• Is the free-falling elevator an inertial reference?

    From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 30 07:50:04 2023
    The first principle states that the inertial frame is the one in which
    bodies maintain their state of rest.

    In my animation
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/qdg3kgc8
    there is the rigid rod AB which remains at rest and there are the
    bodies C and D which move away from their initial position due to the
    (real) tidal forces.

    Thus, the inertiality of the free-falling elevator is determined by the presence or absence of tidal forces: if tidal forces are there, the free-falling elevator is an accelerated reference, if they are not
    there, it is a inertial reference.

    What is the size limit that separates lifts of one type from those of
    the other type?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 2 17:57:39 2023
    Luigi Fortunati il 30/04/2023 09:50:04 ha scritto:
    The first principle states that the inertial frame is the one in which
    bodies maintain their state of rest.

    In my animation
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/qdg3kgc8
    there is the rigid rod AB which remains at rest and there are the
    bodies C and D which move away from their initial position due to the
    (real) tidal forces.

    Thus, the inertiality of the free-falling elevator is determined by the presence or absence of tidal forces: if tidal forces are there, the free-falling elevator is an accelerated reference, if they are not
    there, it is a inertial reference.

    What is the size limit that separates lifts of one type from those of
    the other type?

    I answer: there is no limit.

    Just look at my animation to see it: body D is closer to the center of
    gravity and, therefore, accelerates more.

    How much is this acceleration difference? It is very small near the
    Earth and extremely large near a black hole.

    In any case, the difference is always there and never disappears: the
    uniform gravitational field does not exist.

    And I also want to point out a case of real acceleration during free
    fall.

    Watch the video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyPAEMQKBuo

    Astronaut Samantha Cristofoletti is on the spaceship in free fall where
    the gyroscope left free to turn does not remain stationary in its
    initial position but tilts with respect to the spaceship, ie rotates.

    Samantha Cristofoletti explains that it is the spaceship in free fall
    that rotates and not the gyroscope that maintains its initial position.

    Well, if the spaceship rotates, it's not an inertial reference frame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color t@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Wed May 3 06:56:24 2023
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> wrote:
    The first principle states that the inertial frame is the one in which
    bodies maintain their state of rest.

    In my animation
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/qdg3kgc8
    there is the rigid rod AB which remains at rest and there are the
    bodies C and D which move away from their initial position due to the
    (real) tidal forces.

    Thus, the inertiality of the free-falling elevator is determined by the presence or absence of tidal forces: if tidal forces are there, the free-falling elevator is an accelerated reference, if they are not
    there, it is a inertial reference.

    What is the size limit that separates lifts of one type from those of
    the other type?

    Your statement
    Thus, the inertiality of the free-falling elevator is determined by the presence or absence of tidal forces: if tidal forces are there, the free-falling elevator is an accelerated reference, if they are not
    there, it is a inertial reference.
    is correct.

    However, in practice there are other important facts, notably:
    (1) there are almost always tidal forces present, i.e., we almost never
    have something that's *exactly* an inertial reference frame (IRF),
    and
    (2) physics experiments are always of finite accuracy, so we almost
    never care about having something that's *exactly* an IRF.

    This makes it useful to introduce the concept of "approximate inertial reference frame" (AIRF), where we only require "inertial" to hold up to
    some specified error tolerance. And having introduced that concept,
    it's then useful to consider Luigi's question for an AIRF.

    I.e., it's useful to consider the question "how large can an AIRF be"
    (where "size" is measured in both space and time, see below). As we'll
    see below, the answer depends on how accurately we want the property
    "inertial" to hold, i.e., how approximate do we want our AIRF to be.

    To explain this, let's focus on measuring the vertical positions of
    bodies in the freely-falling elevator (which, we'll see, is an AIRF)
    as functions of time. Let's specify an accuracy tolerance h for our measurements (e.g., "we'll measure positions to +/- h = 1 millimeter").
    Then (for a given (gravitational) tidal field) we can calculate how
    long it would take for B and C to drift by that tolerance h with respect
    to the stick AB. Let's call this time interval T(BC,h). Then we can
    say that for observations with an accuraty tolerance of +/- h, and
    durations less than T(BC,h), the elevator is an AIRF.

    If, on the other hand, we instead consider a larger AIRF, say one
    containing bodies E and F which start out farther apart (vertically)
    than B and C, then we'll find the corresponding time T(EF,h) to be
    shorter than T(BC,h). That is, if we make our AIRF larger, than
    the AIRF has a shorter time-of-validity.

