Inertial frames and related predictions

  • Thread starter Thread starter spaghetti3451
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frames Inertial
spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
As a result of observations made over many, many years, physicists have inferred that:

"No experimental test provides any way to distinguish an inertial frame from another."

This negative form of the statement is important, as it is a prediction which can be tested experimentally and thus falsified. It has never been.

I have been unable to undestand why the negative form of the statement is important. So, I have attempted to write down the positive form of the statement. This is it: "There is an experimental test that can distinguish between inertial frames."

This is not a prediction (as it does not follow from the experimental evidence of the last four hundred years), but the statement can be put to test through experiments. However, it will be very difficult to prove as all the experiments conducted so far have been unable to distinguish between inertial frames. So, the matter would remain inconclusive.

In spite of what I have written, I still don't understand the importance of writing down the prediction in a form in which it can be falsified. Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Einstein's first postulate, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Special Relativity which also requires his second postulate, which cannot be experimentally verified).
 
ghwellsjr said:
Einstein's first postulate, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Special Relativity which also requires his second postulate, which cannot be experimentally verified).

I know that this is the first postulate, but I still don't see how the negative form of the postulate is important in that it can be experimentally tested and thus falsified.
 
I have never seen the principle of relativity stated in a negative way. Einstein stated it in his 1905 paper as:
the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good
which appears to me to be a positive statement but of course it can never be proven, although it could be falsified by a single counter example. But this is why Einstein raised it "to the status of a postulate" so that it is assumed to be true without any proof.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Back
Top