Equivalence of inertial & gravitational mass-I need a sanity check.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, exploring theoretical implications and examples, particularly through the lens of Einstein's relativity. Participants examine scenarios involving a train to illustrate concepts of force, acceleration, and gravitational fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario involving a train to illustrate how passengers perceive forces in different states of motion and questions the relativistic interpretation of being in a gravitational field.
  • Another participant introduces ongoing research at CERN regarding the gravitational behavior of neutral antihydrogen compared to hydrogen, suggesting that differences could impact theories in cosmology and gravity.
  • A participant summarizes key statements about the indistinguishability of acceleration and gravity, asserting that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent, and emphasizes the necessity of this equivalence for free-fall.
  • A later reply reiterates the train example and clarifies that a passenger in free-fall would still be in an inertial frame, suggesting that the perception of gravitational force is tied to acceleration rather than an absence of gravity.
  • One participant notes that Newton recognized the peculiar behavior of gravitational force, likening it to fictional forces in accelerating frames, but lacked a comprehensive explanation for this phenomenon.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of gravitational fields and the implications of the equivalence principle. There is no consensus on the best relativistic answer to the initial scenario posed.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific interpretations of gravitational fields and forces, which may depend on definitions and assumptions not fully explored in the discussion.

GregAshmore
Messages
221
Reaction score
0
Equivalence of inertial & gravitational mass--I need a sanity check.

Einstein, in his 1916 book Relativity, illustrates the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass using the example of a braking train.

The example begins with the train at rest (of course) and the scenery moving to the rear at a constant speed. The passenger feels no force.

As the brakes are applied, the passenger says, "I feel a force. I am at rest in a gravitational field. The velocity of my surroundings is reducing at a constant rate as a result of the application of that field."

Well and good.

Now consider the case of the derailed train suspended over the side of a bridge. The passenger feels a force; both he and the surroundings are at rest. The passenger says, "I and my surroundings are at rest in a gravitational field."

The train comes loose and falls. The passenger feels no force; the surroundings accelerate upward. What does the passenger say?

Seems he would have to say, "I and my surroundings are no longer in a gravitational field. I am at rest, with no applied force. My surroundings must be under a force equal to their weight, for they are accelerating at a constant rate."

Is there a better relativistic answer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I hate to complicate your conundrum (not really!:devil:) but you might want to follow the progress of the succession of projects at CERN to produce, contain and test neutral anti-hydrogen. One of their goals is to see if the gravitational infall rate of neutral antihydrogen is different than that of hydrogen. The inertial masses must be equivalent, but are the gravitational masses equivalent? Seems like a geeky question, but a negative answer here could bear on cosmology, astrophysics, and gravity theory at a minimum.
 


It all sounds a bit hazardous.

There are two statements that sum it up

1. In a small enough region of space, acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity
2. inertial mass ( resistance to motion) is the same as gravitational mass ( or 'gravitational charge', that which creates and responds to gravity).

Without (2) you can't get free-fall.

[edit]
Now, I think (1) and (2) are the same thing.
 
Last edited:


GregAshmore said:
Einstein, in his 1916 book Relativity, illustrates the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass using the example of a braking train.

The example begins with the train at rest (of course) and the scenery moving to the rear at a constant speed. The passenger feels no force.

As the brakes are applied, the passenger says, "I feel a force. I am at rest in a gravitational field. The velocity of my surroundings is reducing at a constant rate as a result of the application of that field."

Well and good.

Now consider the case of the derailed train suspended over the side of a bridge. The passenger feels a force; both he and the surroundings are at rest. The passenger says, "I and my surroundings are at rest in a gravitational field."

The train comes loose and falls. The passenger feels no force; the surroundings accelerate upward. What does the passenger say?

Seems he would have to say, "I and my surroundings are no longer in a gravitational field. I am at rest, with no applied force. My surroundings must be under a force equal to their weight, for they are accelerating at a constant rate."

Is there a better relativistic answer?

Well, he wouldn't have to say he is not in a gravitational field. Just that he is at rest in an inertial frame, ie freefall, with no applied force. And his surroundings are accelerating at 1G. And since weight is force due to gravitational acceleration, anyone accelerating at 1G will feel that force, just like I feel it now.

But even Newton realized that the "force" of gravity behaved suspiciously like the fictional forces encountered when using an accelerating frame of reference. Especially the fact that the "force" of gravity, like a fictional force, was proportional to an objects inertial mass. He just had no explanation for it except to call it a "spooky action at a distance."

Al
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K