    In general, we can write the (vertical) position of any body X in
    the freely-falling elevator (relative to the AB midpoint) as a Taylor
    series in time,
    X(t) = x_0 + x_1 t + (1/2!) (k_2 x_0) t^2 + higher order terms
    where the coefficients x_0 and x_1 depend on the body X (they are just
    the initial position and velocity of the body at time t=0), but the
    coefficient k_2 does NOT depend on the body X. (k_2 is a property of
    the (gravitational) tidal field in and near the elevator, more precisely
    it's a component of the Riemann tensor).

    Neglecting the higher order terms, we can approximately write
    X(t) = x_0 + x_1 t + (1/2) k_2 x_0 t^2
    T(BC,h) is then the smallest t such that
    (1/2) d_CD k_2 t^2 = h.
    where d_CD = the initial distance from the AB midpoint to C or D.
    Solving this last equation gives
    T(BC,h) = sqrt((2 h)/(k_2 d_CD))

    This makes it clear how the time-of-validity of the AIRF (the time T)
    varies with the tolerance h, the spatial size of the AIRF (the distance
    d_CD), and the (gravitational) tidal field as parameterized by k_2.

    In particular, notice that in the limit d_CD --> 0, T(BC,h) --> infinity
    for any fixed tolerance h, i.e., if we consider an infinitesimally small
    AIRF, then for any given tolerance the AIRF effectively lasts forever.
    In other words, an infinitesimally small AIRF is effectively a true IRF.

    When you see the phrase "inertial reference frame" in a context where
    tidal forces are present, it almost always really means an infintesimally
    small AIRF. So, returing to Luigi's initial question, if you want a true
    IRF, then the size limit is "infinitesimally small".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Luigi Fortunati on Wed May 3 06:57:45 2023
    On 5/2/23 7:57 PM, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
    [...]

    You have completely missed the essential thing about locally inertial
    frames in GR: they are APPROXIMATIONS. There exists no perfectly
    inertial frame anywhere in the universe we inhabit, including here on
    earth. But this is physics, and measurements are never perfect, they
    always have a resolution/errorbar. A region of spacetime that is small
    enough so the deviations from a truly inertial frame are smaller than measurement resolutions can be treated as if it is inertial -- in
    particular, gravity can be ignored and SR can be applied (which is
    enormously simpler to use than GR).

    That usually means the locally inertial frame must be in freefall, and
    small enough so any tidal forces present are smaller than measurement resolutions. But not always:

    For instance, at the LHC the experimental caverns are less than 100
    meters in any direction. The particles they measure travel with speed indistinguishable from c relative to the lab. So each event has a
    duration less than 100m/c = 3E-7 seconds. During such an event, a truly inertial frame initially at rest relative to the lab would fall
    0.5 g t^2 = 0.5 9.8 (3E-7)^2 = 5E-13 meters
    Their best detectors have resolution greater than 1E-6 meters, so for
    each event they can consider the apparatus to be at rest in a locally
    inertial frame, and use SR in their analysis. They analyze each event separately, because for longer durations (> ~ milliseconds) the
    difference between a locally inertial frame and their lab cannot be
    neglected.

    [That estimate uses the first-order contribution from
    earth's gravity; higher order contributions, such as
    tidal forces, are considerably smaller and can also
    be neglected. Ditto for the non-inertial effects of
    earth's rotation.]

    This is physics, and approximations abound. It is ESSENTIAL to be able
    to estimate when a given approximation is good enough. In all your
    discussions of elevators you have never mentioned how accurately
    measurements are made -- that is essential information for one to
    determine whether the elevator can be considered to be locally inertial.
    (The moderator and I have mentioned this, but you have ignored that.)

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 4 08:23:52 2023
    Luigi Fortunati il 02/05/2023 12:57:39 ha scritto:
    Watch the video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyPAEMQKBuo

    Astronaut Samantha Cristofoletti is on the spaceship in free fall where the gyroscope left free to turn does not remain stationary in its initial position but tilts with respect to the spaceship, ie rotates.

    Samantha Cristofoletti explains that it is the spaceship in free fall that rotates and not the gyroscope that maintains its initial position.

    Well, if the spaceship rotates, it's not an inertial reference frame.

    I ask you for confirmation.

    It seems to me that Samantha's gyroscope works *exactly* like Foucault's pendulum: does it?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 3 20:13:49 2023
    Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply] il 03/05/2023 08:56:24 ha scritto:
    Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> wrote:
    The first principle states that the inertial frame is the one in which bodies maintain their state of rest.

    In my animation
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/qdg3kgc8
    there is the rigid rod AB which remains at rest and there are the bodies C and D which move away from their initial position due to the (real) tidal forces.

    Thus, the inertiality of the free-falling elevator is determined by the presence or absence of tidal forces: if tidal forces are there, the free-falling elevator is an accelerated reference, if they are not there, it is a inertial reference.

