Relativity Musings: Gravitation, Acceleration & Inertial Ref Frames

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion explores key concepts in relativity, focusing on inertial reference frames, the nature of light, and the behavior of accelerometers under gravity. It concludes that no object in the universe is truly in an inertial frame due to the infinite reach of gravity, which causes constant acceleration. Light, being massless, does not define an inertial frame as it lacks a rest-frame. An accelerometer placed on a kitchen table will read 9.8 m/s², indicating acceleration away from the Earth's center.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity principles
  • Knowledge of inertial and non-inertial reference frames
  • Familiarity with the behavior of light and photons
  • Basic concepts of acceleration and gravity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of general relativity on inertial reference frames
  • Research the properties of massless particles and their role in physics
  • Learn about the operation and interpretation of accelerometers in gravitational fields
  • Explore the concept of tidal effects in general relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the fundamental principles of gravitation and acceleration in the context of modern physics.

DiracPool
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
514
I have a 3-pack of related relativity musings I was hoping someone(s) could enlighten me on:

1) Since the reach of gravity is infinite and the universe is homogeneous and isotropic with regards to the distribution of matter, is it fair to say that no object, even those in deep interstellar or intergalactic space, is truly in an inertial reference frame? It would seem as if every object would always be accelerating all the time to some sort of degree, and thus always be in a non-inertial frame.

2) The only thing we know has a constant velocity is light. Could we consider light (photons) to be in an inertial frame, or is the fact that it is massless, etc. put it in a special category so we don't think of light as defining an inertial frame?

3) If I put an accelerometer on my kitchen table, would it read 9.8 m/s^2? Which direction would it read that it was accelerating in, up or down?

Thanks in advance for your consideration :approve:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DiracPool said:
1) Since the reach of gravity is infinite and the universe is homogeneous and isotropic with regards to the distribution of matter, is it fair to say that no object, even those in deep interstellar or intergalactic space, is truly in an inertial reference frame? It would seem as if every object would always be accelerating all the time to some sort of degree, and thus always be in a non-inertial frame.

Gravity is not a force per se in the general relativistic framework. If there are no forces (e.g., electromagnetic) acting on an object, it will feel no proper acceleration and be in a local inertial frame (assuming it is small enough not to notice tidal effects). This is essentially why many situations are well described by special relativity.

DiracPool said:
Could we consider light (photons) to be in an inertial frame, or is the fact that it is massless, etc. put it in a special category so we don't think of light as defining an inertial frame?

There are no inertial frames that are moving with the speed of light relative to other inertial frames, so the photons do not have a rest-frame. This is indeed due to photons being massless.

DiracPool said:
If I put an accelerometer on my kitchen table, would it read 9.8 m/s^2? Which direction would it read that it was accelerating in, up or down?

Yes, it will read 9.8 m/s^2. The acceleration is in the up direction (away from the Earth's center).
 
  • Like
Likes DiracPool
In an inertial frame of reference (IFR), there are two fixed points, A and B, which share an entangled state $$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>_A|1>_B+|1>_A|0>_B) $$ At point A, a measurement is made. The state then collapses to $$ |a>_A|b>_B, \{a,b\}=\{0,1\} $$ We assume that A has the state ##|a>_A## and B has ##|b>_B## simultaneously, i.e., when their synchronized clocks both read time T However, in other inertial frames, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the moment when B has ##|b>_B##...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K