Inertial & Non-Inertial Frames: Laws of Physics Explained

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Krishankant Ray
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frames
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the laws of physics in inertial and non-inertial frames, exploring the implications of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. Participants examine the differences in how physical laws manifest in these frames and the conceptual underpinnings of these distinctions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, questioning why this does not hold in non-inertial frames.
  • Others reference the general principle of relativity, suggesting it extends the applicability of physical laws to arbitrary frames.
  • A participant argues that the formulation of electromagnetism can be independent of frames of reference, using tensor language to support this claim.
  • Concerns are raised about the definition and properties of tensors, with some participants noting that not all tensors behave the same way under different transformations.
  • There is a discussion about the appropriateness of the level of technical detail for the thread, with some participants feeling that certain concepts may be too advanced for the original poster's understanding.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of reference frames in real-world measurements, contrasting mathematical formulations with practical applications.
  • Another participant distinguishes between physical acceleration and coordinate acceleration, suggesting that this distinction is crucial for understanding non-inertial frames.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the clarity and relevance of certain arguments presented in the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement on various points, particularly regarding the interpretation of Einstein's theories and the role of reference frames. There is no consensus on the implications of these theories for non-inertial frames.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes varying interpretations of tensors and their applications, with some participants highlighting the limitations of certain mathematical formulations in specific contexts. The level of complexity in the discussion may not align with the original poster's indicated understanding.

  • #31
vanhees71 said:
Of course, you do not need to do that but you can as well conveniently stay in a fixed inertial frame,
This is my point. The choice of reference frame is dictated entirely by the physicist's convenience, not the measurement apparatus.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Again, to interpret the pointer readings of your measurement devices within your arbitrarily chosen reference frame (the "lab frame") you need to know, which quantities these pointer readings represent. The most simple example in relativity is an ideal clock. It shows its proper time, which is different to a clock that is at rest wrt. to the lab frame. An ideal clock at rest relative to the lab frame shows the lab frame's coordinate time (by convention!), while a moving clock shows a different time. Of course, you can map these times to each other IF you know the relative motion of the clock wrt. your lab frame!
 
  • #33
Yes. None of that is controversial.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #34
DaleSpam said:
This is my point. The choice of reference frame is dictated entirely by the physicist's convenience, not the measurement apparatus.
Maybe what you mean is that defining an inertial frame by measurement suffers from the same problem as the one-way speed of light, that cannot be measured without assuming a previous fixed synchronization between two distant clocks, so assigning just one or two inertial frames to two objects spatially separated can then only be a convention(physicists convention), not something derived from measurement devices?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad About the notion of non-standard inertial frame
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Undergrad Transformation Riemann tensor to an accelerating frame
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Undergrad Hartle, Gravity pg 34: Question about Time in Non-Inertial Frames
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Undergrad SR textbooks discussing accelerated reference frames without delving into GR
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
Undergrad Inertial reference frame and Bondi k-calculus
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Undergrad Einstein vs Newton: The concept of inertial vs non inertial frames
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
5K
High School Principle of Relativity: Classical Physics Example
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Does the EP imply that a free-falling observer follows a geodesic?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
907
Undergrad Is time dilation a real effect?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Undergrad SR flat Lorentzian manifold and Anderson simultaneity convention
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K