Determine which reference frame is inertial

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of inertial reference frames in physics, particularly in the context of empty space and points or frames that are in motion or rotation. Participants explore the conditions under which a reference frame can be considered inertial, the role of physical forces, and the implications of mass and charge on these definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that without specifying the physical forces acting on points A and B, it is impossible to determine which point is an inertial frame of reference.
  • Others argue that inertial frames are defined by the application of Newton's laws, suggesting that real bodies with mass are necessary to define an inertial frame.
  • A participant questions whether it is possible to determine which point is standing still if multiple points are moving and accelerating differently.
  • One participant suggests that if there are no real bodies, the only forces considered are between points A and B, leading to both points being non-inertial.
  • Another participant asserts that an inertial frame does not need to be defined in terms of mass, and that there could be infinitely many inertial frames depending on the conditions.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of charge on the definition of inertial frames, with some insisting that charge does not alter the situation in empty space.
  • A participant provides a lengthy explanation of reference frames, emphasizing the importance of distance and rigid bodies in defining motion and inertial frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of mass for defining inertial frames, with some asserting it is essential while others argue it is not. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the nature of inertial frames and the role of physical forces.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the definitions and conditions surrounding inertial frames depend heavily on the assumptions made about the physical context, such as the presence of mass or charge, and the nature of the forces involved.

alvaros
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Suppose an empty space and two points.
The distance from point A to B is d = k . t^2 k=constant t = time

The question is: Which point is an Inertial Frame of reference ?



Suppose an empty space and two references frames.
A is rotating at w with center B.
But
B is rotating at w with center A.
Which reference frame is rotating ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alvaros said:
Suppose an empty space and two points.
The distance from point A to B is d = k . t^2 k=constant t = time

The question is: Which point is an Inertial Frame of reference ?

It is impossible to answer this question, without specifying the real physical forces that act on objects at each point. Either A is inertial and B is not, or B is inertial and A is not, or neither A nor B are inertial. The only thing we can say is that both of them cannot be inertial.

Suppose an empty space and two references frames.
A is rotating at w with center B.
But
B is rotating at w with center A.
Which reference frame is rotating ?

Same answer.

Inertial frames are a physical concept, not a purely mathematical one.
 
He's right ^_^...

I've always wondered something on the subject. Suppose you have a certain amount of points, all moving except one. But you could take another point and move along it, to be in its frame, thereby thinking that point is 'standing still'. Then the one that previously was still, moves in your new frame. So, like with alvaros, you can't determine which one is standing still.

But if you have enough points, all moving and accelerating in a different way, will it still be impossible to determine which one is standing still? Or will there be analomies if you look at it the wrong way?
 
jtbell:
It is impossible to answer this question
I agree.

The answer I was waiting for:
"You need real bodies ( with mass ) to define a IFR."
If you place real bodies at points A and B you can get an answer.

In the case: ( I suppose that mass of A = mass of B )
Suppose an empty space and two points.
The distance from point A to B is d = k . t^2 k=constant t = time
Because there is an empty space the only possible force is between A and B -> both are accelerating and the IFR is at the middle of A and B.

In the case: ( I suppose that mass of A = mass of B )
Suppose an empty space and two references frames.
A is rotating at w with center B.
But
B is rotating at w with center A.
Which reference frame is rotating ?
A and B are rotating with center the middle the segment that goes from A to B.

If you change the masses of A or B youll get different results.
Do you agree ?
 
alvaros said:
I agree.

The answer I was waiting for:
"You need real bodies ( with mass ) to define a IFR."

For the last time, not true. An inertial frame is one in which Newton's laws hold. Given one inertial frame, an arbitrary constant linear transformation plus an arbitrary constant velocity translation forms another inertial frame. You do not need to define an inertial frame in terms of masses.

We do not know whether Newton's laws will be even approximately true in your imaginary universe. We do not know what causes inertia. One plausible explanation is all of the mass in the universe (Mach's Principle). If this is the case, things will behave quite differently in an empty space.
Because there is an empty space the only possible force is between A and B -> both are accelerating and the IFR is at the middle of A and B.
Two things here:First, this an additional conjecture not stated in your original post and is also supposition. What if the two objects have charge?

Second, this clause "... and the IFR" is just wrong. If there is not just one inertial frame. There are either none or there are an uncountably infinite number of them.
 
D H:
An inertial frame is one in which Newton's laws hold
Newtons laws refer to mass.

D H:
Two things here:First, this an additional conjecture not stated in your original post and is also supposition. What if the two objects have charge?
I wrote "empty space". Charge doesn't change anything.

D H:
There are either none or there are an uncountably infinite number of them.
The first statement is not true and the second was implicit.
I meant "and the IFR is at the middle of A and B or ... at any point located at any fixed distance from the middle of A and B"

You do not need to define an inertial frame in terms of masses.
Could you give me an example ?
 
Allow me please a somewhat longer introduction to reference frames.
(At least, as I understand)
Everything starts with the intuitive idea of distance. This comes from the intuitive experience, that there exist rigid bodies. A rigid body is something, for which: between any two point of it there is a constant distance.
Now having the idea of distance, we can determine spatial location of (pointlike) bodies.
That means: spatial location of anything can only be determined relative to other bodies, using one selected body as unit distance. of course, this position can be a function of time, than we talk about motion. That means: motion can only be defined relative to a rigid bodies.
The reference frame is a generalization of the rigid body. It does not have to be made of real body, the only important characteristics of the ref. frame is that there can be measured distance in it, and between any two points of the frame there is a constant distance.
At first a ref frame is fixed to some rigid body, or to a set of bodies with non-changing distance between them. I would call this: material ref. frame. But, any ref. frame can be used to describe spatial locaion can be used, which has given motion to material ref. frames. E.g. the ref frame fixed to the center of gravity of some bodies (and not to any of them) is widely used in mechanics.
It has been turned out, that there exist ref. frames, in which Newtons 1st law applies. These are called inertial ref frames.
If there is one, there is uncountable many.
If there is not any inertial frame, than a good approximation can be given by limiting space and time to a small section.
So: to decide, wheter a ref frame is inertia or not, you have to check Newton's 1st law.
sorry for the long text: mutant
 
From mutant:
Allow me please a somewhat longer introduction to reference frames.
(At least, as I understand)

I don't want to discuss reference frames ( not inertial ) because I think we all agree on the concepts of distance, straight line ..
This doesn't mean that we are right.
Its clear that we can't define all. Some concepts must come from intuition ( fundamentals concepts ) and then develop the others, and I think that a reference frame is a fundamental concept.


As you say Inertial reference frames are were apply Newton 1st law ( and 2nd and 3rd ?)
so you need mass, because Newtons laws apply to mass.
Its a hard work to me explain further, that's why I give a problem.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Using reference frames for derivation of Lagrangian
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Undergrad Reference frames in terms of homogenity/isotropy
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad Is the Earth's frame considered inertial in a moving car?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Law of inertia (inertial observer and inertial frames of reference)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Are Newton's Laws just definitions?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Relative Motion & Local Frame’s Position - when projecting components
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Velocity transformation between frames rotating relative to one another
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Rigid body mechanics and coordinate frames
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Non-Newtonian description of an accelerated object
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Inertial Reference Frame Proof
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K