## Intertial mass and gravitational mass.

A forum set up for physics questions from students in the courses PHYS1121, 1131, 1221 and 1331 at the University of New South Wales. It is intended for questions that cannot readily be answered in class,
either because they fall outside the main syllabus and therefore would be distraction (however interesting) or for other reasons.

Moderator: msmod

joe
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:57 am
Location: Sydney

### Intertial mass and gravitational mass.

This thread is redirected from What causes inertia? in the forum of the MOOC, Particles to Planets at https://class.coursera.org/particles2planets-001.

It's a good idea to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machs_principle and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_ ... relativity before posting here, so we don't spend too much time on basic ideas and terminology.

Here is one way of putting the question. For a falling object in an inertial frame, we write
Total force = m_i*a = m_g*g = gravitational force on the object.
where m_i is the inertial mass and m_g the gravitational mass.

The first equation is Newton's second law. m_i is the object's reluctance to accelerate under a given force.
The last equation indicates one or other gravitational law. m_g is the property of an object that interacts with a gravitational field.

So, why is m_i proportional to m_g?

Joe
joe
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:57 am
Location: Sydney

### Re: Intertial mass and gravitational mass.

To make the distinction clear, consider the analogy for an object in (only) an electric field, E
Total force = m_i*a = q*E = electrical force on object.

Compare this with a falling object in an inertial frame:
Total force = m_i*a = m_g*g = gravitational force on object.

We're not surprised that the ratio q/m_i is different for protons and neutrons. I was surprised that the ratio* m_g/m_i seems to be constant for all objects. (As was Newton.) Do a pendulum made of graphite (equal numbers of protons and neutrons) and a similar one made of plastic (many more protons than neutrons) have the same period? Why is the answer yes?

To oversimplify: Mach says it's not a coincidence, and that the two are related. Einstein says m_i and m_g are the same thing.

Joe
* And if they are proportional, we can make them equal with choice of units.