Do tidal forces mean the Equivalence Principle is BS?

  • #1
From another thread this question came up:

I am simply saying that there is no test you can do in a closed room that will distinguish between uniform acceleration and gravity. That is the very essence of EP.
What about tidal forces? Although they could be incredibly small (and I don't think anyone denies they exist) you could conceive of a test in a closed room that detects tidal forces (if it is gravity) and when it doesn't detect them it is uniform acceleration. Isn't this an effect that makes it misleading to say gravity and uniform acceleration are equivalent, because tidal forces are a detectable force that exist in one case (gravity) but not in the other (uniform acceleration), therefore making them not equivalent effects?


To me, this means uniform acceleration and gravity are not equivalent then, and the equivalence principle is just some happenstance of physics that happens to work if we don't look too closely, but in reality these are totally different physical laws/effects from different fundamental processes, and we shouldn't be going on about how they are they same effect or equivalent. Is this a fair statement? Is the equivalence principle just a convenience/artifice for thinking about physics but doesn't hold in reality if you want to think about physics fundamentally?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
29,954
6,351
The equivalence principle is fine, you just misunderstood it.
 
  • #3
The equivalence principle is fine, you just misunderstood it.
Why do you say that
 
  • #4
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
5,800
531
The EP applies on distance scales sufficient enough so that tidal forces do not become apparent.
 
  • #5
The EP applies on distance scales sufficient enough so that tidal forces do not become apparent.
But they still must exist, which makes it an artifice or convenience, and not an accurate representation of fundamental physics, my original post is asking if the statements I made originally are fair statements regarding the EP. Are they?
 
  • #6
29,954
6,351
No, they are not fair, they are based on a misunderstanding of what the EP says. It never claims to apply to tidal effects, so objections regarding inaccuracies in the presence of tidal effects are irrelevant. There is nothing "misleading" or "BS" about the EP, you just misunderstood.
 
  • #7
No, they are not fair, they are based on a misunderstanding of what the EP says. It never claims to apply to tidal effects, so objections regarding inaccuracies in the presence of tidal effects are irrelevant. There is nothing "misleading" or "BS" about the EP, you just misunderstood.
So, forgetting whatever the EP principle says, and just speaking on the fundamental reality of physics, it is true that gravity and uniform acceleration are not really equivalent in reality, and aren't the same force or come from an identical fundamental physical process then. If something is wrong or currently unknowable in this statement please elaborate it to me.
 
  • #8
29,954
6,351
just speaking on the fundamental reality of physics, it is true that gravity and uniform acceleration are not really equivalent in reality
That is way too many "reality"s for my comfort, but yes, gravity and uniform acceleration are not the same thing in general, and the equivalence principle never claims that they are.

Although the EP was historically important during Einstein's development of GR it is not a postulate or anything similar. The EP is, in fact, a consequence of the geometrical nature of GR. In any geometrical theory of gravity passive gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass, and any theory of gravity where passive gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass can be formulated geometrically. This is the core of the EP.
 
  • #9
That is way too many "reality"s for my comfort
So you don't subscribe to the "many worlds" theory then? :smile:
 
  • #10
29,954
6,351
No, I just don't like the words "reality" or "really".
 
  • #11
No, I just don't like the worse "reality" or "really".
Yeah, I was running out of ways to ask the original question so you might eventually actually respond to it and not have another non-responsive post from you.

But I did appreciate the answer once you gave it on the 3rd try.
 
  • #12
29,954
6,351
If you ask a belligerent and misinformed question then you should expect non responsive answers while people react reasonably to the bad question.
 
  • #13
If you ask a belligerent and misinformed question then you should expect non responsive answers while people react reasonably to the bad question.
I may have asked an ignorant question but not a belligerent one. Belligerent? Really? Only if when someone asks the validity of a physical concept you take it as a personal offensive attack. And what "people" reacted? I agree you reacted I suppose, with a curt "you misunderstand physics" blow off, but that was just you buddy.

Belligerent question? About physics? Dang!
 
  • #14
Matterwave
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,965
326
I think calling it "BS" is a little unwarranted.
 
  • #15
I think calling it "BS" is a little unwarranted.
All of a sudden I feel like Matt Damon's character in Good Will Hunting.
 
  • #17
29,954
6,351
Belligerent? Really?
Yes. Words like "BS" and "misleading" are belligerent, particularly when you put "BS" in the title of the thread.
 
  • #18
43
1
The equivalence principle is usually stated locally and that's where it's valid. It's not BS. The constancy of the speed of light is also only valid for a local observer and nobody says it's BS.

If you were a zero-dimensional person you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between gravity and your acceleration.
 
  • #19
972
0
Yes. Words like "BS" and "misleading" are belligerent, particularly when you put "BS" in the title of the thread.
If the word "misleading" is belligerent, then so is the word "belligerent" itself.
 
  • #20
2,967
5
Dear OP,

What is the Equivalence Principle?
 
  • #21
29,954
6,351
If the word "misleading" is belligerent, then so is the word "belligerent" itself.
This is BS and is misleading.

Do you not feel that this is a belligerent response? (btw, I do agree with you also, considering it in context in post 12)
 
Last edited:
  • #22
972
0
If the word "misleading" is belligerent, then so is the word "belligerent" itself.
This is BS and is misleading.

Do you not feel that this is a belligerent response? (btw, I do agree with you also, considering it in context in post 12)
All criticisms of another's manners are ironic in a certain way. Think about all those people who always make comments about other people's behaviors.... are they the nicest people in the world you have ever met? I hope not. That was the essence of my statement's point.
 
  • #23
29,954
6,351
Sure. That doesn't mean that such criticisms are incorrect or inappropriate.
 
  • #24
47
0
Well Equivalence Principle means that two objects of different mass fall at same rate and also that acceleration in non-inertial reference frame has the same gravitational properties as an object in an inertial reference frame. Tidal forces are basically the squeezing and squashing of objects near a gravitational field..Why? because of the vectors properties of the field.
 
  • #25
972
0
Well Equivalence Principle means that two objects of different mass fall at same rate and also that acceleration in non-inertial reference frame has the same gravitational properties as an object in an inertial reference frame. Tidal forces are basically the squeezing and squashing of objects near a gravitational field..Why? because of the vectors properties of the field.
A black hole of one solar mass will definitely not fall on Earth at the same rate as a pile of bricks.

In other words, this "Equivalence Principle" (wrong definition by the way) is a nice approximation of reality. I'm sure there are better ones that will be discovered, and I don't care who discovers it.
 

Related Threads on Do tidal forces mean the Equivalence Principle is BS?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
995
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
658
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
Top