Gravitational vs Inertial Mass

In summary: I was going to add something about the equivalence principle, but this explanation is much more succinct.
  • #1
Naty1
5,606
40
(I realized I have a confusing post title but can't figure how to edit it..It should read "Gravitational curvature vs gravitational force"

Under 'mass' Wikipedia makes a statement:


Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity starting from the assumption that this correspondence between inertial and (passive) gravitational mass is not accidental: that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them (the weak version of the equivalence principle). However, in the resulting theory gravitation is not a force and thus not subject to Newton's third law, so "the equality of inertial and active gravitational mass [...] remains as puzzling as ever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_mass#Gravitational_mass
Inertial and Gravitational Mass



What do you all think about this? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
However, in the resulting theory gravitation is not a force and thus not subject to Newton's third law, so "the equality of inertial and active gravitational mass [...] remains as puzzling as ever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_mass#Gravitational_mass
Inertial and Gravitational Mass
Stating that "gravitation is not a force" without mentioning that free falling objects are not considered accelerated in GR anymore, is telling just half of the story. This omission also causes the puzzling:

Since in GR a free falling object is not accelerated, it's inertial mass is irrelevant for it's trajectory, and does not have to be equal to an "active gravitational mass" causing an attractive force which doesn't exist in GR.
 
  • #3
Was there a recent redefinition of gravity or something that I'm unaware of? What's all this about gravity not being a force? If it's not, then why am I being accelerated downward? If I'm not, then why do I feel a force on my back (I'm laying down)?
 
  • #4
daytripper said:
Was there a recent redefinition of gravity or something that I'm unaware of? What's all this about gravity not being a force? If it's not, then why am I being accelerated downward? If I'm not, then why do I feel a force on my back (I'm laying down)?
If you feel a force on your back (while laying down) then you are being accelerated upwards.
 
  • #5
daytripper said:
Was there a recent redefinition of gravity or something that I'm unaware of? What's all this about gravity not being a force?
Gravity is a pseudo-force in general relativity. Nothing new here, just something you haven't been taught. Imagine you are floating around weightlessly in a spaceship with no windows. Is there any experiment you can conduct in the confines of this spaceship that will let you determine whether you are in in some region of (nearly) flat space between galaxies or in orbit around some massive object such as a planet or a star?

The answer, according to Einstein's equivalence principle, is no. Einstein's equivalence principle is intermediate between the weak and strong forms of the equivalence principle. The strong form has been tested and now stands as one of the (if not the) most accurately verified claims in all of physics. For example, see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/20870 and http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21148.

If it's not, then why am I being accelerated downward?
Because you aren't in an inertial frame. Gravity is a pseudo-force. All pseudo-forces (e.g., centrifugal force, coriolis effect, inertial force (frame acceleration)) result from attempting to explain physical laws that strictly apply in inertial frames only in a non-inertial frame. All pseudo-forces have one thing in common: The force acting on some object is proportional to the mass of the object. Clue #1 that gravitation is a pseudo-force: The gravitational force acting on some object is proportional to the mass of the object. Clue #2 is the equivalence principle.

If I'm not, then why do I feel a force on my back (I'm laying down)?
That is a real force; it's called the normal force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Ok, I think I'm starting to understand. I didn't realize I never understood WHY space-time curvature causes me to drift toward masses. In the trampoline analogy, gravity pulls the marbles toward the bowling ball. What can accelerate me other than a force? With centrifugal force, it's my inertia moving forward as, for instance, a car turns. What causes this? Why can't I understand gravity? haha
 
  • #7
DH posted:
Gravity is a pseudo-force in general relativity.

THAT must be what Wikipedia was trying to say...I still think it's an obtuse statement...

It's no wonder there are lengthy threads here where we are trying to understand each others context and choice of words...not to mention different interpretations of some mathematics...

"All pseudo-forces (e.g., centrifugal force, coriolis effect, inertial force (frame acceleration)) result from attempting to explain physical laws that strictly apply in inertial frames only in a non-inertial frame..."
Nicely laid out!..haven't seen that description before

Thanks DH.
 
  • #8
Naty1 said:
DH posted:


THAT must be what Wikipedia was trying to say...I still think it's an obtuse statement...

It's no wonder there are lengthy threads here where we are trying to understand each others context and choice of words...not to mention different interpretations of some mathematics...

"All pseudo-forces (e.g., centrifugal force, coriolis effect, inertial force (frame acceleration)) result from attempting to explain physical laws that strictly apply in inertial frames only in a non-inertial frame..."
Nicely laid out!..haven't seen that description before

Thanks DH.

You might also like to look at

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1636657#post1636657.
 
  • #10
atyy said:
The "puzzling as ever" is a phrase from Rindler, Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological, OUP 2001, p22: http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=fUj_LW51GfQC&printsec=frontcover#PPA22,M1.
Okay, here the "active graviational mass" in fact means the energy stress tensor, causing space time curvature. That was not clear in the wiki text.

It also says that inertia is not interaction with the own gravitational field. Is there a good explanation why not, somewhere?
 

What is the difference between gravitational and inertial mass?

Gravitational mass is the measure of an object's response to a gravitational force, while inertial mass is the measure of an object's resistance to changes in its motion.

Why are gravitational and inertial mass considered to be equivalent?

Gravitational and inertial mass are considered to be equivalent because they both have the same effect on an object's motion in a gravitational field.

How are gravitational and inertial mass measured?

Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the gravitational force on an object to a standard mass, while inertial mass is measured by comparing the acceleration of an object to a known force.

What is the importance of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass?

The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is important in explaining the laws of motion and gravity, as well as in the development of theories such as general relativity.

Can the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass be tested?

Yes, the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass can be tested through experiments such as the Eötvös experiment, which compares the gravitational and inertial masses of different substances.

Similar threads

  • Classical Physics
Replies
6
Views
65
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
282
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top