On 4/9/2019 5:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:


On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



    On 4/9/2019 12:47 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote:


    On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 1:35:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



        On 4/9/2019 11:55 AM, [email protected] wrote:


        On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 12:05:11 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



            On 4/9/2019 7:52 AM, [email protected] wrote:


            On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 11:16:25 PM UTC-6,
            [email protected] wrote:

                In GR, is there a distinction between coordinate
                systems and frames of reference? AG??


            Here's the problem; there's a GR expert known to some
            members of this list, who claims GR does NOT
            distinguish coordinate systems from frames of
            reference. He also claims that given an arbitrary
            coordinate system on a manifold, and any given point in
            space-time, it's possible to find a transformation from
            the given coordinate system (and using Einstein's
            Equivalence Principle), to another coordinate system
            which is locally flat at the arbitrarily given point in
            space-time. This implies that a test particle is in
            free fall at that point in space-time. But how can
            changing labels on space-time points, change the
            physical properties of a test particle at some
            arbitrarily chosen point in space-time? I believe that
            such a transformation implies a DIFFERENT frame of
            reference, in motion, possibly accelerated, from the
            original frame or coordinate system. Am I correct? TIA, AG

            You're right that a coordinate system is just a function
            for labeling points and, while is may make the equations
            messy or simple, it doesn't change the physics.?? If you
            have two different coordinate systems the transformation
            between them may be arbitrarily complicated.?? But your
            last sentence referring to motion as distinguishing a
            coordinate transform from a reference frame seems to
            have slipped into a 3D picture.?? In a 4D spacetime,
            block universe there's no difference between an
            accelerated reference frame and one defined by
            coordinates that are not geodesic.

            Brent


        Suppose the test particle is on a geodesic path in one
        coordinate system, but in another it's on an approximately
        flat 4D surface at some point in the transformed coordinate
        system.

        A geodesic is a physically defined path, one of extremal
        length.  It's independent of coordinate systems and reference
        frames.  If a geodesic is not a geodesic in your transformed
        coordinate system, then you've done something wrong in
        transforming the metric.

        Brent


    It would clarify the situation if you would state the acceptable
    before and after states of a coordinate transformation that puts
    the test particle in a locally flat region for some chosen point
    in the transformed coordinate system. AG

    Like "geodesic" being "locally flat" is a physical characteristic
    of the spacetime.  It's just part of being a Riemannian space that
    there is a sufficiently small region around any point that is
    "flat".  This is the mathematical correlate of Einstein's
    equivalence principle.  So it is not the coordinate system or any
    transformation that "puts the particle in a flat region".  It's
    just a property of the space being smooth and differentiable so
    that even a curved spacetime at every point has a flat tangent space.

    Brent


What you're saying is pretty easy to understand. So I wonder why the "expert" I was discussing this with, claimed something about a transformation existing from one coordinate system to another, to make the particle to be locally in an inertial condition, when that's always the case?  Do you have any idea what he was referring to? AG

Well, it's not always the case.  There are other forces that can act on a particle besides gravity.  So the the fact that you can always transform to a free-falling local reference frame and eliminate "gravitational force" doesn't mean that a particle may not be accelerated by EM or other forces.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to