Distinguishing inertial reference frames

In summary, a discussion about the concept of absolute reference frames and the ability to distinguish inertial frames of reference through the use of a "light speedometer" was presented. The idea of an alien in a train using a mask and light source to determine his speed was introduced. It was concluded that the alien would see different numbers on the mask depending on whether the train was stationary or moving at a constant speed. This concept is explained by the phenomenon of abberation of light, where light travels in different directions in different frames of reference. The discussion also touches on the concept of relativity and the idea of simultaneity.
  • #1
bwana
82
2
As described in Wikipedia as well as this entry http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...xplanation-of-the-equivalence-principle-wrong,
"being at rest on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines." Even more fundamentally, in an elevator in space, how do you know you are moving at a constant speed or are stationary?

I am confused about something. Consider the following situation:

y8dcj.png


An alien with spectacular vision (that can resolve time differences on the order of 10^-12 seconds) is in a train that is stationary and is looking at a light that is very briefly pulsed on-off about a meter away from his eye. The light is pulsed at time t1 and he perceives it at t2.( even though it has been off for a long time by then). Now consider the situation when the train starts to move.

bC832.png
The alien sees the same event. There are no windows and there is no way the alien can get information from outside the cabin. According to the fact that the train is not accelerating but moving at a constant velocity, nothing the alien can do should tell him that he is moving. But consider which photons the alien is seeing.

HbNgT.png

When the light is pulsed, the photons go in all directions. In a stationary train, the alien sees the photon going straight up, but in the moving train, the photon that reaches his eye, is the one that takes off from the light at an angle.

bCjDS.png


Now make a stencil with numbers cut out on it like so:

tORod.png


and put it right over the light like so:

XrAjP.png


Please forgive the scale. I wanted to make the numbers readable so I made the mask very large. You might be tempted to say that by the time the light pulse traveling obliquely reaches the mask, the mask will have moved so the alien will really see a different number (2 maybe?). But make the mask really small so it is really close to the source. And make the stenciling really small so you can resolve small differences.

When the train is stationary, the alien sees the number '1' but when the train is moving he sees the number '5'. Again, remember, the mask is really, really close to the light source. If the mask were really big the way I drew it (for clarity) then the alien would always see the number '1'.

So it seems to me that such a 'light speedometer' can tell us how fast our frame of reference is moving even without any information from outside our frame. It relies on the fact that we know the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. This seems to suggest that we can distinguish inertial frames of reference. It goes all the back to the idea of Newton who spoke about absolute reference frames here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/

Please note, I have not made any claims about time or the concept of simultaneity. I am not discussing special relativity. Yet the concept of the space elevator introduced by Einstein now bothers me. With such a 'light speedometer' shouldn't I be able to know how fast I am going in an absolute sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
See this from an old post of mine:
DrGreg said:
Maybe this diagram helps
[PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/bounce-in-a-moving-train-gif.80718/[QUOTE="DrGreg, [Broken] post: 5048516, member: 35885"] Here's something (it could be a pulse of light, it could be a ball) bouncing up and down in a train.

An observer in the train (top) infers the thing is moving vertically up and down.

An observer on the ground (bottom) infers the thing is "sliding sideways" in a zig-zag path.

This is valid in both relativistic and Newtonian mechanics.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
bwana said:
When the train is stationary, the alien sees the number '1' but when the train is moving he sees the number '5'. Again, remember, the mask is really, really close to the light source. If the mask were really big the way I drew it (for clarity) then the alien would always see the number '1'.
If he sees a 1 when the train is stationary, then he sees a 1 when the train is moving inertially. The size of the mask doesn't make any difference.
 
  • #4
@ Dale The alien CANNOT see a 1 because the photons from the light pulse that carry the '1' information are going straight up. By the time those few photons reach where his head should be, his head has moved on. The photons that strike his eye at t2 are not carrying '1' information. The only photons that reach his eye at t2 are traveling obliquely. All photons intercept the mask early in their travel so the oblique ones carry '5' information. This is because at the very beginning at t1, vertical photons are labeled 1 and oblique photons are labeled 5. For simplicity, I postulated a very brief light pulse at t1. When the '1' mask is under his eye at t2, there is no light. The train is not going at the speed of light.

@greg I am NOT considering what anyone sees outside the train. The mask, the light and the alien are ALL in the train. Your drawing attempts to illustrate relativity between two different reference frames - one stationary and one moving. I am only looking at what is going on inside the train.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
bwana said:
The alien CANNOT see a 1 because the photons from the light pulse that carry the '1' information are going straight up.
You are (wrongly) assuming that the scale is not moving. It will go through one because the scale (and therefore the one) moves with the train. If the scale does not move with the train, it will not go through 1, bit the alien will attribute this to the scale moving relative to him so it is no longer the same experiment.

