Does the existence of a potential render a space inhomogeneous?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of an inertial frame, which is characterized by homogeneity and isotropy of space and time, as noted in classical mechanics texts. While the introduction of a potential does not inherently make space inhomogeneous, a non-zero gradient of the potential can lead to acceleration, resulting in a non-inertial frame. The existence of pseudoforces in a non-inertial frame mimics the effects of a force field, such as gravity, but does not alter the fundamental homogeneity of space itself. The conversation also touches on the implications of these concepts in cosmology and classical mechanics, emphasizing the importance of understanding the conditions under which space is considered homogeneous. Overall, the relationship between potentials, force fields, and the nature of space remains a complex topic worthy of careful exploration.
MuIotaTau
Messages
82
Reaction score
3
A common definition of an inertial frame is that it is a reference frame in which space and time are homogeneous and isotropic; see, for instance, Landau and Lifshitz's Classical Mechanics. L&L also use homogeneity and isotropy to justify the functional form of the Lagrangian. But intuitively, it seems like the introduction of a potential renders a field inhomogeneous. Is this true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not by itself - no - but, if the gradient of the potential is not zero, and nothing else happens, then the object the frame is attached to is accelerating - making the frame non-inertial.

Can you provide a reference for the "common definition" of an inertial frame?
The vast majority of resources I have here just define it in terms of Newton's Laws.
i.e. Robert Resnick (1968) "Introduction to Special Relativity".
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thinking about it, I'm not actually sure that I know of any other pedagogical text that uses that definition, so it's possible that I've only really seen people reference that definition. Wikipedia uses it, but that's not very satisfactory. Thanks for the answer!
 
You'll also see that a reference frame can be non-inertial but space itself is homogeneous and isotropic.

Wikipedia says that time and space are described in an isotropic and homogeneous manner - the potential, in this description, is something that gets imposed over space. Having a potential does not make the space itself any different.

Even so - a characteristic of a non-inertial frame is the existence of pseudoforces ... i.e., it is as if the observer were in an inertial frame with an applied force-field.
Make more sense now?
 
Simon Bridge said:
You'll also see that a reference frame can be non-inertial but space itself is homogeneous and isotropic.

Wikipedia says that time and space are described in an isotropic and homogeneous manner - the potential, in this description, is something that gets imposed over space. Having a potential does not make the space itself any different.

Okay, I was beginning to think it was something like this, thank you. So what exactly would it look like if space itself were inhomogeneous?

Even so - a characteristic of a non-inertial frame is the existence of pseudoforces ... i.e., it is as if the observer were in an inertial frame with an applied force-field.
Make more sense now?

Ohhh, so a potential, which would produce a force field (right?) would create pseudoforces and make a frame non-inertial? So if I were in an accelerating reference frame, for instance, it would be as if there were a gravitation force field. But this wouldn't make space itself inhomogeneous? Am I understanding things correctly or am I still mixing something up?
 
So what exactly would it look like if space itself were inhomogeneous?
On cosmological scales, you are looking at it. It is a space in which classical mechanics does not work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)#Homogeneous_cosmology

Note: homogeneity in space means conservation of momentum, and homogeneity in time means conservation of energy. If space were not so arranged, then these laws would not hold everywhere.

Ohhh, so a potential, which would produce a force field (right?) would create pseudoforces and make a frame non-inertial? So if I were in an accelerating reference frame, for instance, it would be as if there were a gravitation force field. But this wouldn't make space itself inhomogeneous? Am I understanding things correctly or am I still mixing something up?
I think you are close enough to make sense of what you read - for now. ;)

In the context of classical mechanics ... we would consider, say, we can use an inertial observer to study the effects of, say, an electromagnetic potential well.

Newtonian gravity compares with being in a accelerating reference frame is a nice example.
But you do need to be careful about what it is about space that you are calling homogeneous.

It's a heady subject - leads to gauge theories and descriptions based on symmetry.
Take it slow.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top