Another Inertial ref frame q :-(

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MonstersFromTheId
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frame Inertial
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of inertial reference frames, particularly in a hypothetical universe with only one planet. Participants explore the implications of this scenario on the notion of absolute motion and reference frames, touching on concepts from general relativity and Mach's Principle.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how all inertial reference frames can be considered equal when a planet's spinning state could lead to observable differences in gravitational effects, suggesting there must be an absolute reference frame.
  • Another participant references Mach's Principle and discusses how general relativity allows for any coordinate system to be valid, thus potentially resolving the issue of absolute motion.
  • The second participant explains that local experiments can determine the metric in a chosen coordinate system, which may or may not indicate rotation, depending on the results of those experiments.
  • A third participant expresses gratitude for the information and indicates a desire to learn more about the terms and concepts introduced, suggesting a willingness to engage further with the topic.
  • A fourth participant suggests looking into specific local experiments, such as the Foucault pendulum and torsion balance, to gain further insights into the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of inertial reference frames and the existence of an absolute frame, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex concepts from general relativity and theoretical physics, which may not be fully understood by all participants. There are references to specific terms and principles that may require further exploration to grasp their implications fully.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring foundational concepts in physics, particularly in relation to reference frames, general relativity, and the philosophical implications of motion and observation.

MonstersFromTheId
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
It's not that I don't believe that all i.r.f.'s are on an equal footing, it's just that I can't seem to get that to square with the following thought experiment, undoubtedly 'cause I'm getting lost in my own undies here, and I need help getting a handle on this.

Suppose you have a universe with just ONE planet in it (so that there's no outside ref points to determine relative motion of any kind).

Within that universe there would have to be an "absolute" or fundamentally correct reference frame wouldn't there?

I mean, that planet is either spinning, or it's not. Period. If it's spinning, especially if it's spinning really fast, your weight, standing on it's surface, is going to be lower than you weight would be if it were not spinning, right? If you're going to say it's spinning, spinning in relation to what?

Using an inertial reference frame that spun with the planet (i.e. the planet is defined as completely motionless) would lead you to an incorrect value for gravitational attraction. The fact that you don't know that the planet is spinning, 'cause you don't have any reference points to compare to, doesn't change the fact that you wind up with the wrong value for "g" does it? I mean wrong really is wrong right? Sooner or later you're going to notice and have to explain coriollis effects. It's not like spinning or not spinning is a subjective condition. You're either spinning, or your not, and those two conditions are distinct with distinct and observable consequences.

So how can all inertial ref frames stand on equal footing?

I'm choking on my elastic waste band here. HELP!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MonstersFromTheId said:
Suppose you have a universe with just ONE planet in it (so that there's no outside ref points to determine relative motion of any kind).

Within that universe there would have to be an "absolute" or fundamentally correct reference frame wouldn't there?

Look up "Mach's Principle", the guy has been thinking about exactly that issue in the beginning of the 20th century (or was it the end of the 19th ?).

In general relativity (or any theory that has general covariance) the problem goes away: ANY coordinate system will do, and what happens to be the metric in your preferred coordinate system will determine what are the paths of non-interacting particles. So no more wondering whether your coordinate system is really an "inertial" one: just pick one (for instance attached to the surface of your one and only planet).
Now, by doing local experiments everywhere with non-interacting particles, you can determine the metric expressed in this coordinate system.
If it turns out that it is close to a Schwarzschild solution, then you could say - if you wanted to - that your planet is "not rotating". If it turns out to be another metric, but such that when you apply the coordinate transformation phi --> phi + omega . t, you obtain a metric which looks much more like a Schwarzschild solution, then you MIGHT say as well that "your planet is rotating with rotation speed omega".
But if you find the last statement a non-physical statement in your space, then you can just as well accept that the metric, expressed in the coordinate system attached to your planet's surface, is what it is, without viewing it necessarily as "rotating".

The deviation of the empirically measured metric from a Schwarzschild metric will simply include then the variation of effective acceleration from the poles to the equator.
 
Thanks Vanesch!

This gives me lots of stuff to look up and read about. Many of the terms you're using go way over my head, but what the heck, learning what terms like "general covariance" and "Schwarzschild solution" mean is half the fun here. If I can't find what I need to pick apart your answer, I'll just ask. But for now I want to see how much I can learn on my own by doin' a little googling and reading.

Again, thanks. You've given me a great place to start.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Graduate Energy in different inertial frames
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Understanding meaning of inertial reference frames
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Understanding non-inertial reference frames in CM and SR.
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Problems with Inertial Reference Frames
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
11K
Undergrad Inertial frames in changing gravitational fields
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
6K
Undergrad DDWFTTW: Looking for the least confusing explanation
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
20K
Undergrad Frame of reference and Pseudo forces
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Centrifugal Force Explained: Inertial vs Rotating Frames
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
High School Inertial and Non-Inertial Reference Frames
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K