This is nothing but abberation of light - it travels in different directions in different frames. You can obsreve abberation when you drive on a rainy day - all the rain seems to be coming from the front, but in the Earth rest frame it goes straight down.
 
  • Like
Likes m4r35n357
  • #6
@bwana - DrGreg's answer is correct. Your last diagram is wrong. It shows (viewed from an inertial frame in which the train is moving to the right) where the alien is at the time of the emission and where it is at the time it sees the pulse. But it only shows the stencil at the time of emission, not at the time the pulse passes it. If the number 1 is a fraction ##f## of the height of the train above the source, the travel time of the light is ##\Delta t##, and the horizontal travel of the alien in that time is ##\Delta x## then the light pulse will be at the same height as the 1 at time ##f\Delta t##, at which point the 1 will have moved horizontally ##f\Delta x##. In other words - right on your diagonal ray.

You can't get out of this by making ##f## small, which is what I think you are trying to do. You can only avoid it by making ##f=0##, in which case all the numbers are in the same place and the ray goes through all of them.
 
  • #7
bwana said:
@ Dale The alien CANNOT see a 1 because the photons from the light pulse that carry the '1' information are going straight up. By the time those few photons reach where his head should be, his head has moved on. The photons that strike his eye at t2 are not carrying '1' information. The only photons that reach his eye at t2 are traveling obliquely.
You seem to forget that the mask is traveling at the same speed too. If he sees a 1 at rest then he sees a 1 at any uniform velocity. The 1 selects obliquely moving light when it is moving. You should work out the math on this.

The size of the mask and it's distance to the source are not relevant.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
bwana said:
@greg I am NOT considering what anyone sees outside the train. The mask, the light and the alien are ALL in the train. Your drawing attempts to illustrate relativity between two different reference frames - one stationary and one moving. I am only looking at what is going on inside the train.
Just look at my top diagram and ignore the pale blue gridlines and the pink diagonal line. The red ball is moving vertically up and down, i.e. in the "1" direction of the stencil attached to the train. There's a vertical U-shaped black "tube" on the floor of the train that is effectively the same thing as your stencil.

If you had another stencil attached to the ground, the bottom diagram shows how the ball would be measured by that second stencil in the "5" direction.
 
  • #10
pixel said:
This same basic question has come up more than once recently. Here is a post that I started last year:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/properties-of-light-in-2-moving-reference-frames.826058/

Thank you. That was helpful and I apologize for recapitulating an already explained topic. Specifically, this sentence

'The same applies to photons, which have impulse just like the ball'

I also appreciate the time everyone took to answer. I know I did not use fancy math but it was the underlying model of light on which the fancy math is based.
 
  • #11
bwana said:
I know I did not use fancy math but it was the underlying model of light on which the fancy math is based.
But you didn't use the underlying model on which the math is based. If you had then you would have gotten an answer which agreed with the math.

Do you feel that you have now adjusted your mental model to understand how the "1" selects obliquely moving light?
 
  • #12
Indeed. Photons behave just like billiard balls. The only difference is that we do not have any tool that travels faster than they do. As a result we need to use relativistic corrections when studying them from different reference frames.
 
  • #13
bwana said:
Photons behave just like billiard balls.
They most certainly do not. They behave as excitations of quantum fields. If you do not feel comfortable with that you should probably refer to "light pulses" instead of photons.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Dale

What is an inertial reference frame?

An inertial reference frame is a coordinate system in which Newton's laws of motion hold true without any external forces acting on the system. This means that an object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will continue to move in a straight line at a constant speed unless acted upon by an external force.

How do you distinguish between inertial and non-inertial reference frames?

Inertial reference frames are characterized by their ability to maintain a constant velocity without any external forces acting on them. Non-inertial reference frames, on the other hand, experience acceleration or non-uniform motion due to external forces. This can be observed by the deviation of an object's motion from a straight line or the presence of fictitious forces.

Why is it important to distinguish between inertial and non-inertial reference frames?

It is important to distinguish between inertial and non-inertial reference frames because it allows us to accurately apply Newton's laws of motion and make meaningful predictions about the behavior of objects in different frames of reference. In engineering and physics, it is crucial to use the correct reference frame to ensure the accuracy of calculations and experiments.

Can inertial reference frames be moving?

Yes, inertial reference frames can be moving as long as their motion is uniform and not affected by external forces. For example, a train moving at a constant speed on a straight track can be considered an inertial reference frame, even though it is moving relative to the ground.

How does the concept of relative motion apply to inertial reference frames?

Relative motion refers to the motion of an object in relation to a chosen reference frame. In inertial reference frames, an object's motion can be accurately described by its relative motion to the frame. This means that an object's motion may appear different to an observer in a different reference frame, but the underlying principles of Newton's laws of motion still apply.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
941
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
111
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
985
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top