A doubt

  1. I have a doubt.
    Let consider an universe of only 2 planets with the form of 2 dishes on the same z axis.
    The 2 dishes are rotating 1 respect to the other.
    Can we experience centrifugal forces only on 1 of them?
  2. jcsd
  3. Im not sure i understand what you are asking, but i'll answer anyways. If you had 2 planets only, (or 2 stars) you can have a case where one is revolving around the other, or you can have a case where both are revolving around each other, which a lot of binary star systems do. In the first case only one would feel centrifugal forces, while in case 2, both would.
  4. If in the universe there are just 2 stars, how you can saw:
    If 1 is revolving around the other, is also true the opposite and who or what can distinguish the 1 star revolving and the 1 still?
  5. What do u mean? Dont you consider the sun to be stationary in respect to the solar system?? So why cant you have a stationary star, with another revolving around it?
  6. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 7,521
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    The Sun and the planets in the Solar System all revolve around their common center of gravity; all theories of gravitation, in particular Newton's and Einsteins's are symmetrical between the gravitating masses. Look up "back reaction".

    The Sun is only stationary in relation to the planets to a first approximation.
  7. jcsd

    jcsd 2,222
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think it's a fair question, as one reading of Mach's principle says that inertial forces are caused by movement relative to the matter in the universe, but this doesn't really feature in any of the mechanical models that we have.
  8. My question is based on the assumption that the universe is made just by the 2 planet (or stars).
    In your answer the solar system is embedded in a larger universe and this make a lot of difference.
  9. your answer is right here. :biggrin:
  10. Thanks.
    Is the Mach's principle not embedded in the GR?
  11. jcsd

    jcsd 2,222
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not as I stated it. Imagine an object accelarting against a Minkowslkian background (i.e. a univesre that contains no mass!), you'll still have inertial forces. I think it appears in a more general sense: i.e. the relativity of accelartion.
  12. pervect

    pervect 8,082
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Mach's principle influenced Einstein, but you won't find it embedded in GR. One key issue with Mach's principle in general is defining what it means, precisely.

    You appear to be thinking about the question as to whether it's possible in principle for a universe to have a total nonzero angular momentum. In GR the answer is "yes".
  13. this means that the universe is rotating? if yes, relative to what?
  14. Hmmm. I may well be mistaken, but was not Godels solution a rotating universe ???
    I seem to remember that this annoyed his close freind Einstein because it allowed closed world lines, i.e. time travel.
  15. pervect

    pervect 8,082
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    A uniform velocity has no local effects on physics, but acceleration and rotation certaiinly do. If one is in a closed elevator, one can tell that the elevator is accelerating by the apparent inertial forces which cause objects to fall. If one is in a rotating room one can detect the centrifugal and coriolis forces. This is commonly phrased by saying that "acceleration is not relative, it's absolute".

    It's certainly possible to postulate a universe with non-zero angular momentum according to the principles of GR. If one has a verion of Mach's principle which attempts to prohibit this, this version of Mach's principle is NOT part of GR. Less formally, a universe in GR _can_ rotate, and it doesn't need anything else to rotate relative to.
  16. That unclear to me (but can be just my fault)
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?