Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Einstein's elevator: gravity without curvature?

  1. Jul 1, 2017 #1

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This is a rather old issue, but one that has recently been on my mind.

    We often say that gravity is the curvature of space-time, with good reason. At the same time, we also talk about the "gravity" in Einstein's elevator, as an example of the equivalence principle. This is also with good reason, and is historically important. But Einstein's elevator is set in flat space-time. There is no curvature. So if we talk about gravity in Einstein's elevator, we're talking about gravity without curvature. But we have perhaps just previously said - or some other poster has previously said - that gravity is due to the curvature of space-time. Thus we are left with what appears to be a confused message.

    What's the best way of resolving this issue? Are we forced to talk about connections and Christoffel symbols to adequately define what we mean by gravity in Einstein's elevator? Is there a better way of doing this, preferably one that is accessible to B and I level readers? I don't really regard either connections or Christoffel symbols as being I level, and definitely not B level.

    On the flips side, can we modify or qualify saying that gravity is due to the curvature of space-time , in a way that will not confuse the presentation, but also allow us to talk about the "gravity" in Einstein's elevator?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 1, 2017 #2

    David Lewis

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In his thought experiment, by "gravity", Einstein meant Newtonian gravity, not GR gravity.
     
  4. Jul 1, 2017 #3

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    @pervect

    I agree with your point. In Einstein's historical papers he seemed to (inconsistently but usually) use "gravity" to refer to the Christoffel symbols. That is also what is closest to the Newtonian force of gravity.

    Perhaps we should use "gravitation" to refer to the general phenomenon which is modeled using curved spacetime in GR and use "gravity" to refer specifically to the Christoffel symbols.
     
  5. Jul 1, 2017 #4

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'd be wary of that particular choice leading to the gravity wave/gravitational wave thing again.
     
  6. Jul 1, 2017 #5

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's always felt backwards to me. The equivalence principle doesn't quite say that acceleration IS gravity, so it doesn't say that what's going on in the elevator is gravity. Instead, it says that (the local effects that we ascribe to) gravity can be understood as acceleration effects, like those we observe in the elevator. The elevator tells us a lot about how gravity works, but gravity tells us nothing about the elevator.
     
  7. Jul 1, 2017 #6

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    To be clear that the term "gravity" does not have a single meaning; it can refer to different things, so for clarity, if you use it, you have to make clear which meaning you are using. For example, if I want to use "gravity" to mean "spacetime curvature", for clarity I will say specifically "tidal gravity". Or if I want to use "gravity" to mean what is observed in an "Einstein elevator" scenario, I will say "acceleration due to gravity".
     
  8. Jul 1, 2017 #7

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Agreed. Newton says that there's a fundamental difference between the elevator under thrust and sitting on a planet, but there's no way to tell which is which. The elevator is Einstein saying "here are two things that have webbed feet and go quack - maybe we should stop calling one of them a cat".

    So I think the point is that if we're trapped in a box and the floor is pushing up on our feet, we really ought to limit ourselves to observing that we're using an accelerating frame of reference. Only when we've detected tidal effects, or managed to spot some stars with changing redshift or something should we come down one way or another and say "this is gravity" or "this is acceleration".
     
  9. Jul 2, 2017 #8
    Perhaps I'm just illustrating the confusion you're talking about, but
    The clock at the top of the elevator run faster than the clock at its bottom, don't they? So we do have a curved spacetime here, don't we?
    Maybe it's not "curved" in the mathematical sense, but it certainly isn't Minkowski spacetime.
     
  10. Jul 2, 2017 #9

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes.

    No. The difference in clock rates from bottom to top of the elevator does not, in and of itself, mean that spacetime is curved.

    Yes, it is. Google "Rindler coordinates". These are the coordinates in which observers at rest in the elevator are at rest. You will find that in these coordinates, the "rate of time flow" of an observer at rest depends on their "height" (position in the direction from bottom to top of the elevator), and that these coordinates are just a different set of coordinates on Minkowski spacetime.
     
  11. Jul 2, 2017 #10

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is Minkowski spacetime. How could me sitting on top of a rocket change the shape of spacetime? It's just that the natural coordinates to use in an accelerating elevator are curved ones that don't have the same notion of simultaneity as the usual inertial coordinates. And therefore objects that are at rest in this coordinate system are not following inertial paths and don't have the same simultaneity relationship that you would expect from inertial clocks.
     
  12. Jul 2, 2017 #11

    DrGreg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The coordinates in which the elevator is at rest are not Minkowski coordinates (and so non-inertial coordinates), but the spacetime itself is independent of your choice of coordinates and is still flat and is still Minkowski spacetime.
     
