Should the equivalence principle be an identity? (booklet)
v. 4 n. 20
The equivalence principle is the foundation of general relativity. The equivalence is between the tendency of a mass to fall the same way in a gravitational field such as near the surface of the Earth, as compared to in an accelerated reference frame (such as in an accelerating rocket in remote space).
The (strong) principle had humble beginnings. Einstein noticed that a falling person felt no forces before hitting the ground, after asking the fortunate survivor. There are two separate things going on here, and they are equivalent.
In either instance, the man would feel no forces -- until hitting the ground on Earth, or the floor of the suddenly accelerated rocket in space. Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. This is quite a deduction, though, just from noticing that the falling man didn't feel anything on the way down. The equivalence is not at all obvious, which is why no one thought of it until about a hundred years ago. It is not quite the same thing as Galileo dropping different masses from the leaning tower of Pisa and noticing they landed at the same time -- which did not lead to general relativity well before the 20th Century.
This series is about the equivalence principle and closely related matters in the order first published. The articles are not about the sophisticated mathematics, nor particularly about the curved space, of general relativity. But they are about clarifying the key difference between "equivalence" and "identity" regarding two theories of gravity, and the reexamination of Newtonian gravity as more general (scale-invariant) than anticipated, under certain conditions.
It is indicated that the reason the cosmological constant had to be attached and be non-zero in recent times to the pure original logical form of general relativity is because the equivalence employed in the equivalence principal is not an identity, that the equivalence is conditional -- and not applicable at the cosmic scale in the originally derived form. Stated simply, why should the equivalence of gravity and acceleration be universal, if the inspiration for the principle is specific and local -- near the surface of small planet?
Newton made a similar assumption, calling his finding a law of universal gravitation, while, as conventionally employed, it begins to break down with the perihelion shift of Mercury, for instance, then departs widely from certain experiments where general relativity is more accurate, and does not at all explain galaxy rotation and larger scale patterns (without reference to unknowns).
As originally conceived in general relativity and Newtonian gravity, scale was not taken into account.
领英推荐
Head. Home of Physical Problems, Pisatelskaya 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
1 年Scientists must learn to think for themselves. Otherwise, scientists turn into sheep.
Head. Home of Physical Problems, Pisatelskaya 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
1 年In my opinion, it is useless to develop theories that do not satisfy the correct criterion of truth: the unity of formal lonics and rational dialectics. All the works of the classics of theoretical physics and mathematics do not satisfy this criterion of truth. Therefore, the works of the classics are fantastic stupidity.
Head. Home of Physical Problems, Pisatelskaya 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
1 年When I read the book "Surprises in Theoretical Physics" by Rudolf Peierls, I realized that I should be engaged in a critical analysis of the foundations of theoretical physics and mathematics. For example, my analysis of the foundations of mathematics leads to the following result. ? DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS: A GROSS ERROR IN MATHEMATICS ? Abstract. A detailed proof of the incorrectness of the foundations of the differential calculus is proposed. The correct methodological basis for the proof is the unity of formal logic and rational dialectics. The proof leads to the following irrefutable statement: differential calculus represents a gross error in mathematics and physics. The proof of this statement is based on the following irrefutable results: (1) the standard theory of infinitesimals and the theory of limits underlying the differential calculus are gross errors. The main error is that infinitesimal (infinitely decreasing) quantities do not take on numerical values in the process of tending to zero. The number “zero” is not a permissible value of infinitesimal quantity. Thus, differential calculus does not satisfy the criterion of truth and is not correct scientific (mathematical) theory. ? ?
Head. Home of Physical Problems, Pisatelskaya 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
1 年As you know, Einstein did not find the correct criterion of truth. Therefore (in my opinion) all of Einstein's work must be questioned. For example, Einstein got confused in the special theory of relativity. He failed to correctly analyze the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein substituted the light wave equation into the Galilean transformation formula - a blunder arose: the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was a dreamer and could not think rationally and correctly. So let's critically analyze Einstein's statements. Let's throw off the pedestal all the classics of physics and mathematics.
Retired Mechanical Engineer
1 年I would like to propose that the gravitational field is a condition of accelerating inertial space. Take the example of freefall in a gravitational field. Neglecting wind resistance, an object in freefall experiences no measurable force and an accelerometer on board will read zero. There are no compressive forces on the object, and it is in an inertial state. However, an object fixed at the surface of the earth does register compressive forces and is in a non-inertial state. Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence serves to illustrate the point. If a person is in a closed box that is fixed at the surface of the earth, the force of gravity is felt. If that box is in space and is being accelerated at one g, the effect is equivalent, and the person will feel the same force. However, if the box is in freefall, it is equivalent to floating in free space with no forces acting on it. The person is weightless and feels no forces. Thus, we can conclude that both freefall and floating in space are in inertial frames of reference; whereas, fixed on earth and accelerating in space are not inertial frames of reference.