Why nothing about acceleration?

[ShayanJ]

I read in the book the elegant universe,that Einstein first saw riemannian geometry in accelerated motion and then,because of the equivalence principle,he proposed the GR model for gravity.So why there is nothing about accelerated motion in the books explaining GR?
thanks

 

[Passionflower]

I read in the book the elegant universe,that Einstein first saw riemannian geometry in accelerated motion and then,because of the equivalence principle,he proposed the GR model for gravity.So why there is nothing about accelerated motion in the books explaining GR?
thanks

I think you got the events mixed up, first Einstein thought of the equivalence principle, then he tried to develop GR, only after help from others who introduced him to Riemannian geometry he eventually succeeded.

 

[ShayanJ]

Ok.I was historically wrong.
But from Ehrenfest paradox,you can understand that also accelerated motion has to do with riemannian geometry.I just want to know why there is nothing about that no where?Or if I'm wrong,what's my problem?
thanks

 

[pervect]

One of Rindler's relativity books has some treatment of accelerated motion (I forget the title). MTW''s treatment in "Gravitation" is better, though. MTW"s treatment does use tensors.

I'm not sure why it's not in more books, offhand, but you can find treatents of acclerated motion in textbooks if you look at the right textbooks.

For just the bare results, the sci.physics.faq has the "relativistic rocket equation".

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

 

[MikeLizzi]

Here are some more.

“Special Relativity” by A.P. French (1966) has a section “accelerated motion” in its chapter on kinematics.

“Basic Relativity” by Richard A. Mould (1994) has a whole chapter on “Uniform Acceleration” where the hyperbolic transformations used in pervect’s reference are derived.

But to agree with pervect, typical undergraduate textbooks don't even mention acceleration. Why? Don't know.