-2
$\begingroup$

Could someone tell me where i'm wrong? The light beam experiment of the equivalence principle which was the mind experiment that made Einstein deduce the curvature of light around heavy objects, has a problem! I think it could make us distinguish if we are in an accelerated frame or in a gravitational field.

enter image description here

The problem is that light travels different distances in the two cases! In the accelerated frame light will travel horizontally and a straight path, even if the observer inside think that it is curved, the real distance traveled is the straight horizontal path. This distance of the straight path is less than the one traveled by the light beam in a gravitational field, because in this last one, the light beam travel all the curved trajectory in a "real way" not just in the eyes of the observer inside. Since light does not change its velocity and the distances traveled in the two cases are different, the time that the light beam takes to reach the wall won't be the same, and this also would give us a different curved trajectory! Where i'm wrong?

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ Re, "...the time that the light beam takes to reach the wall won't be the same..." That's not necessarily a problem. The theory of relativity allows observers who are moving differently from each other to disagree on the time intervals between events—same as how it allows them to disagree on spatial intervals. In fact, if two events are not causally connected (i.e., if the interval separating them is spacelike) then two observers potentially can even disagree on the order in which the events happened. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 1:59
  • $\begingroup$ @SolomonSlow Explain how traveling more distance with the same speed would give the same time as traveling less distance. $\endgroup$
    – user348262
    Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 2:17
  • $\begingroup$ That's not what I said. You said, "...different time." I am not qualified to explain general relativity, but I know that two observers seeing the same phenomenon, and disagreeing about how long it took does not, in and of itself, contradict the theory. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 14:55
  • $\begingroup$ The light beam reaching the wall in both cases should be the same time. If it's not the same time then there is a distinction. $\endgroup$
    – user348262
    Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 15:56
  • $\begingroup$ There's three points of view, but your illustration only shows two of them. Let's call the man in the rocket on the left Observer A, and let's call the man in the rocket on the right Observer B. There's also an Observer C, who is freely falling. Per Dale's answer (below), Observer A and Observer B see exactly the same thing. If they could watch a single photon, they would see it follow the same path, and they would measure the same time of flight. Only Observer C would see it move differently... $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 16:28

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The problem is that light travels different distances in the two cases!

The light does not travel different distances in the two cases. In fact, your drawing even shows that it travels the same distance in both cases.

In the accelerated frame light will travel horizontally and a straight path, even if the observer inside think that it is curved, the real distance traveled is the straight horizontal path.

Your mistake is here. In the accelerated frame (AF) the light does not travel on a straight path. The straight path is in the inertial frame (IF). In fact, the straight path in the IF can be used to derive the curved path in the AF, and it is the curved path in the AF that (through the equivalence principle) tells us that light curves in a frame at rest in a gravitational field (GF). The math is as follows:

In special relativity the reference frame of a uniformly accelerating object is the Rindler coordinates. This is the AF of the equivalence principle. The metric in the AF is $$ds^2 = -\frac{a^2 x^2}{c^2} dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2$$ This formula determines all times and distances in the AF.

In general relativity, the standard metric for a spherical gravitating body is the Schwarzschild metric. Where the metric in the standard coordinates is given by: $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right) c^2 dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2(\theta) d\phi^2$$ where $R$ is the Schwarzschild radius.

The equivalence principle says that in a small region of spacetime around any single event in a curved spacetime, we can expand the metric to first order and get a GF that matches the AF locally. We will expand the Schwarzschild metric around the reference event $(t,r,\theta,\phi) = (0,r_0,\pi/2,0)$. When we expand the factor $\left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right)$ we get $$\left(1-\frac{R}{r}\right) \approx 1 - \frac{R}{r_0}+\frac{R}{r_0} \delta r$$$$ ds^2 \approx - \left( 1 - \frac{R}{r_0}+\frac{R}{r_0} \delta r \right) c^2 dt^2 + \left(1 - \frac{R}{r_0}+\frac{R}{r_0} \delta r\right)^{-1} dr^2 + \delta r^2 d\theta^2 + \delta r^2 d\phi^2 $$ where the $\delta$ indicates the Schwarzschild coordinates near the reference event (e.g. $r=r_0+\delta r$ and $dr = d\delta r$) and the approximations are to first order per the equivalence principle.

Now, from there we make the coordinate transformation $$\frac{R^2 \rho^2}{4 r_0^4}=1-\frac{R}{r_0} + \frac{R}{r_0^2}\delta r$$$$\frac{a\tau}{c^2}=\frac{R}{2 r_0^2}t$$$$\delta r^2 d\theta^2 = dy^2$$$$\delta r^2 d\phi^2 = dz^2$$ Transforming the local GF metric with this transformation gives $$ds^2 = -\frac{a^2 \rho^2}{c^2} d\tau^2 + d\rho^2 + dy^2 + dz^2$$ which exactly matches the AF metric from above: $$ds^2 = -\frac{a^2 x^2}{c^2} dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2$$ with $\rho \to x$ and $\tau \to t$.

Because the metrics of the AF and the GF match exactly that means that all angles match, all speeds match, all times match, and all distances match.

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ Anyway, since you wrote an answer and i want to settle this doubt, i have no other choice than asking you. How could the distances be the same if they are different? As i said and i'll repeat again, in the AF it is curved only in the eyes of the observer but it's not the real distance traveled. The real distance traveled is the straight horizontal path. Since this straight path and the curved path have different distances, it is impossible to say that the trajectory is straight and curved at the same time. $\endgroup$
    – user348262
    Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 1:26
  • $\begingroup$ @jaghalli the “real” straight horizontal distance you are talking about is the distance in the IF. That is irrelevant. The equivalence principle says that the GF is equivalent to the AF, and makes no assertions about the “real”-ness of the IF. Your label of “real” simply doesn’t matter. The equivalence principle says the AF is equivalent to the GF. The IF is only relevant insofar as it can help calculate things in the AF as shown above $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 3:20
  • $\begingroup$ So according to you light with its constant velocity will travel different distances at the same time. You either say why would light travel the same distance in the GF as in the straight path in the AF (Yes, it is a straight horizontall path that the light actually travel), or you are just telling stories. $\endgroup$
    – user348262
    Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ We have to compare the real distance traveled by the light beam in the two cases. In the accelerated rocket repeating myself for the 10th time, light actually travel a straight horizontal path, and in the rocket liying on earth light actually travel all the curved trajectory. Of course with the same velocity, so this would give us different time, and even different trajectory. So either in the GF it is also a straight horizontal path or we have a problem here. If you say that it is also a straight horizontal path in GF, how do you explain that it is also a straight horizontal path? $\endgroup$
    – user348262
    Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ First, the speed of light is not generally equal to c in non-inertial frames so that argument is not relevant. Second, your opinion on what is “real” is irrelevant, regardless of how many times you repeat it. The sole arbiter of “real” is experiment. When people analyze the equivalence principle as I did and do experiments they find that the experiments match the theory. Your approach does not match actual experiments. Therefore your approach is wrong. Your claim that the path in the AF is straight is wrong. It is not a matter of opinion, it is experimental fact, you are mistaken all 10 times $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Nov 2, 2022 at 19:57