Acceleration vs Gravity in General Relativity

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of the equivalence principle in General Relativity, specifically regarding the scenario of a person in an accelerating elevator versus standing on Earth's surface. It is established that if a person projects two light beams vertically downward, the convergence of these beams can indicate their true state: convergence suggests being on Earth, while lack of convergence indicates acceleration. This highlights that the equivalence principle is only valid locally, as detailed in Carroll's General Relativity lecture notes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity principles
  • Familiarity with the equivalence principle
  • Knowledge of light propagation and measurement techniques
  • Ability to interpret spacetime diagrams
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the equivalence principle in depth using Carroll's General Relativity lecture notes
  • Explore the concept of local versus global effects in General Relativity
  • Investigate light beam behavior in gravitational fields
  • Examine experimental tests of General Relativity and their implications
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of General Relativity, and anyone interested in the nuances of gravitational effects and their experimental validation.

bgq
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Hi,

It is usually claimed that a person in an accelerating elevator with an acceleration equals to the gravity of the earth; this person cannot make any experiment that makes him know whether he is in the elevator or on the surface of earth.

However, if this person project two light beams vertically downward and perform extremely accurate measurements, then he can predict whether he is on the Earth or in an accelerating elevator as follows:

If the light beams converge a little bit, then he is on the surface of the earth. If they don't converge then he is in an accelerating elevator. Consequently, the two situations are not identical.

I totally understand that the strength of general relativity is because it passes a lot of other tests, but what surprised me is that this example is always presented although it looks to me as not accurate.

Am I missing something?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bgq said:
Am I missing something?
No. You are correct that the equivalence principle is only true locally. See, for example, the diagrams on pages 98 and 99 in Carroll's GR lecture notes (the second and third pages of this PDF: https://preposterousuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/grnotes-four.pdf) which illustrate pretty much the example you are talking about.

The definition of "local" in this case is a small enough region of spacetime that you don't notice this kind of effect (with whatever degree of precision you are measuring).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bgq
Ibix said:
No. You are correct that the equivalence principle is only true locally. See, for example, the diagrams on pages 98 and 99 in Carroll's GR lecture notes (the second and third pages of this PDF: https://preposterousuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/grnotes-four.pdf) which illustrate pretty much the example you are talking about.

The definition of "local" in this case is a small enough region of spacetime that you don't notice this kind of effect (with whatever degree of precision you are measuring).

Thank you very much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K