markwh04@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > Can someone provide a mathematical model of inertia?[/color]
>
> Quite simply, the geodesic equation
> x^m'' + Gamma^m_{nr} x^n' x^r' = 0.
> This has, underlying it, a representation of a spacetime as a manifold
> equipped with a connection. And those are the essential ingredients
> needed to mathematically encapsulate the concept of inertia.[/color]
This doesn't seem enough by itself - (i) doesn't any (relatively low
energy) body, in the absence of external forces, satisfies this
equation *independently* of its "inertia" ? (equivalence principle);
and (ii) many phenomenological accelerations are not a quadratic
function of the velocity. Einsteins field equation for the metric
would seem to do better here, as it allows one to model/attribute
inertial effects as arising from the local curvature of spacetime.
> For Lorentzian spacetimes, the connection is that having the property
> of being torsion-free and metric-preserving -- the Levi-Civita
> connections. In the presence of torsion, the connection defines
> autoparallels, which differ from geodesics. The definition of geodesic,
> however, can be recovered intrinsically. The resulting equation is
> x^m'' + Gamma^m_{nr} x^n' x^r' = g^{ms}
> tau^r_{sn} x^n' p_r
> where p_r = g_{rn} x^n' is the "momentum" and tau^r_{sn} the torsion.
> Torsion comes into the geodesic equation as an effective Lorentz force
> coupled to momentum.[/color]
For a non-curved space (so that Gamma vanishes), wouldn't this imply
that acceleration is always proportional to momentum? This conflicts
with most phenomenological forces.
I would have thought that a "model of inertia" should at least model
the fact that in many physical situations the dynamics of different
bodies only vary according to an "inertial" parameter, m, associated
with the body [eg, the dynamics described by the Hamiltonian p^2/(2m) +
V(x)].
But I admit to quite possibly not having understood in what sense you
suggest the geodesic equation as a "model".