Dought regarding equivalence principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the principle of equivalence, specifically the relationship between inertial mass and gravitational mass, and how binding forces within a nucleus may affect these masses. Participants explore the implications of mass reduction in the context of nuclear interactions and the validity of the equivalence principle.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express doubts about the validity of the equivalence principle, questioning how a reduction in inertial mass within a nucleus correlates with gravitational mass.
  • It is noted that while inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same numerical value, they are defined differently and may not share the same physical implications.
  • One participant argues that the reduction in mass is purely due to inertial effects, suggesting that gravitational mass does not play a role in nuclear interactions.
  • Another participant counters that the equivalence principle holds because both inertial and gravitational mass are affected by energy, referencing Einstein's work on the relationship between energy and mass.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity, particularly regarding how energy increases inertia and whether this increase corresponds to gravitational mass.
  • Some participants challenge the relevance of Einstein's arguments to the current discussion, suggesting that the concept of mass should not be conflated with outdated ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of mass reduction in the context of the equivalence principle. Multiple competing views are presented, with some arguing for the validity of the principle and others questioning it based on nuclear interactions.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of mass in different contexts and the applicability of Einstein's theories to the current arguments. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations of the equivalence principle and its implications for mass in nuclear physics.

einstein_vishnu
i have some doughts regarding the principle of equivalence.we have seen that the inertial mass and gravitational mass are same.now consider the nucleus where in nucleons are binded due to which there wiil be mass reduction,this is inertial mass.then how come there is decrease in gravitational mass?,if this decrease is only in inertial then the raio of two masses would be different depending on the binding forces.is there any real explanation for this.i feel we can to some extent show that equivalece priniciple is not valid
 
Physics news on Phys.org
einstein_vishnu said:
we have seen that the inertial mass and gravitational mass are same.
They have the same numerical value. They are not defined the same way and therefore they do not have the same physical meaning.
now consider the nucleus where in nucleons are binded due to which there wiil be mass reduction,this is inertial mass.then how come there is decrease in gravitational mass?
Since mg = mi, where mi = inertial mass and mg = gravitational mass, there will always be a reduction in inertial mass whenever there is a reduction in gravitational mass.
,if this decrease is only in inertial ..
Where did you get this impression?

For a description of the physics of why this works in the case you give, go to www.geocities.com/physics_world, click on "On the concept of mass in relativity", turn to page 52 and read the section called "Why does E = mc2?" (Note: There are a lot of gramatical errors and typos. Please let me know if you find any. I would be very grateful.)

Pete
 
of course i am talking about the numerical values,they are defined in different contest i agree, but the reduction in the mass is purely due to inertial,because there is no question of gravitational mass in nuiclear interaction.thanku for the reply
 
pmb_phy said:
They have the same numerical value. They are not defined the same way and therefore they do not have the same physical meaning.
In relativity, yes they are.
Consider geodesic motion
[tex]F^{\lambda } = m\frac{DU^{\lambda }}{d\tau } = 0[/tex]
[tex]m\frac{dU^{\lambda }}{d\tau } + m\Gamma ^{\lambda }_{\mu }_{\nu }U^{\mu }U^{\nu } = 0[/tex]
[tex]- m\Gamma ^{\lambda }_{\mu }_{\nu }U^{\mu }U^{\nu } = m\frac{dU^{\lambda }}{d\tau }[/tex]
[tex]mg^{\lambda} = m\alpha^{\lambda}[/tex]
The m on the left is then called gravitational mass. The m on the right is then called inertial mass. They are identically the same thing and are the only kind of mass that really is, which is invariant.
 
einstein_vishnu said:
of course i am talking about the numerical values,they are defined in different contest i agree, but the reduction in the mass is purely due to inertial,because there is no question of gravitational mass in nuiclear interaction.thanku for the reply
The reduction in mass is not just inertial because E = mc2 does not just apply to inertial mass, it also applies to gravitational mass. Einstein showed this exact thing in 1911 in his paper On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light. That paper is online at

http://www.itba.edu.ar/cargrado/fismat/fismod/transf/htm/einstein_5.htm

See Section 2 On the Gravitation of Energy where Einstein poses the question
One result yielded by the theory of relativity is that the inertia of a body increases with the energy it contains; if the increase in energy amounts to E, the increase in inertia mass is equal to E/c2, when c denotes the velocity of light. Now is there an increase in of gravitating mass correponding to this increase in inertia mass? If not, thena body would fall in the same gravitational field witgh varying acceleration according to the energy it contained. That highly satisfactory result of the theory of relativity by which the law of conservation of mass is merged with the law of conservtion of energy could not be maintained, because it would compel us to abandon the law of the conservation of mass in its old form for inertia mass, and maintain it for gravitational mass.

<Einstein presents his argument and concludes>

The increase in gravitational mass is thus E/c2, and therefore equal to the increase in inertia mass as given by the theory of relativity.
I highly recommend reading this article. It is a very important article if you want to learn the equivalence principle.

Hope that helps.

Pete
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pmb_phy said:
The reduction in mass is not just inertial because E = mc2 does not just apply to inertial mass, it also applies to gravitational mass. Einstein showed this exact thing in 1911 in his paper On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light. That paper is online at

http://www.itba.edu.ar/cargrado/fismat/fismod/transf/htm/einstein_5.htm

See Section 2 On the Gravitation of Energy where Einstein poses the question

I highly recommend reading this article. It is a very important article if you want to learn the equivalence principle.

Hope that helps.

Pete

What Einstein said is irrelevant to your argument. The energy "it contains" or center of momentum frame energy or rest energy is the mass which is invariant. As with any frame center of momentum frame energy is conserved. That is mass conservation. This says nothing of Planck's outdated concept of mass that you keep spamming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
16K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K