Re: Equivalence Principle

["Rauber, Joel Phys" <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>]

John,
Thanks for saying all that; it echos precisely my feelings from having read 
that paper almost 10 years ago.  If anyone cares to take a stab at 
explaining away our concerns, there are at least two people who would be 
most appreciative.

Joel
 ----------
From: John Mallinckrodt
To: QuistO; RAUBERJ; phys-l
Cc: AJMALLINCKRO
Subject: Re: Equivalence Principle
Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 2:44PM

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, A. R. Marlow wrote:

> Apropos the continuing appeal to the equivalence principle to try to
> justify the inclusion of fictitious forces in physics, the clear and
> cogent analysis of the principle by Edward A. Desloge (Nonequivalence of a
> uniformly accelerating reference frame and a frame at rest in a uniform
> gravitational field, Am. J. Phys., 57, 12, December, 1989, Pp. 1121 -
> 1125) should definitely be read by anyone interested in the issue.
> ...
> The new emphasis in the paper is on the fact that *uniform* gravitational
> fields both exist (contrary to claims made sometimes) and can be
> distinguished from acceleration in a field free space.

I recall reading and being disturbed by this paper when it first
appeared.  Despite the author's very specific conclusions, I still
can't understand on physical grounds how one could possibly
distinguish between a uniform gravitational field and uniform
acceleration.  Doesn't it seem simply a matter of definition that
any observation that would contradict the hypothesis that one
moves with uniform acceleration through a flat space would equally
contradict the hypothesis that space is filled with a uniform
gravitational field?  Unfortunately, I am far too much of a
dilettante in these matters to completely follow the exposition,
much less, to find errors in it.  In the end, with regret, I
simply filed the paper away and hoped for the "Comment on ..."
follow up that never appeared.  So, now may be an auspicious time
to get the answers I should have sought back then.

I can't help but think that the distinctions the author makes must
ultimately be nothing more than nonphysical artifacts of using
different definitions for the coordinates in each case or
something similar.  Can any other impartial observer (Paul?,
David? ...) confirm for me the validity of Desloge's analysis and,
if so, possibly give me a way of understanding, on more conceptual
grounds, how one might understand the distinction between uniform
gravity and uniform acceleration?

John
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 A. John Mallinckrodt      http://www.intranet.csupomona.edu/~ajm
 Professor of Physics    mailto:ajmallinckro@csupomona.edu
 Physics Department       voice:909-869-4054
 Cal Poly Pomona            fax:909-869-5090
 Pomona, CA 91768-4031   office:Building 8, Room 223

 ------------------------- Original message header:
> MAIL FROM:<owner-phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>
> RCPT TO:<RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>
> RCPT TO:<QuistO@mg.sdstate.edu>
> DATA
> Received: from atlantis.uwf.edu ([143.88.1.202]) by fafhrd.SDState.Edu
(AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id RAA13932; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:17:13 -0600
(CST)
> Received: from atlantis.cc.uwf.edu (atlantis.uwf.edu [143.88.1.202]) by
atlantis.uwf.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA24948; Thu, 19 Feb 1998
17:03:57 -0600
> Message-Id: <199802192303.RAA24948@atlantis.uwf.edu>
> Received: from netsrv.is (netsrv.is.csupomona.edu [134.71.220.15]) by
atlantis.uwf.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA24693 for
<phys-l@mailer.uwf.edu>; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:49:42 -0600
> Received: from pinto.is (pinto.is.csupomona.edu) by netsrv.is.csupomona.edu
> (PMDF V5.1-9 #24709) with ESMTP id 
<0EON0024BDTD9X@netsrv.is.csupomona.edu>
> for phys-l@mailer.uwf.edu; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:44:03 -0800 (PST)
> Received: from clstac.is.csupomona.edu by clstac.is.csupomona.edu
> (PMDF V5.1-5 #11779) id <01ITRNAWJH5S9BW72G@clstac.is.csupomona.edu> for
> phys-l@mailer.uwf.edu; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:44:02 -0800 (PST)
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:44:02 -0800 (PST)
> Reply-To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
> Sender: owner-phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> From: John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPomona.Edu>
> To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
> Cc: AJMALLINCKRO@CSUPomona.Edu
> Subject: Re: Equivalence Principle
> In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.96.980216222632.130490A-100000@spemail.loyno.edu>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> X-Sender: AJMALLINCKRO@CSUPomona.Edu
> X-Sender: ajmallinckro@clstac.is.csupomona.edu
> <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980219144332.564173512A-100000@clstac.is.csupomona.edu>
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
 ------------------------- End of message header.