Mach's Principle and Newton's Pail Experiment?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Deslaar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment Principle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Mach's Principle and Newton's Pail Experiment, exploring the implications of absolute acceleration and the nature of inertial frames in classical mechanics. Participants examine the relationship between rotation, acceleration, and the curvature of water in a spinning pail.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how the spinning pail of water relates to absolute acceleration and questions the supposed mystery it presents.
  • Another participant explains that Newtonian mechanics relies on inertial frames, which are not rotating relative to fixed stars, leading to Mach's Principle that inertial properties depend on the distribution of other masses.
  • A different perspective highlights that rotation can be distinguished from constant motion through the principle of inertia, using the example of tension in a string between two bodies or the curvature of water in a pail.
  • Participants acknowledge the complexity of distinguishing between rotating and stationary frames without reference to external environments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present differing views on the implications of Mach's Principle and the interpretation of Newton's Pail Experiment. There is no consensus on the clarity or significance of the concepts discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about inertial frames and the nature of acceleration remain unexamined, and the discussion does not resolve the implications of Mach's Principle fully.

Deslaar
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Can someone please explain this to me and the apparent mystery it's suppose to offer with regard to absolute acceleration.

I don't see it, a spinning pail of water that results in a curved surface is meant to somehow reveal an insight into relative mass and absolute acceleration. As far as I can tell, the curvature of the water is completely explained by classical mechanics.

What am I missing? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Someone? Please? Am I being unclear?
 
Newtonian mechanics relies heavily on inertial frames of referance. Those are the frames of referance in which Newton's laws are supposed to hold. Mach observed that inertial frames were not rotating relative to the so-called "fixed stars". This gave rise to Mach's Principle which states that the inertial property of any given object depends on the presence and the distribution of other masses.

SO if you're accelerating with respect to an inertial frame of referance what that is supposed to mean, at least according to Mach's Principle, is that you're accelerating relative to the "fixed stars". so there is no "absolute acceleration". Only acceleration with respect to an inertial frame which in turn means that you're accelerating relative to the "fixed stars".

A spinning pail of water is thus rotating relative to the fixed stars. So if the water is trying to climb out of the pail, i.e. the surface of the water is curved, then you're (or actually the bucket) is rotating relative to the fixed stars.

Pete
 
Originally posted by Deslaar
Someone? Please? Am I being unclear?

Well, ..OK; but only because you're a friend of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Newton recognized constant motion is relative. However, rotation is different; and one can determine which party is actually rotating and which is stationary due to the principle of inertia.

If two bodies attached to a string appear to be rotating about each other with a string taut between them, then IF they are actually rotating then the string would have tension. If however it was the observer that was rotating around the two bodies, there would be no tension in the string.

Likewise, he reasoned with a pail of water. If you rotated around it, you would observe no curvature of water up the sides of the bucket; but if the water were actually rotating (and you were stationary) curvature would be observed. Thus, one could distinquish which party was actually rotating (WITHOUT reference to the outside environment)- and so he concluded rotational acceleration is not relative.

Creator :wink:

Opps I think I crossed Pmb's post.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh...thanks people.:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
880
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K