Gravity: real force or artefact of acceleration?

Xeinstein
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
The main question is really: can you consider a reference frame at rest w.r.t. a non-rotating massive object to be an inertial frame? I'd say you can't, as you would experience an acceleration in that frame and, according to the equivalence principle, you hence might as well be in an accelerating frame, which would be non-inertial - and as such you would be equating an inertial frame to a non-inertial frame, which would seem nonsensical.

Others have said that you can very well treat the frame at rest w.r.t. a massive object as an inertial frame, when you just treat the gravitational force as a real force instead of an artifact of an accelerating reference frame.

This might not seem like a problem at all (but merely like two alternative interpretations), but I think there is a definitive difference once you start considering the problem of a charge in a gravitational field (which has been talked about on these forums already I believe), and whether or not it radiates - as opposed to a uniformly accelerating charge.

So, what do you people think? At rest w.r.t. a massive object, are you in an inertial reference frame? Why, or why not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I like a practical and experimentally consistent definition of inertial frames: an inertial frame is a reference frame where an ideal accelerometer (acceleration and rotation type) that is at rest in the frame registers no acceleration. Under such a definition a frame at rest wrt a non-rotating massive object is non-inertial.
 
Tidal gravity is real and not simply an artifact of acceleration. To understand what tidal gravity is, you simply go ta freefalling frame, and observe what happens to test particles.

e.g. on if we have two test particles of the same mass and drop them from a height, and observe them in a freefalling frame, we will observe the two particles come closer together over time (since both particles are attracted to the centre of the earth). The vertical acceleration is simply an artifact of us being stopped from falling by the Earth's surface.

In fact, it is the tidal gravity that is related to the curvature tensor.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
289
Replies
54
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top