GR, SR and the Sagnac effect question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAntiRelative
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr sagnac Sr
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the necessity of General Relativity (GR) versus Special Relativity (SR) in explaining the Sagnac effect. It is established that while GR is required for a complete understanding of a co-rotating observer's perspective, SR can only provide an approximate explanation for non-inertial observers. The Sagnac effect arises from the relative motion of the receiver and source, which can be observed in various path configurations. Both GR and SR are deemed sufficient to explain the effect, but GR accounts for additional factors that SR does not.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR) principles
  • Familiarity with Special Relativity (SR) concepts
  • Knowledge of the Sagnac effect and its implications
  • Basic comprehension of inertial and non-inertial reference frames
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical derivation of the Sagnac effect in both GR and SR contexts
  • Explore the implications of the Sagnac effect in GPS technology and satellite communication
  • Study the differences between inertial and non-inertial frames in relativity
  • Examine classical (Galilean) explanations of the Sagnac effect for comparative analysis
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the applications of GR and SR in modern technology, particularly in understanding the Sagnac effect and its relevance in GPS systems.

TheAntiRelative
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
I've read in multiple locations that GR is necessary to properly explain a co-rotating perspective/observer of the experiment.

Additionally, SR can explain the experience of non-inertial observer.


The above two statements seem somewhat conflicting and leads to my question. Why is it that GR is required to properly predict the Sagnac effect. What is it that causes the SR explanation to be approximate but inadequate for an exact answer?

I'm not looking for the calculation, I'm looking for the reasoning required to say: GR takes X into account while SR does not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The sagnac effect doesn't require either SR or GR - it is simply a consequence of the fact that the receiver is moving away from the source for one path and toward the source for the other path - the path can be rectangular or circular - or even back and forth. In GPS there is always a correction for what is called the one way sagnac effect -some time correction is required for example when the satellite signal is must catch up to the receiver which moves a short distance due to the Earth's rotation during transit
 
Here is an interesting discussion of the effect.
:smile:
 
Right-On mijoon - that was the analysis i had in mind but didn't have the citation handy -
 
http://www.rta.nato.int/Pubs/RDP.asp?RDP=RTO-AG-339

There's a link to the NATO explanation that was prepared by a coalition of scientists and says GR is required... Hence my confusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
29 megabytes! :bugeye:

Maybe it will finish downloading by the time I finish my next class..
 
TheAntiRelative said:
I've read in multiple locations that GR is necessary to properly explain a co-rotating perspective/observer of the experiment.

Additionally, SR can explain the experience of non-inertial observer.


The above two statements seem somewhat conflicting and leads to my question. Why is it that GR is required to properly predict the Sagnac effect. What is it that causes the SR explanation to be approximate but inadequate for an exact answer?

I'm not looking for the calculation, I'm looking for the reasoning required to say: GR takes X into account while SR does not.

Neither SR of GR are NECESSARY.
Both are SUFFICIENT.
As an aside, classical (Galilean) explanation is also SUFFICIENT.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K