Mainstream interpretation of Newton's bucket argument?

[wisdom]

TL;DR

What is the current mainstream interpretation of Newton's bucket argument in regards to concepts similar to "absolute space"?

What is the current mainstream interpretation of Newton's bucket argument in regards to "absolute space" or similar concepts?

Wikipedia asserts both that Newton's intention may either have been (1) to prove the "metaphysical" existence of something we'd call "absolute space" (i.e. some some space-substrate akin to "luminiferous ether"), or (2) to merely operationally define rotation and make no remark one way or another on real underlying substance that could be called "absolute space."

But my question is not about the historical question of what did Newton really intend. My question is: how does the mainstream interpret this experiment? Would they claim that it does highlight a sort of special "metaphysical" something underpinning space? Or would they rather say that the experiment does nothing of the sort, but rather only illustrates physical considerations underlying rotation calculations?

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_spheres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
https://books.google.com/books?id=3...=centrifugal Einstein rotating globes&f=false
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...isolated-body-in-deep-space-know-its-rotating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle

 

[Dale]

Newton’s bucket shows that a rotating reference frame is non-inertial. It does not imply “absolute space” as that concept is usually understood.

 

[wisdom]

Newton’s bucket shows that a rotating reference frame is non-inertial. It does not imply “absolute space” as that concept is usually understood.

To be more clear, my question aims to determine the mainstream view, not to elicit personal opinions.

Furthermore, while it may be a tad unconventional, by "absolute space", my original post means any of a variety of positions that infers real properties to underlying space via the bucket argument. So that would include not only the original "absolute space" concept but also "ether" and "Mach's principle". The alternative to this would be to hold that the bucket argument doesn't give us any special insight regarding inferring any such properties (I take it that you hold this opinion; such was already cited in my original post).

 

[Dale]

while it may be a tad unconventional, by "absolute space", my original post means

Sorry, I will not permit a discussion here on this forum using a personal definition of “absolute space”. If we use a non-standard definition then we could very well be taken out of context to seem that we were supporting the standard concept.

As that term is usually meant there is no “absolute space”, and Newton’s bucket does not contradict that.

So that would include not only the original "absolute space" concept but also "ether" and "Mach's principle".

Of those three, only “Mach’s principle” is still an open question. And even that seems rather weak. It lacks a clear experimental meaning and the main theory that claims to implement it has failed to be experimentally distinguished from GR.

 

[wisdom]

Sorry, I will not permit a discussion here on this forum using a personal definition of “absolute space”.

(1) There's nothing to discuss, I'm just telling you what I meant; (2) I don't see any practical significance of this remark given your answer:

Of those three, only “Mach’s principle” is still an open question. And even that seems rather weak. It lacks a clear experimental meaning and the main theory that claims to implement it has failed to be experimentally distinguished from GR.

But again, the point isn't to discuss your opinions it's to identify the mainstream view of this topic.

 

[Dale]

To the best of my knowledge my posts above represent the mainstream scientific view. However, I do not have any polling data on the topic to confirm or contradict that claim.

 

[wisdom]

To the best of my knowledge my posts above represent the mainstream scientific view.

If so then it seems the mainstream may have changed since this 2006 post as it seems to me that your view is consistent with AnssiH's and that he was under the impression that it wasn't the mainstream view way back then:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/newtons-bucket-absolute-space.135756/#post-1141615

 

[Dale]

I am not sure that you are correctly representing @AnssiH’s understanding on the matter, specifically on what they understand is the mainstream position. I have tagged them so they can clarify if they would like to do so.

 

[wisdom]

I am not sure that you are correctly representing @AnssiH’s understanding on the matter, specifically on what they understand is the mainstream position. I have tagged them so they can clarify if they would like to do so.

That'd be great if he'd comment. Did you agree with his take on the issue?

 

[Dale]

That'd be great if he'd comment. Did you agree with his take on the issue?

I don’t think that they made any claim at all about the mainstream scientific view of either Newton’s bucket or absolute space.

Anyway, do you have any actual substantive discussion points or do you just want to bicker about whether some position represents the mainstream view? This topic is not very scientific to begin with, so let’s at least make an effort for a substantive discussion.

 

[wisdom]

Anyway, do you have any actual substantive discussion points or do you just want to bicker about whether some position represents the mainstream view? This topic is not very scientific to begin with, so let’s at least make an effort for a substantive discussion.

If I were to adopt the same manner of discussion you've been using on me on you (and I'm including remarks I saw via email notification but that you've since edited to be calmer and nicer here), approximately how fast would my account get disabled?

 

[wisdom]

I found this one a bit interesting. I asked ChatGPT "Do physicists still think that the bucket experiment reveals anything about the nature of space?" and it said:

"Modern physicists generally do not interpret Newton's bucket experiment as revealing anything about the nature of space itself. Instead, the experiment is more commonly viewed as a demonstration of the principle of inertia, which states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. Newton's bucket experiment shows that a rotating object, such as a bucket of water, experiences a force away from the center of rotation, which is due to the object's inertia and not any inherent property of space. In the context of modern physics, the experiment is typically used as an illustration of the principle of inertia, rather than as a statement about the nature of space."

Perhaps this is some measure of "mainstream" given how ChatGPT is trained.

 

[Dale]

Since there does not seem to be any interest on your part in anything other than bickering about the mainstream view, this thread is closed.