Laws in freely falling elevator

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter beacon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elevator Falling Laws
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between freely falling elevators and the principles of general relativity (GR) and special relativity (SR). Participants explore how the laws of physics in a freely falling elevator can resemble those in an inertial frame of reference, as well as the implications of the equivalence principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that textbooks often use the example of a freely falling elevator to illustrate that the laws of physics take the same form as in SR, prompting questions about the underlying reasons for this equivalence.
  • One participant summarizes the conditions necessary for SR to apply in a free-falling lab, emphasizing the importance of a nonrotating frame and a small region in spacetime to eliminate the effects of gravity.
  • Another participant describes a thought experiment involving a ball dropped in a freely falling elevator, suggesting two interpretations: either the elevator is in free fall within a gravitational field or it is in a region of flat spacetime where gravity is negligible.
  • There is a hypothesis proposed that the laws appear the same as in SR when one cannot perceive the existence of gravity, which is acknowledged as a significant point by other participants.
  • Additional conditions are mentioned, such as the necessity for the lab to be small and nonrotating to avoid the effects of gravity on the motion of objects within it.
  • A later reply references the general relativistic equation of motion, explaining how in free-fall frames, certain terms vanish, leading to a form that resembles the Minkowski force equation from SR.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the significance of the equivalence principle and the conditions under which the laws of physics in a freely falling elevator resemble those in SR. However, there are nuances and conditions that remain contested, and no consensus is reached on all aspects of the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the size of the elevator and the rotational state, as well as the assumption that gravity can be transformed away in a sufficiently small region. These factors are crucial for the applicability of the equivalence principle and the resulting interpretations.

beacon
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
It seems that when talking about the GR, the textbooks usually give the example of a freely falling elevator. They say in such an elevator the laws take the same form as in SR.

Why in such a elevator the laws take the same form as in SR? How is it related to equivalance theorem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am summarizing "A Short Course in General Relativity," by creating a lab that is free falling, that takes up a small region in spacetime, and that is nonrotating with respect to distant cosmic matter, you create an environment that has the effect of eliminating gravity. That way you can emulate the conditions necessary for SR to apply, and the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitiational mass is an essential aspect of these conditions.
 
Originally posted by beacon
It seems that when talking about the GR, the textbooks usually give the example of a freely falling elevator. They say in such an elevator the laws take the same form as in SR.

Why in such a elevator the laws take the same form as in SR? How is it related to equivalance theorem?

Imagine you are in a small elevator without knowing what is happening outside it, and holding a ball in your hand. When dropping the ball you can see it hoover in the elevator right at the place where you let it go. Then you have two ways of interpreting this situation:
Either you are falling freely in a gravitational field (the ball has the same acceleration as the elevator according to Newton), or the elevator is situated somewhere without being affected by gravity (i.e. you are in a region of flat spacetime = SR holds). You really can´t tell which one is true.
Note that this only holds for elevators of infinitesimal size. In a large elevator the shape of the gravitational field will affect the motion of the ball (e.g. a sperical field will make the ball move towards the centre of the elevator).
This is a motivation for the equivalence theorem, which says that localy (i.e. at a point) you can always choose coordinates so you get flat spacetime.
 
I think there is a hypothesis in your argument:
One sees the laws with the same form as in SR when one can not feel the exsistence of gravity.

Is this it?
 
That's the biggest point, but there are other conditions that must be met, specifically that the lab is very small (because otherwise whatever gravity you are attempting to transform away shows itself through converging falling vectors), and that the lab be nonrotating.

But you've nailed the most important idea: transforming away gravity.
 
Originally posted by beacon
It seems that when talking about the GR, the textbooks usually give the example of a freely falling elevator. They say in such an elevator the laws take the same form as in SR.

Why in such a elevator the laws take the same form as in SR? How is it related to equivalance theorem?

These kinds of mind experiments were what led to general relativity, but in hindsight it is obvious in terms of the general relativistic equation of motion. The general relativistic equation of motion is
[tex]F^\lambda = \frac{DP^\lambda}{d\tau} = \frac{dP^\lambda}{d\tau} + \Gamma ^{\lambda}_{\mu}_{\nu}U^{\mu}P^{\nu}[/tex]
In free fall frames the affine connections [tex]\Gamma ^{\lambda}_{\mu}_{\nu}[/tex] vanish and what is left is
[tex]F^\lambda = \frac{dP^\lambda}{d\tau}[/tex]
which is the Minkowski force equation which is the special relativistic law of motion.
 
Last edited:
I see.
Thank you all. £º£_£©
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K