What is the principle of equivalence in physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pellman
  • Start date Start date
pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
The motion of a particle in a uniform constant force field is equivalent to that of a free-particle measured from an accelerating reference frame. What is this principle of equivalence known as? I thought it might be the Galilean equivalence principle but, no, that is the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is known as the Principle of Equivalence of Gravitation and Inertia (or EP for short). Einstein called it "His Happiest Thought".

My problem is this: EP is a principle so does that mean that I can ignore it if I choose?
 
I believe GR would be obtainable without the EP (according to some lecture notes I read by Prof. J. J. Binney), but the road to the field equations is far more difficult and dangerous than with the EP.
 
Oxymoron said:
It is known as the Principle of Equivalence of Gravitation and Inertia (or EP for short). Einstein called it "His Happiest Thought".

My problem is this: EP is a principle so does that mean that I can ignore it if I choose?
I think what it means is: all known real and theoretical instances adhere to this principle - but nonadherance is not explicitly ruled out.
 
Thanks for the answers. Let's restate it one more time be sure. The equivalence between gravitational mass and intertial is "the Galilean principle of equivalence" whereas the eqivalence between constant force fields and accelerated frames is the "Principle of Equivalence of Gravitation and Inertia". Do I have that right?
 
I also heard the first called the "weak equivalence principle" and the second called the "strong equivalence principle".

EDIT: A very cursory look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle makes me worry I may be misunderstanding the second one. So can someone verify or say otherwise about my usage of these terms?
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top