B What is the distinction between the Weak and Strong Equivalence Principles?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the distinctions between the Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) and the Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) in the context of general relativity. The WEP states that the gravitational mass of an atom is less than the sum of its constituents due to the interaction between gravitational and electromagnetic fields, which is referred to as "coupling." This coupling means that the gravitational field influences electromagnetic interactions, affecting how mass is perceived in gravitational contexts. The SEP expands on this by including all physical laws, suggesting that gravitational binding energy must contribute equally to both inertial and gravitational mass. Understanding these principles is crucial for grasping how different masses behave under gravity, particularly in scenarios involving varying gravitational fields.
Shirish
Messages
242
Reaction score
32
I'm reading Carroll's GR book. I'm able to follow the introduction so far, but a couple of paragraphs are a bit hard to decipher:
According to the WEP, the gravitational mass of the hydrogen atom is therefore less than the sum of the masses of its constituents; the gravitational field couples to electromagnetism (which holds the atom together) in exactly the right way to make the gravitational mass come out right.

What exactly does "couples to" mean? Right now that's just a vague phrase to me that implies gravitational field has something to do with EM - but what's the precise notion behind it?

Sometimes a distinction is drawn between "gravitational laws of physics" and "nongravitational laws of physics," and the EEP is defined to apply only to the latter. Then the Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) is defined to include all of the laws of physics, gravitational and otherwise. A theory that violated the SEP but not the EEP would be one in which the gravitational binding energy did not contribute equally to the inertial and gravitational mass of a body; thus, for example, test particles with appreciable self-gravity (to the extent that such a concept makes sense) could fall along different trajectories than lighter particles.

I have no idea what the statement in bold means at all. Could anyone please explain this so that a layman like me could understand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shirish said:
What exactly does "couples to" mean?
That the fields interact. If EM did not couple to gravity then light would travel in straight lines and energy stored in EM fields would not be a source of gravity. For any theory of gravity respecting the equivalence principle this cannot happen because you would be able to tell whether you were accelerating in a lift or at rest on a planet by whether light rays curved or not.
Shirish said:
I have no idea what the statement in bold means at all. Could anyone please explain this so that a layman like me could understand?
This is easiest to explain in semi-Newtonian terms. The equivalence principle says that the ##m## in ##F=ma## and the one in ##F=GMm/r^2## are the same, because if they weren't you could find a pair of objects which accelerate differently in a gravitational field and drop them to detect the difference between a lift accelerating in space and sitting on a planet.

The Einstein equivalence principle says that EM, strong force and weak force energy contributions to both ##m##s are the same. The strong equivalence principle says that all those contributions plus that of gravitational potential contribute the same. So if you believe the EEP and not the SEP you could consider a theory of gravity where a massive object (one with a measurable escape velocity, and hence one with a large amount of gravitational potential change involved in creating it so a large gravitational contribution to one of its ##m##) falls on a different trajectory from a light one.
 
Well, the Einstein equivalence principle also includes the strong interaction, from which about 98% of the mass of the matter surrounding us is generated.
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...