Are objects accelerating at the same rate in the same direction considered inertial to each other?

  • B
  • Thread starter jaketodd
  • Start date
  • #51
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
8,776
3,534
No, I don't understand what you mean. The "jerk-ometers" would all agree, yet the velocities would differ, creating two different realities, dependent on reference frame. The "jerk-ometers" are invariant because they rely on the geometry of spacetime, which is universal, as you have said.
The velocity is a coordinate dependent quantity. Accordingly, as @PeterDonis points out, no observable quantity depends on it.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #52
jaketodd
Gold Member
336
3
The velocity is a coordinate dependent quantity. Accordingly, as @PeterDonis points out, no observable quantity depends on it.
If jerk and acceleration can be invariant, in the context of spacetime geometry, then so can velocity, because the derivative of velocity, is acceleration, and the derivative of acceleration is jerk. They are all self-contained within spacetime geometry. Perhaps "proper velocity?"
 
  • #53
A.T.
Science Advisor
10,433
2,081
If jerk and acceleration can be invariant, in the context of spacetime geometry, then so can velocity, because the derivative of velocity, is acceleration
The derivative of velocity, is coordinate acceleration, which is frame dependent. What is frame invariant is proper acceleration.
 
  • #54
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
8,776
3,534
If jerk and acceleration can be invariant, in the context of spacetime geometry, then so can velocity, because the derivative of velocity, is acceleration, and the derivative of acceleration is jerk. They are all self-contained within spacetime geometry. Perhaps "proper velocity?"
First you would have to define "proper velocity". Doing it as the integral of proper acceleration over proper time runs into problems -- you would be taking an infinite sum of infinitesimal vectors drawn from different vector spaces.
 
  • #55
Ibix
Science Advisor
Insights Author
6,454
5,154
If jerk and acceleration can be invariant, in the context of spacetime geometry, then so can velocity,
To add to A.T.'s comment, velocity turns out to be related to the angle between your worldline (your path through spacetime) and the worldline of whatever you chose as stationary. But proper acceleration (not coordinate acceleration) is a measure of the curvature of your worldline - it has no dependence on any other worldline, so is grame independent.
 
  • #56
jaketodd
Gold Member
336
3
The derivative of velocity, is coordinate acceleration, which is frame dependent. What is frame invariant is proper acceleration.
First you would have to define "proper velocity". Doing it as the integral of proper acceleration over proper time runs into problems -- you would be taking an infinite sum of infinitesimal vectors drawn from different vector spaces.
Once again, proper velocity might do the trick. "Proper velocity equals velocity at low speeds." That's according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_velocity
 
  • #57
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2019 Award
29,671
8,945
If jerk and acceleration can be invariant, in the context of spacetime geometry, then so can velocity, because the derivative of velocity, is acceleration, and the derivative of acceleration is jerk.
Wrong. Again you are not paying careful attention to the distinction I made in my previous post. See below.

Perhaps "proper velocity?"
Here's the problem: there is no such thing as proper velocity. That is, there is no invariant quantity that is a velocity, corresponding to proper acceleration or its derivative with respect to proper time.

(There are some technicalities involved here, but they are beyond the scope of a "B" level thread.)
 
  • #58
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
8,776
3,534
  • #59
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2019 Award
29,671
8,945
proper velocity might do the trick
Nope. The name "proper velocity" for this quantity is misleading; it is not an invariant the way proper acceleration or proper jerk are invariants. Don't rely on Wikipedia as a source for learning physics.
 
  • #61
A.T.
Science Advisor
10,433
2,081
Once again, proper velocity might do the trick.
What trick? It's still frame dependent, just like velocity.
 
  • #62
jaketodd
Gold Member
336
3
So, what does this have to do with the rate at which sand drops off of accelerating planets?
Nope. The name "proper velocity" for this quantity is misleading; it is not an invariant the way proper acceleration or proper jerk are invariants. Don't rely on Wikipedia as a source for learning physics.
Yes, it is called inertia, and it behaves the way @jbriggs444 described, not the way you described.
Well, on stepping back a moment, it doesn't matter whether we use proper velocity, or coordinate velocity, or whatever. The fact is that inside my three body system, explained in detail above, the planets start moving first, with non-zero jerk, so their acceleration will always be more than the observer, leading to more sand flying off them to the observer, than compared to the reference frames of the two planets. However, the "jerk-ometers" would always read the same, for all three bodies.
 
