The discussion revolves around the implications of potentially disproving Einstein's equivalence principle, exploring its consequences for physics theories and the understanding of gravity. Participants engage in technical reasoning regarding the precision of current tests and the theoretical limits of general relativity, as well as the distinctions between different equivalence principles.
Participants express differing views on the implications of a potential violation of the equivalence principle, with some emphasizing the established accuracy of current measurements and others questioning the validity of those measurements in light of hypothetical scenarios. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the potential consequences of disproving the equivalence principle.
Participants reference the precision of current experiments and the limits of the equivalence principle, but there is no consensus on the implications of a violation or the definitions of "small" and "big" violations. The conversation reflects ongoing uncertainty and exploration of the topic.
This discussion may be of interest to those studying general relativity, experimental physics, or the philosophical implications of foundational principles in physics.
Yah. This.PAllen said:
Thanks, now i understand. Einstein put a lot of limits lol.DaveC426913 said:
A lot of scientists would show up at your door.only1god said:
I don’t think this is required, as long as the measurements are close in both location and timeDaveC426913 said:
See post #27only1god said:
If you were allow that then any sufficiently fine measurement would detect tides.PAllen said:
No, the idea is pick some achievable precision for you measurements. Then there exist corresponding bounds on spacetime extent in which any number of such measurements will fail to distinguish whether the box is near a large body or in intergalactic space (for example). Of course, the nature of the body also influences the extent of the bounds.DaveC426913 said:
All right.Local effectively means: only measurements of distances in time or space small enough that tides can't be detected.PAllen said:
Yes.DaveC426913 said:
Because it would make a lot of scientists very angry.only1god said:
I think the first one is more obvious than the second one, you are right in the first one because many will feel envy. Altought they wouldn't come to my door it will be funny hitting them if they come lol.DaveC426913 said:
Possibly, but I think you are much more likely to win two large lottery jackpots in a row than succeed in this.only1god said:
Perhaps if it were backed up with the mathematics that proves it.only1god said:
If you present it as “here is an idea that is probably wrong, but I can’t see how”, we would be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, not so much. A number of such ideas have been presented and readily exposed. In one case, it was presented as a challenge, and I quickly the exposed the fallacy in a humorous way.only1god said:
I understand. In fact i was one of those who presented ideas but at the end were wrong. However in my current idea i don't see any errors. I've never in my head understood why two things that are different could be equal. Yes, gravity is an acceleration but that doesn't mean it's just an ilusion as GR affirms, it should be something that exists as a force. That's why for me Einstein's EP should be wrong.PAllen said:
New experiments do not magically make old experiments go away. Since new experiments cannot make old experiments go away then that means the old experiments confirming it to ##10^{-15}## are still valid. So a new experiment sensitive down to the ##10^{-17}## level might detect a difference.only1god said:
Yes this would result in a limitation to the domain of validity for GR.only1god said:
Just to play a little devil’s advocate, if there were some new form of matter that coupled to gravity differently the others (e.g. it’s inertial mass measured by EM forces, on giving it a charge, was different from its passive gravitational mass), then an experiment on this new form of matter could have large discrepancies for the POE, without invalidating other experiments. Everyone, including me, would think this ridiculously unlikely, but the consequence would be large. The whole differential geometry framework of GR would come to be viewed as a historical accident, not worth propagating, once a successful new theory were developed (that also could also replicate the plethora of confirmed GR predictions).Dale said:
Personal theories and personal speculations are off topic in this forum. You are not the first person, or even the thousandth, to come here posting about an idea you have that you think violates some fundamental principle of physics. In the past, PF has tried to provide subforums where such ideas could be proposed. We found that the signal to noise ratio was zero: no idea ever turned out to be right, and the discussions about the many wrong ones accomplished nothing except to take up a lot of time for members who could have been doing more productive things. So we stopped doing it.only1god said: