Is the equivalence principle related to the principle of relativity?

AI Thread Summary
The equivalence principle states that all inertial objects experience the same laws of physics, meaning one cannot distinguish between being at rest on Earth or accelerating in a rocket without external reference points. The discussion clarifies that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is approximately 9.81 m/s², not 9.25, and emphasizes that in free fall, one does not feel the effects of gravity. It also corrects misconceptions about constant speed and free fall, noting that in both scenarios, the experience of motion can be indistinguishable. Ultimately, the rates of acceleration due to gravity are uniform for all objects at or near the Earth's surface. Understanding these principles is crucial for grasping the nature of gravity and motion.
Hihello
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Here is what I understand of the equivalence principle. However, given that the concept is still a bit cloudy to me, please tell me if I am wrong:
The equivalence principle is a phenomena where all inertial objects experience the same laws of physics. In other words, if you were going at constant speed, you would not be able to tell that you were moving unless there is a window because the laws of physics(ex. throwing an object in the air and expecting it to not fall forward) is the same. The equivalence principle states that if we were to close the window, we could not tell if we were accelerating upwards in a rocket or towards the Earth if the acceleration is 9.25. Only in cases where we accelerate to more than such, such as in a free-falling elevator, would we be able to tell that we are moving. Astronauts in space likewise experience weightlessness because all objects are free-falling together, and hence, there is nothing to push against them so they can " feel" gravity.
This can all be used to explain why the apple " knows" to fall downwards. Gravity causes the apple to fall towards the Earth at 9.25 so it would meet my head. If we were all experiencing free-fall and are experiencing acceleration at the same rate, the apple would not " fall" downwards.
If all that I said above was correct(which very likely it is not), does that mean our rates of accleration/gravity on Earth is different?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Hihello:

I think for the most part, what you wrote is correct. However, there are a few places where I have made suggestions for changes.

Hihello said:
if you were going at constant speed, you would not be able to tell that you were moving unless there is a window (ex. throwing an object in the air and expecting it to not fall forward) is the same. because the laws of physics
I think this needs a bit of editing.
(1) "going at constant speed" fails to eliminate moving at constant speed in a train along a track on the Earth's surface.
(2) "unless there is a window" fails to require that there is something useful to see outside the window.

Hihello said:
if we were accelerating upwards in a rocket or towards the Earth if the acceleration is 9.25
(3) "upwards in a rocket" creates an ambiguity. I suggest "in a rocket upward".
(4) I think "9.25" is intended to refer to the Earth's acceleration of gravity. I suggest you substitute "9.81 m/s2".

Hihello said:
we accelerate to more than such, such as in a free-falling elevator, would we be able to tell that we are moving.
(5) "in a free-falling elevator, would we be able to tell that we are moving" is confusing. If you are in a free falling elevator, you would not necessarily experience this as moving, since the elevator could just as well be out in deep space.

Hihello said:
If we were all experiencing free-fall and are experiencing acceleration at the same rate, the apple would not " fall" downwards
(6) I think you are confused about acceleration and free fall. You experience the Earth's gravitational acceleration when you are standing on the Earth's surface and feel the upward pressure against your feet. When you are in free fall, you do not experience this pressure, and you might be stationary in outer space, or moving at a constant speed in outer space, of accelerating towards the Earth in a falling elevator. In all these cases, you would fell the same experience.

You may also find it useful to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle.

Regards,
Buzz
 
Hihello said:
The equivalence principle is a phenomena where all inertial objects experience the same laws of physics.
That's not the equivalence principle, it's the principle of relativity. It's many centuries older than the equivalence principle - we generally credit it to Galileo. The equivalence principle is what you say next, with one correction that I've made inline:
The equivalence principle states that if we were to close the window, we could not tell if we were accelerating upwards in a rocket or towards at rest on the surface of the Earth if the acceleration is 9.25.

does that mean our rates of acceleration/gravity on Earth is different?
It is the same, 1 G or 9.8 meters per second per second, for everything at or near the surface of the earth. Imagine an observer so far away from Earth that he can completely the effect of Earth's gravity on him. If he's watching through a powerful telescope, he will observe that everything in the vicinity of the Earth's surface is either accelerating towards the center of the Earth at 1 G or is being prevented from doing so by some opposing force (for example, it's resting on the surface of the Earth so it can't move towards the center).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
99
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
48
Views
4K
Back
Top