    What is the size limit that separates lifts of one type from those of the other type?

    Your statement
    Thus, the inertiality of the free-falling elevator is determined by the presence or absence of tidal forces: if tidal forces are there, the free-falling elevator is an accelerated reference, if they are not there, it is a inertial reference.
    is correct.

    However, in practice there are other important facts, notably:
    (1) there are almost always tidal forces present, i.e., we almost never
    have something that's *exactly* an inertial reference frame (IRF),
    and
    (2) physics experiments are always of finite accuracy, so we almost
    never care about having something that's *exactly* an IRF.

    This makes it useful to introduce the concept of "approximate inertial reference frame" (AIRF), where we only require "inertial" to hold up to
    some specified error tolerance. And having introduced that concept,
    it's then useful to consider Luigi's question for an AIRF.

    I.e., it's useful to consider the question "how large can an AIRF be"
    (where "size" is measured in both space and time, see below). As we'll
    see below, the answer depends on how accurately we want the property "inertial" to hold, i.e., how approximate do we want our AIRF to be.

    To fully understand everything you wrote, I need to adjust my animation https://www.geogebra.org/m/qdg3kgc8
    to introduce the concept of "approximate" inertial frame of reference (AIRF).

    My idea is to add one or more sliders so that the user can vary any
    dimension at will, enlarging or reducing it to see how the distances
    vary (or don't vary) during the approximation of the AIRF towards the infinitely small .

    Do I make the dimensions of the lift variable? Or the size of bodies C and D? Or their distance? Or the time?

    If you give me these indications, I will modify my animation accordingly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 06:59:13 2023
    Luigi Fortunati il 03/05/2023 20:13:49 ha scritto:
    Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply] il 03/05/2023 08:56:24 ha scritto:
    Your statement
    Thus, the inertiality of the free-falling elevator is determined by the presence or absence of tidal forces: if tidal forces are there, the free-falling elevator is an accelerated reference, if they are not there, it is a inertial reference.
    is correct.

    However, in practice there are other important facts, notably:
    (1) there are almost always tidal forces present, i.e., we almost never
    have something that's *exactly* an inertial reference frame (IRF),
    and
    (2) physics experiments are always of finite accuracy, so we almost
    never care about having something that's *exactly* an IRF.

    This makes it useful to introduce the concept of "approximate inertial
    reference frame" (AIRF), where we only require "inertial" to hold up to
    some specified error tolerance. And having introduced that concept,
    it's then useful to consider Luigi's question for an AIRF.

    I.e., it's useful to consider the question "how large can an AIRF be"
    (where "size" is measured in both space and time, see below). As we'll
    see below, the answer depends on how accurately we want the property
    "inertial" to hold, i.e., how approximate do we want our AIRF to be.

    To fully understand everything you wrote, I need to adjust my animation https://www.geogebra.org/m/qdg3kgc8
    to introduce the concept of "approximate" inertial frame of reference (AIRF).

    My idea is to add one or more sliders so that the user can vary any
    dimension at will, enlarging or reducing it to see how the distances
    vary (or don't vary) during the approximation of the AIRF towards the infinitely small .

    Do I make the dimensions of the lift variable? Or the size of bodies C and D? Or their distance? Or the time?

    If you give me these indications, I will modify my animation accordingly.

    Perhaps I have found the right way to represent the concept of an
    "approximate" inertial frame of reference (AIRF) tending to zero.

    In my animation
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/k5bunuh3
    there are bodies A and B initially in contact with each other.

    We can choose their initial size between 0.1 and 1 and then, during free
    fall, their separation is maximum when the two bodies are large and
    decreases more and more when the bodies are smaller.

    When the separation of bodies A and B tends to zero, the tidal forces
    also tend to zero and below a certain level (for example 0.1) they can
    be considered null.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Luigi Fortunati@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 00:49:54 2023
    Luigi Fortunati il 04/05/2023 08:23:52 ha scritto:
    Luigi Fortunati il 02/05/2023 12:57:39 ha scritto:
    Watch the video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyPAEMQKBuo

    Astronaut Samantha Cristofoletti is on the spaceship in free fall where the >> gyroscope left free to turn does not remain stationary in its initial
    position but tilts with respect to the spaceship, ie rotates.

    Samantha Cristofoletti explains that it is the spaceship in free fall that >> rotates and not the gyroscope that maintains its initial position.

    Well, if the spaceship rotates, it's not an inertial reference frame.

    I ask you for confirmation.

    It seems to me that Samantha's gyroscope works *exactly* like Foucault's pendulum: does it?

    The movements of Foucault's pendulum prove that the Earth rotates, the movements of Samantha's gyroscope demonstrate that her spaceship
    rotates.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)