Why nothing about acceleration?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the treatment of accelerated motion in the context of General Relativity (GR) and why it appears to be underrepresented in educational materials. Participants explore historical perspectives, specific examples, and references to literature on the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Einstein's initial insights into Riemannian geometry were linked to accelerated motion, raising the question of why this is not emphasized in GR literature.
  • Another participant suggests that the historical sequence of Einstein's development of GR involved the equivalence principle before he engaged with Riemannian geometry, indicating a possible misunderstanding of the timeline.
  • A participant references the Ehrenfest paradox as evidence that accelerated motion relates to Riemannian geometry, questioning the lack of discussion on this topic in available resources.
  • One participant mentions that certain texts, such as Rindler's and MTW's "Gravitation," do address accelerated motion, but expresses uncertainty about the general absence of this topic in many textbooks.
  • Additional references to textbooks that cover accelerated motion are provided, including A.P. French's "Special Relativity" and Richard A. Mould's "Basic Relativity," with a note that typical undergraduate texts often overlook the subject.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the historical context of Einstein's work and the representation of accelerated motion in educational materials. There is no consensus on why this topic is less frequently addressed in textbooks.

Contextual Notes

Some participants acknowledge historical inaccuracies in their claims, and there is a recognition of the limitations in the coverage of accelerated motion in standard educational resources.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shyan said:
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How does GR deal with pointlike objects with mass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Graduate Weyl tensor and coordinate acceleration
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Equivalence principle question
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
Undergrad Why is gravity a fictitious force?
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
6K
Graduate Why is the Principle of Equivalence Necessary for GTR?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Is Acceleration an Invariant? (Taylor & Wheeler)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad Einstein's Derivation of Elapsed Time for Remote Comoving Object
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate The "no metric, no nothing" view
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Is a Gravitational Field Real or Just a Coordinate Transformation Artifact?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K