EP Violation: Asynchronous Relativity & Stressed Bodies

  • Thread starter Thread starter yuiop
  • Start date Start date
yuiop
Messages
3,962
Reaction score
20
"Violation of the equivalence principle for stressed bodies in asynchronous relativity"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l776718n15284l80/


This is the abstract of a paper that appears to relate to a lot of the issues discussed recently in this forum:

=================================================================
Summary In the recently developed asynchronous formulation of the relativistic theory of extended bodies, the inertial mass of a body does not explicitly depend on its pressure or stress. The detailed analysis of the weight of a box filled with a gas and placed in a weak gravitational field shows that this feature of asynchronous relativity implies a breakdown of the equivalence between inertial and passive gravitational mass for stressed systems.
=================================================================

I do not have access to the article (pay per view). Is there anyone who does have access that can tell us the gist of the article?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not at the moment. Perhaps this will interest you.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2006-3&page=title.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone got $32 ?
 
Edit: Thought about this more at lunch...

It seems that their argument is that since it is taken that stresses must add to gravitational mass (as per the stress-energy tensor of General Relativity), but that the inertial mass was not found to increase, they mustn't be the same thing. Of course, the only way to have truly tested this was to verify that the stresses did increase the gravitational mass, and thus the resulting gravitational field. That is kind of interesting in a way.
 
Last edited:
Mentz114 said:
Anyone got $32 ?

Well, some university students and people in scientific institutes get free access to this sort of material. I assumed some of the members of PF would be in that category?
 
kev said:
"Violation of the equivalence principle for stressed bodies in asynchronous relativity"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l776718n15284l80/


This is the abstract of a paper that appears to relate to a lot of the issues discussed recently in this forum:

=================================================================
Summary In the recently developed asynchronous formulation of the relativistic theory of extended bodies, the inertial mass of a body does not explicitly depend on its pressure or stress. The detailed analysis of the weight of a box filled with a gas and placed in a weak gravitational field shows that this feature of asynchronous relativity implies a breakdown of the equivalence between inertial and passive gravitational mass for stressed systems.
=================================================================

I do not have access to the article (pay per view). Is there anyone who does have access that can tell us the gist of the article?
Without reading that article I will say this. Even for a box containing a gas whose pressure is finite the entire box-gas system is related to its total inertia mass by E = mc^2 and its weight is W = mg where m = inertial mass of the box-gas system. The reason that the pressure does not appear in those expressions if that it refers to the mass of the system which includes the box. One then has to include the stress in the walls of the box to find the total mass. This stress exactly cancels the pressure of the gas and thus only the mass-energy contributes to the inertial mass (and hence the passive gravitational mass) of the system.

For details please see - http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609144

Pete
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top