A ball falls with no force acting on it

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter inertiaforce
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ball Force
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of gravity and how it relates to the motion of a ball in different reference frames, specifically comparing the experience of dropping a ball on Earth to that of a ball in an upward accelerating elevator in space. The conversation explores the implications of the equivalence principle and the distinction between Newtonian and General Relativity perspectives on gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that when a ball is dropped on Earth, it falls due to the force of gravity, while in an accelerating elevator, the ball appears to fall without any force acting on it.
  • Others propose that Einstein's insight redefines gravity as not a force but a change in inertial reference frames, suggesting that both situations are indistinguishable experiences.
  • One participant highlights the difference in perspectives between Newtonian gravity, where a force acts on the ball, and General Relativity, where no real force acts on free-falling objects.
  • Another participant questions the Newtonian view, asking if a force is required for the ball to not fall when the elevator is accelerating.
  • Some participants clarify that in Newtonian terms, the Earth's surface is considered inertial while the accelerating elevator is non-inertial, leading to different interpretations of the ball's motion.
  • It is noted that in a coordinate-independent sense, the ball travels in a straight line (geodesic), while the elevator's path curves to intersect this geodesic.
  • Some participants assert that no force acts in the rest frame of the ball, but an inertial force, locally indistinguishable from gravity, acts in the rest frame of the elevator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of gravity and the role of forces in the scenarios described. There is no consensus on whether gravity should be considered a force or an inertial effect, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex interpretations of gravity that depend on the definitions of inertial and non-inertial frames, as well as the assumptions underlying Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity. There are unresolved nuances regarding the application of these theories to the scenarios presented.

inertiaforce
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
If you are standing on the Earth and you drop a ball, the ball falls to the ground due to the force of gravity acting on it.

Now imagine you are in an upward accelerating elevator in space. You let go of a ball that you are holding in your hand. The ball Is stationary in space, but the elevator floor is accelerating upward and hits the ball. This means that relative to an observer standing on the floor of the elevator, the ball appears to fall to the ground. The ball falls in the exact same way as it does when you are standing on the earth.

According to the principle of equivalence, no experiment from inside the elevator can tell whether the ball is falling or whether the elevator is accelerating upward. Therefore, the experience inside an upward accelerating elevator is indistinguishable from the experience of standing on the Earth in the Earth's gravity.

What's strange here is that no force is acting on the ball in the elevator causing it to fall. However, when standing on the earth, the Earth's gravity IS acting on the ball causing it to fall.

So, how can a ball fall inside an elevator WITH NO FORCE ACTING ON THE BALL? How is this possible?

In one situation (standing on the earth), A FORCE is acting on the ball. In the other situation, NO FORCE is acting on the ball. So even though one situation has a force acting on the ball (standing on the earth), and the other situation has no force acting on the ball (elevator), both situations are an identical experience where the ball falls to the ground. How is this possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The insight of Einstein is that gravity is not a force, but, rather like the accelerating elevator, simply a redefinition (locally) of what an inertial reference frame is.
 
inertiaforce said:
In one situation (standing on the earth), A FORCE is acting on the ball.

That is Newtons model of gravity. In General Relativity, which is based on the equivalence principle, there is no real force acting on free falling objects in a gravitational field. See this animation for comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdC0QN6f3G4
 
inertiaforce said:
Now imagine you are in an upward accelerating elevator in space.
...
What's strange here is that no force is acting on the ball in the elevator causing it to fall.
...
How is this possible?
I may not know Einstein's theory, but, from a Newtonian view, there is no contradiction.

If the elevator is accelerating, shouldn't it take a force to have the ball not fall?
(Because "not falling" means moving with the elevator, which was said to be accelerating.)

Newon's law does not say, "forces act on 'falling' objects," because "falling" can be subjective (as your post illustrates).
 
To clarify the different explanations:

Newtonian Gravity:
The frame of the Earth's surface is inertial (ignoring rotation etc.): The ball accelerates down due to the force of gravity
The frame of the accelerating box in space is non-inertial: The ball accelerates down due to an inertial force or curvlinear space-time geometry.

General Relativity:
Both frames are non-inertial: The ball accelerates down due to an inertial force or curvilinear space-time geometry.
 
inertiaforce said:
So, how can a ball fall inside an elevator WITH NO FORCE ACTING ON THE BALL? How is this possible?
In a coordinate independent sense, the ball doesn't fall, it travels in a straight line called a geodesic. The elevator is accelerating due to some force and the elevator's path curves up to intersect the ball's geodesic (straight path).
 
This does not require GRT, just Newton and Galilei.
No force is acting in the rest frame of the ball.
In the rest frame of the elevator however a gravity force IS acting.
 
my2cts said:
In the rest frame of the elevator however a gravity force IS acting.
Not Newtonian gravity, but an inertial force locally indistinguishable from gravity.
 
A.T. said:
Not Newtonian gravity, but an inertial force locally indistinguishable from gravity.

That's right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K