Inertial Mass vs Gravitational Mass

In summary, inertial mass and gravitational mass are two concepts in physics that describe how objects respond to forces. Inertial mass measures an object's resistance to acceleration when a force is applied, while gravitational mass determines the strength of the gravitational attraction between objects. Despite being distinct in definition, experiments have shown that they are equivalent, leading to the conclusion that the same quantity governs both inertia and gravity, a principle foundational to Einstein's theory of general relativity.
  • #1
KnightTheConqueror
16
8
TL;DR Summary
Why fundamentally Gravitational and inertial mass do not have to be equal and just a coincidence if we define the gravitational force using the inertial mass of the objects?
1000085012.jpg


Why does the text saying that the Newton's framework doesn't require the two masses to be equal? If using f = ma give us inertial mass then how is f = Gm1m2/r² a different things? Isn't the law defined as the force is directionly proportional to the product of the masses and we calculated the value of G using the "inertial masses" of the objects and putting them in the equation? Then how is the gravitational and inertial mass having the same value a "co-incidence"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Newtonian physics supplies no reason that the ##m## in Newton's law should be the same as the one in the second law. It appears to be the case, but there's no reason why. And you can easily imagine other cases - for example, we might find a material tomorrow whose gravitational attraction is half the strength of anything else of that mass. You just change the ##m## in the gravitational force law to ##km## where ##k## depends on the material. That ##k## is always 1 in reality and why that should be is unexplained.

General relativity (and any other metric theory of gravity) does provide a reason - since gravity is spacetime curvature, it can only depend on where you are, not what you are made of.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72
  • #3
That i understand but I still have a confusion. How did we calculate the value of the universal gravitational constant G? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the procedure like: We know the force between two objects is proportional to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them. And we put the value of force measured in laboratory and mass and distance between them and calculated the value of G. If an additional constant k is added to the equation, replacing m with km, wouldn't that k just get included in the value of G? Because G isn't something which we always knew, we calculated it using the inertial mass we knew about the objects. So by doing this we are assuming or just saying that both are the same things beforehand.
 
  • #4
KnightTheConqueror said:
That i understand but I still have a confusion. How did we calculate the value of the universal gravitational constant G? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the procedure like: We know the force between two objects is proportional to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them. And we put the value of force measured in laboratory and mass and distance between them and calculated the value of G. If an additional constant k is added to the equation, replacing m with km, wouldn't that k just get included in the value of G? Because G isn't something which we always knew, we calculated it using the inertial mass we knew about the objects. So by doing this we are assuming or just saying that both are the same things beforehand.
The constant G was measured by Cavendish, not calculated. You can find a description of his experiment.
 
  • #5
As @Ibix said, there is no reason in the theory that those masses should be the same. In fact Coulomb's law shows an example of something else: $$F=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{q_1 q_2}{r^2}$$ This has the same form as the law of gravitation. And there is no reason to suppose that charge is related to mass.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72 and KnightTheConqueror
  • #6
KnightTheConqueror said:
If an additional constant k is added to the equation, replacing m with km, wouldn't that k just get included in the value of G?
Sure, if ##k## is the same for everything (which we strongly believe it is).

If ##k## weren't the same for everything then you'd find objects having different attractions to each other, and you wouldn't be able to encompass that in one universal ##G##.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #7
Oh you're right. I didn't take it into account that the value of k could be different for different masses. This makes sense, than you
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and Ibix

FAQ: Inertial Mass vs Gravitational Mass

What is inertial mass?

Inertial mass is a measure of an object's resistance to acceleration when a force is applied. It quantifies how much force is required to change the object's velocity, and it is defined by Newton's second law of motion, where force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma).

What is gravitational mass?

Gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of an object's interaction with a gravitational field. It determines how much gravitational force an object experiences in a gravitational field, such as that of the Earth. Gravitational mass is responsible for the weight of an object, which is the force exerted on it by gravity.

Are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same?

Yes, inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent according to the equivalence principle, a key concept in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Experiments have shown that both types of mass yield the same value, meaning the resistance to acceleration and the force of gravity experienced by an object are directly proportional to the same mass value.

How are inertial mass and gravitational mass measured?

Inertial mass can be measured using dynamic methods, such as applying a known force to an object and measuring its acceleration. Gravitational mass can be measured using static methods, such as weighing an object on a scale in a gravitational field. Both methods yield consistent results, supporting the equivalence of the two types of mass.

What implications does the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass have in physics?

The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass has profound implications in physics, particularly in our understanding of gravity and motion. It leads to the conclusion that all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field, regardless of their mass or composition, and it forms the basis for the formulation of general relativity, which describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime.

Similar threads

B Tangran, Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass
Replies
8
Views
1K
I Are Newton's Laws just definitions?
Replies
11
Views
1K
B Gravitational force between two masses
Replies
11
Views
2K
B Gravitational Force acting on a massless body
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
I Is there an integral version of Newton's law of gravity?
Replies
10
Views
1K
I Spring balance analysis from a system point of view
Replies
24
Views
1K
B Newton's third law (equal and opposite force)
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Formula for fictitious moments
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Help Scaling Gravity Simulation
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Gravitational attraction between two masses
Replies
10
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top