Undergrad Inertial & non-inertial frames & the principle of equivalence

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equivalence principle, specifically the assertion that the laws of physics for freely falling particles in a gravitational field are locally indistinguishable from those in a uniformly accelerating frame in Minkowski spacetime. Participants clarify that this principle does not originate from a Newtonian perspective, as Newtonian physics lacks the concept of spacetime. They emphasize that locally, freely falling frames are inertial frames where the laws of physics reduce to those of special relativity. The conversation also highlights the historical context of Einstein's recognition of the equivalence principle prior to the formulation of tensorial laws.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the equivalence principle in general relativity
  • Familiarity with Minkowski spacetime concepts
  • Knowledge of special relativity (SR) laws
  • Basic grasp of tensorial mathematics in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the equivalence principle in detail through resources like "General Relativity" by Robert M. Wald
  • Explore the mathematical formulation of general relativity and tensor calculus
  • Investigate historical texts on Einstein's development of the equivalence principle
  • Learn about the implications of the equivalence principle in modern physics applications
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of general relativity, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of modern physics, particularly those exploring the relationship between gravity and acceleration.

  • #121
@Sagittarius A-Star I'm going to have to take some time to look at the 2017 paper you linked to. I see what you're saying, but I need to reconcile it with other things I know about the Bell congruence.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
DAH said:
The Pound-Rebka experiment successfully detected a blueshift in light when photons were sent towards the surface of the Earth from a height of 22.6 m. The formula for the blueshift is given by: $$
z=-\frac{gh}{c^{2}}$$
However, I was thinking about how the blueshift would be observed over time in the accelerating frame, and i came across this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06332
According to the paper above the blueshift would drift with time and if photons were sent in the other direction then the redshift will also drift with time. The formula for the blueshift drift is given by:
$$z=-\frac{aL}{\left ( c+at \right )^{2}}$$
So, I would like to know, if this is a flaw in EP and could this experiment be used to distinguish between gravity and an accelerating frame?

Please have a look at ...
TABLE I: Redshift ##z_−## and blueshift ##z_+## between co-moving objects in uniformly accelerated reference frames calculated with different approaches.
... on page 19 of that paper:

For your comparison, you must pick the first row "Møller coordinates" instead of the second row "Non-relativity".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DAH
  • #123
PeterDonis said:
I see what you're saying, but I need to reconcile it with other things I know about the Bell congruence.

I think I have the reconciliation I was looking for.

The thing I needed to reconcile was that the Bell congruence has a positive expansion scalar, which means, heuristically, that each ship sees the other moving further away. (This is why the string stretches and finally breaks in the Bell spaceship paradox.) But if each ship sees the other moving further away, it seems like it should also see the other ship's light signals being redshifted.

What I forgot was that the ships are accelerating, so the rest frame of each ship is a Rindler frame, not an inertial frame. And in a Rindler frame, there is "gravitational" time dilation--clocks at higher "altitude" in the frame run faster. So in the rear ship's (non-inertial) rest frame, while the front ship is moving away, it is also at higher altitude, and in that frame, the gravitational blueshift outweighs the redshift due to moving away.

(In the front ship's non-inertial rest/Rindler frame, the rear ship is at lower altitude, so both effects--the altitude effect and the moving away effect--cause a redshift. So the front ship sees the rear ship's light signals redshifted, as expected.)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Sagittarius A-Star

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
836
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K