Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Can Spacetime be a Reference Frame?

  1. Jan 20, 2017 #1
    I was watching one of the documentaries of Brian Greene (Beyond Cosmos).

    here at (12:00-12:10) he says.The skater spins respect to space.

    My question is How can space-time can be a referance frame itself ?
    Is it means we can just pick a coordinate and make it a referance frame ? (Sounds wrong to me )

    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 20, 2017 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    NEVER take these pop-sci things seriously.
    It cannot
    Any coordinate system you choose is by definition a reference frame.
     
  4. Jan 20, 2017 #3
    So any point on space-time can be a referance frame, but space-time itself cannot be a referance frame ?

    Then what he is talking about ?
     
  5. Jan 20, 2017 #4

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I have no idea what he is talking about. I learned long ago NOT to watch Brian Green. One of our moderators here commented once that Green's pop-sci shows cause more confusion than those of any other pop-sci person. Personally I think Kaku is worse, but it's close.
     
  6. Jan 20, 2017 #5
    I see ok
     
  7. Jan 20, 2017 #6

    QuantumQuest

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As phinds says, stay away from popsci things if you want to learn. They many times state things that although are correct in essence - not always, they're stated in an overly abstract, unspecified and unjustified manner, cutting corners that cannot be cut.

    For the video you mention (12:00 - 12:10), don't take what he is saying at its face value. He is talking about space in the abstract.
     
  8. Jan 20, 2017 #7
    Ok then,If skater spins its spins to what ?
     
  9. Jan 20, 2017 #8

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Seems like the video at that mark is trying to convey the idea that you can always tell whether you are or aren't in an inertial reference frame, i.e. whether you are spinning or not - you can tell this by looking for fictitious forces, like centrifugal or Coriolis force. Setting up a Foucault pendulum is one good way of doing that.
    So rotational motion is not relative in the above sense. There is a preferred type of frame - an inertial frame.
    This is in contrast to linear motion, which is always relative. You can set up an infinite number of inertial reference frames, all of which are equivalent.

    The answer to
    is then: 'she spins w/r to any inertial reference frame'.
     
  10. Jan 20, 2017 #9

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    As most of the posters indicated, pop sci sources are misleading if you want anything more than a superficial understanding.

    There is a somewhat subtle distinction between a reference frame and a coordinate system, but for most discussions you can consider them the same. Modern physics likes to write the laws of physics in a form that is independent of the coordinate system. This makes it so that if you are analyzing a system with spherical symmetry then you can use spherical coordinates and if you are analyzing a system with some other symmetry you can use some other coordinates. Either way you use the same laws of physics.

    The key mathematical object that allows this is the metric. This is the thing that relates the coordinates to physical distances and durations. If you use coordinates that are "rotating" then the metric has terms that don't show up in inertial frames, and those are measurable, E.g. with accelerometers.
     
  11. Jan 20, 2017 #10
    Theres nothing in space (Its empty).She cant spin to any inertial referance frame.Theres no referance frame at all.And we said theres no object except us but we need an object to define an inertial referance frame cause as Newton pointed out the referance frame that we took must have a constant velocity for an observer.If theres no object,theres no velocity.so theres no inertial referance frame.

    So we pick an arbitrary point on space-time.That point belongs to space-time itself.Isnt that mean space time can be a referance frame ?

    I didnt understand this part
     
  12. Jan 20, 2017 #11

    jbriggs444

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Reference frames are mental constructs we conjure up to analyze a situation. They have no physical existence and need none.
     
  13. Jan 20, 2017 #12
    I know that.I am just trying to say we need an object to and a point on that object to make an inertial referance frame
     
  14. Jan 20, 2017 #13

    jbriggs444

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You have one. The person. That is enough to define a state of motion. If the person is subject to stresses and if those stresses vary depending on the way she waves her hands, that is enough to detect a state of rotation.

    If you have no person then there is no question to ask or answer and no worry about whether there is or is not a reference frame within which to analyze... nothing.
     
  15. Jan 20, 2017 #14

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Seems you are asking about is the Machian principle. Use the search function to find many threads on this.
     
  16. Jan 20, 2017 #15
    Not really I guess.I just wonder the know basic facts about inertial referance frames.If its includes mach principle I dont know
    1-I wrote some questions above and I am still waiting the answers

    2-We can be a referance frame for sure.But I dont think we can be an inertial referance frame ? Is this true ?
     
  17. Jan 20, 2017 #16

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's basically about whether the inertial frames (e.g. non-rotating) are defined by the matter in the universe. We cannot really tell, because we cannot remove all that matter to test it.
     
  18. Jan 20, 2017 #17

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I think that saying "for example, non rotating", while correct, could be confusing and it would be better to say "non-accelerating".
     
  19. Jan 20, 2017 #18
    I see your point ok but I am open further discussions
     
  20. Jan 20, 2017 #19

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I don't really see why. It seems to me that jbriggs nailed it:

    He could just have well said "matter" instead of "person".
     
  21. Jan 20, 2017 #20
    Yeah ok just I dont know maybe a question rises again.

    I understand the main idea
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Can Spacetime be a Reference Frame?
  1. Reference frames (Replies: 56)

  2. Frame of Reference (Replies: 13)

  3. Reference Frames (Replies: 3)

Loading...