I Equivalence Principle & Geometry: Ben Crowell's General Relativity

checksix
Messages
15
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
why does geometric treatment of gravitation require equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass?
In the first sentence of Chapter 2 in Ben Crowell's "General Relativity" he states:

"The geometrical treatment of space, time, and gravity only requires as its basis the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass".

This is stated as if it's an obvious fact, but I don't understand why. Why does a geometric treatment of gravitation require the equivalence principle? I must be missing something obvious. What am I missing here?
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
checksix said:
Why does a geometric treatment of gravitation require the equivalence principle? I must be missing something obvious. What am I missing here?
In Newtonian physics ##F=m_ia##, where ##m_i## is the inertial mass, and ##F=GMm_g/r^2##, where ##m_g## is the gravitational mass. Hence ##a\propto(m_g/m_i)##. One could imagine two materials that have different ratios of inertial and gravitational masses and hence that they would follow different paths even if launched from the same place at the same velocity.

But a geometric theory requires that two objects launched from the same place at the same velocity follow the same path. If they don't then it isn't just geometry that matters - what the objects are made of matters also. Hence we require that for a geometric theory ##m_g/m_i## is equal for all objects and we are free to pick units so that it is one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, PeterDonis, A.T. and 1 other person
Got it. Thanks!
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top