Why does only one object feel accelerated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ascenxion
  • Start date Start date
Ascenxion
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
In terms of general relativity, what does this question mean?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ascenxion said:
In terms of general relativity, what does this question mean?

Thanks.

Does it mean "why does an object feel a force acting on it"?
 
One object? Which object? :confused:
 
Well, I found this question in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration" topic in Wikipedia, and I was confused about its meaning.

After completing his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein realized that forces felt by objects undergoing constant proper acceleration are indistinguishable from those in a gravitational field. This was the basis for his development of general relativity, a relativistic theory of gravity. This is also the basis for the popular twin paradox, which asks why one twin ages less when moving away from his sibling at near light-speed and then returning, since the non-aging twin can say that it is the other twin that was moving. General relativity solved the "why does only one object feel accelerated?" problem which had plagued philosophers and scientists since Newton's time (and caused Newton to endorse absolute space). In special relativity, only inertial frames of reference (non-accelerated frames) can be used and are equivalent; general relativity considers all frames, even accelerated ones, to be equivalent. (The path from these considerations to the full theory of general relativity is traced in the introduction to general relativity.)

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wikipedia said:
In special relativity, only inertial frames of reference (non-accelerated frames) can be used and are equivalent; general relativity considers all frames, even accelerated ones, to be equivalent.
I don't know what they mean by "equivalent frames of reference", but in GR still only inertial frames have the same physical laws: local experiments give the same results in all of them. The new thing in GR is that free falling frames in a small region of a gravitational field are considered inertial too, so you can use SR there.

So GR is not making accelerated frames equivalent to inertial ones, but it redefines what an inertial vs. accelerated frame is, regarding gravitational fields.
 
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...
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...
Back
Top