Weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton)

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of inertia and its relation to forces and masses in free fall. There is a disagreement about the existence of an "inertial force" and whether it is necessary to explain the motion of objects in free fall. The concept of inertial frames of reference and the validity of F=ma in these frames are also mentioned. The conversation concludes that a deeper understanding of gravity can be found in the theory of General Relativity.
  • #1
qnt200
28
2
TL;DR Summary
Does the force of inertia act on the body during free fall, according to the weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton)?
Many tutorials that explain the weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton) do not clearly state whether the body is affected by the force of inertia during free fall as a result of the gravitational acceleration of the body. In other words, the question is whether, during the free fall of a body in a gravitational field, gravitational force equals inertial force (Fg=Fi).
Is this incompatible with the concept of two masses (gravity and inertial mass)? What is GR's opinion on it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There is mass, gravitational and inertial. Inertia is another name for inertial mass.

Inertia is not a force.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and qnt200
  • #3
Thank you for explaining. It raises a few more questions for me about the logic of bodies in free-fall:
It is known that gravitational mass = inertial mass (established with enormous precision). That is why we can talk about only one mass. Therefore m = mg = mi. In free fall, mg = ma, i.e., g = a. The product of ma acts as inertia on the body, slowing it down during free fall so that it does not instantly reach the speed of light.
I think it is irrelevant whether the product of mass and acceleration is called a force.
I don't know how correct this attitude is?
 
  • #4
qnt200 said:
Many tutorials that explain the weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton) do not clearly state whether the body is affected by the force of inertia during free fall as a result of the gravitational acceleration of the body
This doesn’t make sense. Inertial forces are not a result of acceleration. Inertial forces are a result of using a non-inertial reference frame. Sometimes non-inertial frames are called accelerating frames, but an accelerating frame is a different concept than acceleration.

If you want to ask about inertial forces then you must specify the non-inertial reference frame you are using.
 
  • Like
Likes protonsarecool and qnt200
  • #5
qnt200 said:
The product of ma acts as inertia on the body, slowing it down during free fall so that it does not instantly reach the speed of light.
It is difficult to follow what you are saying here. It seems to indicate that you are understanding things incorrectly (or at least not in the standard way).

Apparently you have this idea that if we exert a force on an object then, were it not for the object's inertia, that object would fly away at the speed of light. That is a somewhat reasonable intuition.

To be picky, if we stay within the Newtonian framework, there is nothing special about the speed of light. A massless object subject to a finite force would be pushed away with an undefined speed. We might think of that speed as infinite, but from a mathematician's point of view, "undefined" is more correct. A mathematically inclined physicist would likely say that you cannot exert a finite force on a massless object.

But never mind that. Set the speed of light to one side.

You want to rescue us from having the object move off at an undefined velocity by conjuring up a counter-force called the "force of inertia". So we have this original real force f=ma pushing the object away and this magical counter-force pushing back. But hold on a minute... if we have equal and opposite forces then the object should not move at all. Eppur si muove.

We see real objects subject to real forces move all the time. So this way of thinking about the "force of inertia" cannot be entirely correct.

The standard way of thinking about this is to stick to inertial frames. You have an interaction force ##f## and an object of mass ##m## moves off with an acceleration ##a## when acted upon by that force. End of story.

We do not wave our hands and conjure up a force to explain the resulting motion. We already have the original force ##f## that explains the motion and a law of motion (##f=ma##) that quantifies the result. There is no need for anything more. The property that we call "inertia" is already encapsulated in Newton's second law.One can rescue the idea of an "inertial force" associated with an object's mass by adopting a non-inertial frame. But others such as @Dale are happily explaining that part.
 
  • Like
Likes qnt200, Dale and PeroK
  • #6
Dale, jbriggs444
Thank you for your interesting answers and guidelines indicating to me the scope of classical physics, i.e., the inertial frame of reference. F=ma is only valid in inertial frames of reference. It is actually clear to me that the full answers, especially regarding gravity, are found within GR.In addition to other things, you pointed out a very interesting question that I have been thinking about for a long time:
jbriggs444 said:
So we have this original real force f=ma pushing the object away and this magical counter-force pushing back. But hold on a minute... if we have equal and opposite forces then the object should not move at all.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Weak principle of equivalence (Galileo, Newton)

What is the Weak Principle of Equivalence?

The Weak Principle of Equivalence, also known as the Galileo-Newton Principle of Equivalence, states that the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration. This means that an observer in a closed laboratory cannot determine whether the laboratory is at rest in a uniform gravitational field or accelerating in the absence of gravity.

Who proposed the Weak Principle of Equivalence?

The Weak Principle of Equivalence was first proposed by Galileo Galilei in the 16th century and later refined by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century.

What is the significance of the Weak Principle of Equivalence?

The Weak Principle of Equivalence is a fundamental concept in the field of physics and is the basis for Einstein's theory of general relativity. It helps us understand the relationship between gravity and acceleration and has important implications for our understanding of the universe.

How is the Weak Principle of Equivalence different from the Strong Principle of Equivalence?

The Weak Principle of Equivalence only applies to observers in a closed laboratory, while the Strong Principle of Equivalence applies to all observers, regardless of their location or reference frame. The Strong Principle of Equivalence is a more comprehensive and accurate description of the relationship between gravity and acceleration.

What are some practical applications of the Weak Principle of Equivalence?

The Weak Principle of Equivalence has been used to make accurate predictions about the behavior of objects in gravitational fields, such as the motion of planets and the bending of light by massive objects. It also has practical applications in fields such as space travel and satellite navigation.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
13K
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
31
Views
1K
Back
Top