Earth's Velocity: Lorentz Factor & Reference Frame

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter S. Moger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Earth's velocity in relation to the universe, the implications of the Lorentz factor, and the nature of reference frames in the context of relativity. Participants explore theoretical and conceptual aspects of motion, reference points, and time dilation, without reaching definitive conclusions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the existence of a "center of the universe" and argue that velocities can only be defined relative to chosen frames, with no absolute maximum speed.
  • There is a suggestion that Earth's velocity can be assessed relative to the isotropy of cosmic relic radiation.
  • Concerns are raised about how to determine relative motion, with some asserting that, according to relativity, it is impossible to definitively know who is moving.
  • Participants discuss the implications of time dilation for space travelers versus observers on Earth, noting that each frame perceives the other's time differently.
  • Some argue against the notion of galaxies moving away from a center, emphasizing that the universe is uniformly filled and expanding without a central point.
  • There is a discussion about the relativity of simultaneity and how it affects perceptions of time for different observers, particularly in scenarios involving acceleration and inertial frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of motion, reference frames, and the implications of relativity. No consensus is reached on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of reference frames and the unresolved nature of how to measure velocities in a universe without a defined center. The discussion also highlights the complexity of time dilation and simultaneity in different inertial frames.

S. Moger
Messages
52
Reaction score
2
What's the velocity of Earth relative to that of the centre of the universe or to a reference frame that gives maximum speed.

What about the Lorentz factor? V signifies relative speed there?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just consider the surface of a balloon, now where is the center? It could be argued that any, and every point is the center. Likewise for the universe, so it can be argued that our velocity wrt to the center of the universe is zero.

The v in the Lorentz transform is the velocity of the observed wrt to the observer.
 
How do we know it's comparable with the surface of a balloon?

I'm curious about at what fraction of the speed of light Earth is moving. We have this self rotation, then orbit around the sun, galaxy and the galaxy around the local group. But after that? Does the local group move too?

And how do we know that we are moving and not someone who has 0 velocity compared to our reference frame? Won't time go faster for the one that moves? But how can we determine who's moving and who's not?
 
S. Moger said:
But how can we determine who's moving and who's not?
Well, we can't. That's the whole point of relativity.
 
There is no "center of the universe" to refer velocities to. There is no frame that results in a "maximum speed," but you can choose a frame in which the speed of the Earth is as close to c as you like.

As A.T. says, you can't determine who is moving and who is not. That's why it's called "Relativity."
 
Last edited:
The best you can ask is what is the velocity of the Earth relative to the reference frame where cosmic relic radiation is (almost) isotropic.
 
If you have these movements away from a centre, can't we set that centre as a reference frame? Aren't the galaxies moving away from the location of the big bang? And if we interpolate we find that place?

What about space travellers whose local time passes slower than that of earth? Why isn't it the other way around? Is it just because they accelerated? But say we all forgot that, how do we then know whose time is going faster etc? Or let's say that it really was everything apart from the space travellers that accelerated. In that case why is time going slower for the people remaining on earth?
 
There is no movement away from the centre because there is no centre =) there was an "explosion" of space itself, not like a big bomb. Imagine like we are on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. Where is the centre of the surface? it is not in any point on the surface.
 
S. Moger said:
If you have these movements away from a centre, can't we set that centre as a reference frame? Aren't the galaxies moving away from the location of the big bang? And if we interpolate we find that place?

No, you are suffering from a misconception. The galaxies are certainly NOT moving away from a center. There is no center, and no void into which they stream. The universe is uniformly filled with them everywhere and the distances between them are increasing.

What about space travellers whose local time passes slower than that of earth? Why isn't it the other way around?

Also a misconception. There is no absolute sense in which the space traveler's time is slower than that of the Earth. It is observed to be so from the Earth, but there are frames that disagree. In particular, the space traveler observes his clock to run normally and the Earth's to run slow. So it is also the other way around.

If the space traveler turns around, then when he returns to Earth, everyone agrees he is younger. In the Earth's reference frame, this is because the traveler's clock has run slow the entire time. To the space traveler, it is because when he turns around he switches inertial frames and in doing so shifts his slice of spacetime that he observes to be simultaneous. The solution to every "paradox" is that you have ignored relativity of simultaneity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K