Gravity: real force or artefact of acceleration?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on whether a reference frame at rest with respect to a non-rotating massive object can be considered an inertial frame. The consensus is that it cannot, due to the experience of acceleration in that frame, which aligns with the equivalence principle. Participants argue that treating gravitational force as a real force rather than an artifact of acceleration leads to significant implications, particularly in the context of charges in gravitational fields. The concept of tidal gravity is emphasized as a real phenomenon, linked to the curvature tensor, and observable through free-falling test particles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the equivalence principle in physics
  • Familiarity with inertial and non-inertial reference frames
  • Knowledge of tidal gravity and its implications
  • Basic concepts of curvature tensors in general relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the equivalence principle in detail and its applications in general relativity
  • Explore the concept of tidal gravity and its effects on test particles
  • Study the properties of curvature tensors and their role in gravitational theories
  • Investigate the behavior of charges in gravitational fields and their radiation characteristics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of general relativity, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of gravitational forces and reference frames.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K