Question on general principle of relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of two statements regarding the general principle of relativity, specifically focusing on the significance of Gauss' coordinates in relation to the invariance of physical laws in different reference frames. Participants explore the implications of these statements within the context of relativity theory.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the first statement about physics laws remaining unchanged at any Gauss' coordinates is considered better than the second statement regarding the uniformity of physical laws in all reference frames.
  • Another participant argues that the second statement is preferable, noting that Gaussian coordinates are not covariant.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the first statement is more mathematical, while the second is more intuitive or physical.
  • One participant references Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory" as a source for their preference for the first statement.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of Gaussian coordinates, with a participant noting that their meaning has evolved over time.
  • A participant mentions using a Chinese translation of Einstein's book and expresses difficulty in understanding the previous comments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on which statement better represents the general principle of relativity, indicating that there is no consensus on this issue. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the significance of Gauss' coordinates.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential ambiguity in the definition of Gaussian coordinates, which may affect the interpretation of the statements being discussed.

Ronald_Ku
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I want to ask about the two statements.
1) Physics laws remain unchange at any Gauss' coordinates.
2) Physical laws are the same in all reference frames -- inertial or non-inertial.

Why is 1st statement better than the second statement in representing the general principle of relativity?

What's the importance of including the Gauss; coordinates?

I know this may be simple question but i am really struggling about it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Ronald_Ku! Welcome to PF! :smile:
Ronald_Ku said:
I want to ask about the two statements.
1) Physics laws remain unchange at any Gauss' coordinates.
2) Physical laws are the same in all reference frames -- inertial or non-inertial.

Why is 1st statement better than the second statement in representing the general principle of relativity?

What's the importance of including the Gauss; coordinates?

Well, I think the 2nd statement is better …

Gaussian coordinates (synchronous coordinates) aren't covariant.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_conditions#Synchronous_coordinates)
 
The first one is a bit more mathematical and the second one is a bit more intuitive or physical.

Do you have a reason to think the first statement is "better" than the second?
 
Well, I found the 1st statement better from the book " Relativity: The Special and the General Theory".
 
Einstein's book?

Ronald_Ku said:
Well, I found the 1st statement better from the book " Relativity: The Special and the General Theory".

ah … you mean Einstein's book?

Einstein wrote the book a long time ago, when "Gaussian coordinates" had a different meaning.

Then, they meant any curvilinear coordinates, now they mean synchronous coordinates.

I assumed you meant synchronous coordinates.

If they mean any coordinates, I don't see much difference between the statements, except that, as altonhare :smile: says, the first is slightly more mathematically expressed.

Are you using Lawson's English translation in the 2002 http://books.google.com/books?id=f_...lativity:+The+Special+and+the+General+Theory"? If so, which page is it on?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No I'm a chinese. I'm using the edition translated to chinese.
I just translate all the words I read to english.
Besides I still don't see what you mean.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
10K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K