discovered?

The equivalence principle was first proposed by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. It was later confirmed through experiments such as the Eötvös experiment, which showed that the gravitational and inertial mass of objects were equivalent.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
923
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
912
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
691
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
122
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
3K
Back
Top