Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm a bit confused about the equivalence principle in GR.

I'm quoting from Wikipedia:

An observer in an accelerated reference frame must introduce what physicists call fictitious forces to account for the acceleration experienced by himself and objects around him. One example, the force pressing the driver of an accelerating car into his or her seat, has already been mentioned; another is the force you can feel pulling your arms up and out if you attempt to spin around like a top. Einstein's master insight was that the constant, familiar pull of the Earth's gravitational field is fundamentally the same as these fictitious forces

Later it is written:

The equivalence between gravitational and inertial effects does not constitute a complete theory of gravity. When it comes to explaining gravity near our own location on the Earth's surface, noting that our reference frame is not in free fall, so that fictitious forces are to be expected, provides a suitable explanation. But a freely falling reference frame on one side of the Earth cannot explain why the people on the opposite side of the Earth experience a gravitational pull in the opposite direction

Here are some things I hope I understand correctly:

  • A particle in free fall is in an inertial frame of reference
  • Curvature of spacetime in only required in order to explain tidal forces, as long as you ignore tidal forces, you can explain gravity without curvature.
  • Gravity is a fictious force experienced in a non-inertial reference frame

My Questions (2 very related questions)

  • 1) The statement that curvature of spacetime in only required to explain tidal forces seems weird to me. In the case that there is no curvature of spacetime, what explains gravity? I mean, if gravity is a "fictitious-force", what is the "real cause" of it? (Again this question stems from the statement that curvature is only needed to explain tidal forces, and not all of gravity).

Last example from Wikipedia:

For gravitational fields, the absence or presence of tidal forces determines whether or not the influence of gravity can be eliminated by choosing a freely falling reference frame

  • 2) If I'm in outer space and I'm freely falling towards earth, let's say I'm very small and I don't experience tidal forces, both me and earth are freely falling and thus in inertial reference frames, and yet I see the earth accelerating towards me, in my frame is it said that "gravity is eliminated"? just because I feel no tidal forces?
share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I've only skimmed the Wikipedia article you link to. From a quick look I'd say the paragraphs you quote are making points about what a theory of gravity needs to look like. For example you say "Curvature of spacetime in only required in order to explain tidal forces", but what that really means is that it's impossible to have a theory of gravity without curvature. That's because any theory of gravity inevitably has to describe tidal forces. You go on to say "as long as you ignore tidal forces, you can explain gravity without curvature", but you can't ignore tidal forces so you can't explain gravity without curvature.

To take your two specific questions:

Question 1. Gravity i.e. General Relativity isn't a theory of forces: it's a theory of curvature. By focussing on the "fictitious forces" you're getting the wrong idea of how GR works. When you solve the Einstein equation you get the geometry (curvature) of space. This predicts the path a freely falling object will take. We call this a geodesic and it's effectively a straight line in a curved spacetime. If you want the object to deviate away from a geodesic then you must apply a force - and there's nothing fictitious about it.

For example, GR predicts that spacetime is curved at the surface of the Earth, and if you and I were to follow geodesics we'd plummet to the core. That we don't do so is evidence that a force is pushing us away from the geodesic, and obviously that's the force between us and the Earth. But, and it's important to be clear about this, the force is not the force of gravity, it's the force between the atoms in us and the atoms in the Earth resisting the free falling motion along a geodesic.

Question 2. Again this is really just terminology. When you're free falling "gravity" is not eliminated. Remember that "gravity" is curvature, and in fact the curvature is the same for all observers regardless of their motion. That's because the curvature tensor is the same in all co-ordinate frames. The existance of tidal forces is proof that gravity/curvature is present.

When you're free falling you are moving along a geodesic. It is true to say that there are no forces acting, but this is always the case when you are moving along a geodesic. Remember a geodesic is a straight line and objects move in a straight line when no forces are acting. There would only be a force if you deviated from the geodesic e.g. by firing a rocket motor.

Response to fiftyeight's comment: this got a bit long to put in a comment so I thought I'd append it to my original answer.

I'm guessing your thinking that if you accelerate a spaceship it changes speed, so when you stop something has happened, but when the Earth accelerates you nothing seems to happen. The Earth can apply a force to your for as long as you want, and you never seem to go anywhere or change speed. Is that a fair interpretation of your comment?

If so, it's because of how you're looking at the situation. Suppose you and I start on the surface of the Earth, but you happen to be above a very deep mine shaft (and in a vacuum so there's no air resistance - hey, it's only a thought experiment :-). You feel no force because you're freely falling along a geodesic (into the Earth), while I feel a force between me and the Earth. From your point of view the force between me and the Earth is indeed accelerating me (at 9.81ms$^{-2}$). If you measure the distance between us you'll find I am accelerating away from you, which is exactly what you'd expect to see when a force is acting. If the force stopped, maybe because I stepping into mineshaft as well, then the acceleration between us would stop, though we'd now be moving at different velocities. This is exactly what you see when you stop accelerating the spaceship.

It's true that a third person standing alongside me doesn't think I'm accelerating anywhere, but that's because they are accelerating at the same rate. It's as though, to use my example of a spaceship, you attach a camera to the spaceship, then decide the rocket motor isn't doing anything because the spaceship doesn't accelerate away from the camera.

share|improve this answer
    
great answer, thank you, one clarification if I may: In the case of Me and You standing on Earth, once the forces of the floor acting on my feet have given me some acceleration and deviated me from my geodesic, am I not on a new geodesic now through spacetime in which I am just floating above the floor. What I mean is I don't understand why the forces of the floor need to keep accelerating me all the time, because usually once a force have acted for some time you can stop the force and the object will keep moving in an inertial way. –  fiftyeight May 7 '12 at 15:07
    
Hi fiftyeight, I've appended a reply to the original question because it got a bit long to put in a comment. –  John Rennie May 7 '12 at 18:00
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.