  13. Jul 2, 2017 #12
    So maybe the curvature isn't the most important part of gravity?
    Or, are you saying that gravity is the difference between an accelerating elevator, and a stationary elevator near a massive object?

    That would be quite an important problem with terminology, because to most people, gravity is the thing pulling everyone down, not the minuscule effects that can't be directly measured until you actually orbit the Earth in a rocket.
     
  14. Jul 2, 2017 #13
    Well I never quite understood how you can "transform away" acceleration. No matter how hard I'm imagining space and time axes around me, I still can't fly. So something must be wrong with the spacetime around here.
     
  15. Jul 2, 2017 #14

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    No, it means that curvature is not the same as gravitational time dilation. Spacetime curvature is tidal gravity.

    The difference in the geometry of spacetime, and therefore in the global "shape" of the path through spacetime of the elevator, yes. See below.

    That's why, when we want to be precise, we say that spacetime curvature is tidal gravity, specifically, instead of just "gravity".

    You can't. The acceleration (meaning proper acceleration--the acceleration that is felt by the person inside the elevator) is exactly what remains the same in the flat spacetime vs. the curved spacetime cases. What is different is the global "shape" of the path through spacetime of the person inside the elevator; but there is no way for that person, purely on the basis of measurements made inside the elevator, to know what the global "shape" of his path through spacetime is. To know that he has to look outside, at distant objects.
     
  16. Jul 2, 2017 #15

    Ibix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You can transform away coordinate acceleration. Just drop a set-square, and use it to define your coordinate system while it is free-falling, rather than while it is sitting on the surface of the Earth. In this description of the world the freely moving set-square is at rest, and the floor is accelerating upwards towards it.
    No, but you can free-fall. And you can choose whether to treat the floor as coming up to meet you or yourself as falling towards the floor. The former is the natural description in Newtonian physics; the latter in general relativity (at least at the local level).

    The point of the elevator/surface of the earth is that, in both cases, the floor is not moving inertially and a dropped ball is moving inertially. So the explanation for the ball falling is, in both cases, better phrased as "the floor is coming up to meet it". What's different is why the floor is non-inertial. In the elevator it's because the spacetime is flat and the floor is being accelerated through it. In the room it's because spacetime is curved but the "bottom" of the curved region is filled with matter which pushes up on the layer above it, which pushes up on the layer above it until you get to the surface, which pushes upwards on your feet, but not the ball because it's not in contact with it.
     
  17. Jul 2, 2017 #16
    AFAIK Einstein claims that there is no physical way to tell apart the effects of gravity from the effects of acceleration in the elevator. And not just locally but for as long as the elevator accelerates. And as DrGreg says the use of noinertial coordinates shouldn't affect the fact the elevator is in flat Minkowski spacetime. So I can se pervect's point that this thought experiment seems to blur the distinction between flat and curved spacetime as pertains to gravity physical effects. On the other hand there's the fact that the gravity effects that are usually associated to curvature in the curved spacetime setting are tidal effects that seem different from the effect obtained from acceleration in flat spacetime, but then one has to wonder how exactly then the principle of equivalence links acceleration and "actual" gravitational tidal effects.
     
  18. Jul 2, 2017 #17

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I realized after posting this that this does raise a question about an argument that appears in the literature. I have posted a separate thread about it (note that this thread is an "A" level thread, since it requires considerable technical background to fully understand the argument in the literature that I am referring to):

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...me-dilation-imply-spacetime-curvature.919181/
     
  19. Jul 2, 2017 #18

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    No, this is not the case. Einstein's argument is limited to a short enough interval of time as well as a small enough elevator in spatial extent.

    It doesn't. Investigating whether, and to what extent, tidal gravity (spacetime curvature) is present goes beyond the EP.
     
  20. Jul 2, 2017 #19
    Sure, I was referring to the "gravity" effect, feeling weight.

    Yes. But then to what purely gravitational effect does the equivalence principle link acceleration in flat spacetime? Or you mean the EP is not related to GR?
     
  21. Jul 2, 2017 #20
    (Feel free to move this to the other thread)
    So if there is an infinitely wide and finitely deep flat slab, is the spacetime above it curved or not? Do I feel gravity or not? What is attracting me to it? And most importantly, how is this different from the accelerating elevator?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Einstein's elevator: gravity without curvature?
  1. Einstein and gravity (Replies: 3)

  2. Gravity and curvature (Replies: 13)

  3. Einstein elevator (Replies: 9)

Loading...