  • #63
29,595
5,898
If jerk and acceleration can be invariant, in the context of spacetime geometry, then so can velocity,
This is incorrect. Since you mention geometry, let’s discuss the geometrical meaning of these concepts.

In spacetime, velocity is the slope of a worldline, and proper acceleration is its curvature. Different frames are different rotations of the axes.

If you draw a curve on a piece of paper then at each point along the curve there is a certain radius of curvature and a certain slope. If you rotate the paper the curvature at each point is unchanged, but the slope is changed.

So, geometrically speaking, you are wrong. The invariance of proper acceleration does not imply the invariance of velocity.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #64
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
8,776
3,534
The fact is that inside my three body system, explained in detail above, the planets start moving first, with non-zero jerk, so their acceleration will always be more than the observer, leading to more sand flying off them to the observer, than compared to the reference frames of the two planets. However, the "jerk-ometers" would always read the same, for all three bodies.
The relativistic invariant is the total quantity of sand that flies off between some defined starting event and some defined ending event.

You appear to be speaking of the rate at which sand flies off at a particular coordinate time -- and then starting the coordinate time clocks at different times.
 
  • #65
Ibix
Science Advisor
Insights Author
6,454
5,154
leading to more sand flying off them to the observer
I have no idea how you reach this conclusion. The observer is utterly irrelevant to the physics of sand coming off an accelerating planet. Why would you think what the observer is doing could have any effect?
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #66
jaketodd
Gold Member
336
3
This is incorrect. Since you mention geometry, let’s discuss the geometrical meaning of these concepts.

In spacetime, velocity is the slope of a worldline, and proper acceleration is its curvature. Different frames are different rotations of the axes.

If you draw a curve on a piece of paper then at each point along the curve there is a certain radius of curvature and a certain slope. If you rotate the paper the curvature at each point is unchanged, but the slope is changed.

So, geometrically speaking, you are wrong. The invariance of proper acceleration does not imply the invariance of velocity.
I'm talking about acceleration, and jerk. I've shown how acceleration can vary, depending on reference frame, while jerk is invariant.
 
  • #67
jbriggs444
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
8,776
3,534
I'm talking about acceleration, and jerk. I've shown how acceleration can vary, depending on reference frame, while jerk is invariant.
You have not shown how proper acceleration can vary depending on reference frame. It does not. We all agree that coordinate acceleration can vary.
 
  • #68
Ibix
Science Advisor
Insights Author
6,454
5,154
I'm talking about acceleration, and jerk. I've shown how acceleration can vary, depending on reference frame, while jerk is invariant.
No you haven't. Coordinate acceleration and coordinate jerk are frame dependent. They're related to the change of angle between a worldline and some chosen reference worldline, so depend on the choice of reference worldline. Proper acceleration and proper jerk are related to the curvature of the worldline (edit: loosely, the angle a worldline makes with itself as it was a moment earlier) and rate of change thereof, so are invariant.
 
  • #69
A.T.
Science Advisor
10,433
2,081
I've shown how acceleration ...
Without specifying what type of acceleration you mean, it's not clear what you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #70
29,595
5,898
so their acceleration will always be more than the observer,
Certainly. Their acceleration will always be more than the observer’s acceleration. However, since it is proper acceleration and since that is invariant then at any point on the planet’s worldline the planet and the observer will agree on the value of that acceleration, and hence on the amount of sand falling off. The observer’s acceleration is simply not relevant

I've shown how acceleration can vary, depending on reference frame, while jerk is invariant.
Proper acceleration is invariant, as is its derivative wrt proper time (jerk).
 
  • #71
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2019 Award
29,671
8,945
on stepping back a moment, it doesn't matter whether we use proper velocity, or coordinate velocity, or whatever
Yes, it does. You continue to ignore the key fact that has already been explained to you several times: any actual observable must depend only on invariant quantities. Your scenario does not disprove this at all; your repeated attempts to show that it does only show that you still don't understand the key fact I just stated. You need to stop trying to convince anyone else of your claims, and take a step back and consider that key fact carefully, and continue doing that until you understand what it means.

At this point I am closing the thread since you are continuing to repeat your errors without responding to the corrections you have been given.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds and Dale

Related Threads on Are objects accelerating at the same rate in the same direction considered inertial to each other?

Replies
4
Views
377
Replies
5
Views
685
Replies
3
Views
493
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
15K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
32
Views
6K
Top