A Supposition of Angular Motion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a supposition regarding the angular momentum of a mass M being equivalent to that of the background universe spinning in the opposite direction. Participants explore the concept of unobservable rotation and its potential implications in the context of angular motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the background's true rotation is unobservable, it may have no observable implications.
  • Others argue that while the rotation is unobservable, it could still be inferred through indirect means.
  • A participant challenges the notion that a reference is necessary to gauge rotation, suggesting that rotation is non-inertial motion and not relative.
  • Another participant invites others to consider the implications if the rotation were treated as relative.
  • One participant requests a peer-reviewed reference to support the discussion, indicating a desire for a more formal basis for the claims made.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of unobservable rotation and the necessity of a reference frame for gauging rotation, indicating that multiple competing views remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of "observable" and "reference," as well as unresolved aspects of the implications of treating rotation as relative versus absolute.

WCOLtd
Messages
108
Reaction score
1
Suppose that angular momentum of mass M is equivalent to the angular momentum of the background universe spinning in the opposite direction from center of mass M. Suppose that the background's true rotation is un-observable. What would be the implications of such a supposition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WCOLtd said:
Suppose that the background's true rotation is un-observable. What would be the implications of such a supposition?
If you suppose that X is unobservable then by definition it has no observable implications.
 
X's rotation is unobservable. You can't see it spinning. Maybe you can figure out that it is in other ways.
 
Then it is observable
 
Yes. It is observable but indirectly. What I mean by "unobservable" is that you cannot see it spinning because it is the background and therefore there is no reference by which to gauge its rotation.
 
WCOLtd said:
therefore there is no reference by which to gauge its rotation.
You don't need a reference to gauge rotation. Rotation is non inertial motion so it is not relative.
 
In this supposition. I'd like you to suppose that it is relative and see what the implications are.
 
Please PM me with a peer reviewed reference that describes this scenario. I will then reopen the thread for discussion of that paper.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What are angular momentum and torque?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Conservation of angular momentum in the iceskater example
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Conceptual questions about Angular Momentum Conservation and torque
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School Conservation of Angular Momentum - Problem understanding this scenario
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Is energy really conserved?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Undergrad Mechanics of an inertial balance
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad How Does Angular Momentum Apply to Earth and Spinning Bike Wheels?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Undergrad Question about a Rotating system with mass moving inwards
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Motorized top with internal unbalanced flywheel
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad Time derivative of the angular momentum as a cross product
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K