Equivalence principle question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence principle, particularly the concepts of free fall, inertial motion, and the distinction between coordinate and proper acceleration. Participants explore the implications of these concepts in the context of personal experiences, such as skydiving and roller coasters, and how they relate to the sensation of weightlessness.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that free fall is considered inertial motion because objects in free fall do not experience proper acceleration, despite having coordinate acceleration of 1 g relative to the ground.
  • Others argue that the sensation of acceleration experienced during free fall, such as in skydiving, contradicts the idea of being in an inertial frame.
  • A distinction is made between coordinate acceleration (which can vary based on the reference frame) and proper acceleration (which is invariant and measured by an accelerometer).
  • Some participants suggest that the perception of acceleration when jumping from a plane is due to the sudden absence of proper acceleration from the ground, leading to confusion about the nature of motion.
  • There is a discussion about how the brain interprets sensations of acceleration and how this relates to the experience of free fall.
  • One participant questions whether the Earth could be viewed as accelerating upward while they remain stationary during free fall.
  • Participants discuss the implications of proper acceleration being detectable in a closed system, contrasting it with the relativity of coordinate acceleration.
  • There is a mention of the feeling experienced on roller coasters and how it relates to the sensation of free fall, though some participants note that roller coasters may not achieve true free fall.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of free fall and inertial motion, with no consensus reached on the implications of personal experiences versus theoretical concepts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nuances of acceleration types and their perceptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of distinguishing between coordinate and proper acceleration, and how personal experiences may influence their understanding of these concepts. There are references to classical physics principles that may provide foundational context for the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying physics, particularly in understanding the equivalence principle, acceleration types, and the relationship between theoretical concepts and personal experiences in motion.

  • #31
anuttarasammyak said:
All the skydivers and the Earth have zero proper acceleration.
You mean the Earth in its orbit around the Sun?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I have not included the Sun. But even including the Sun as gravitation does not cause proper acceleration I suppose the Earth keeps zero proper acceleration.
 
  • #33
anuttarasammyak said:
But even including the Sun as gravitation does not cause proper acceleration I suppose the Earth keeps zero proper acceleration.
The Earth as a whole has zero proper acceleration on average, yes (...I'd better cover myself and say I'm handwaving a bit here because tidal gravity is a thing and I haven't completely formalised the averaging process). But the surface, and any region inside except at the very center, does have proper acceleration outwards from the center, just to be clear
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak, Dale and vanhees71
  • #34
anuttarasammyak said:
All the skydivers and the Earth have zero proper acceleration.
You have to be careful here. The surface of the Earth has non-zero proper acceleration upwards, as does almost every part of the interior of the earth. Only the very center of the Earth has zero proper acceleration.

Edit: I see that @Ibix already made the same point, and better!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #35
anuttarasammyak said:
Re: post #12

One skydiver has his own frame of reference and another skydiver has her own frame of reference. They do not coincide but explain the events in good accordance.

For an example,
He observes the Earth coming to him with some acceleration and in its backside her coming with more acceleration.
She observes the Earth coming to her with some acceleration and in its backside him coming with more acceleration.
This is wrong, because neither skydiver's frame covers a large enough region of spacetime to include the other skydiver (or even the whole Earth--only a small portion of the Earth's surface nearest to the skydiver is covered). So neither skydiver can attribute "more acceleration" to the other skydiver than to the nearest portion of the Earth's surface.
 
  • #36
Ibix said:
But the surface, and any region inside except at the very center, does have proper acceleration outwards from the center, just to be clear
Thanks. Now I understand forces preventing every parts of the Earth free falling and keeping the shape of the Earth provide proper acceleration. For an example when I am standing, the floor push my feet to give proper acceleration g upward. Skydivers keep zero proper acceleration while falling but will start to get proper acceleration after unfortunate crash.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
3K