B Principle of Relativity: Classical Physics Example

Click For Summary
The principle of relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames, a concept first articulated by Galileo and foundational to Newtonian mechanics. In classical physics, specifically Newtonian physics, the principle holds true, with the Galilean transformation governing the relationship between different inertial frames. The distinction arises with Einstein's special relativity, which introduces the Lorentz transformation and posits that the speed of light is a constant, independent of the motion of the source or observer. This leads to the conclusion that while Newtonian physics lacks a limiting speed, special relativity incorporates the speed of light as a fundamental constraint. Overall, both Newtonian and special relativistic physics adhere to the principle of relativity, but they differ in their treatment of transformations and the concept of speed limits.
abdossamad2003
Messages
68
Reaction score
4
hi everyone
"The principle of relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames."
Is in classical physics The laws of physics aren't the same in all inertial reference frames!? Give an example in classical physics

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The principle of relativity holds in all systems of physics since Galileo. Aristotle would have disagreed with it, arguing that (in modern terms) the rest frame of the Earth's surface is special in some sense.

Einstein probably felt the need to state the principle explicitly since dropping it was one approach you could consider to resolve the mismatch between Maxwell and Newton. Relativity, of course, resolves the mismatch without abandoning the principle of relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and russ_watters
abdossamad2003 said:
Is in classical physics The laws of physics aren't the same in all inertial reference frames!?
No. The principle of relativity in this form was actually first enunciated by Galileo, and Newtonian mechanics is bulit on it. The difference between Newtonian mechanics and special relativity is the specific form of the transformation between different inertial frames: in Newtonian mechanics it is the Galilean transformation, in SR it is the Lorentz transformation.
 
First of all, I guess with "classical physics" you mean "Newtonian physics". Of course, in Newtonian physics the special principle of relativity must also hold. In both Newtonian physics and special relativistic physics thus Newton's 1st Law is valid, i.e., there exists an "inertial frame of reference", in which a point mass moves with constant velocity, if it's not interacting with anything.

The difference comes with Einstein's additional postulate for special relativity, i.e., that the phase velocity of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum (in short "the speed of light") is independent of the relative motion between source and detector.

Together with the additional assumptions about the symmetries of space and time you find out that you either get the Galilei transformations between two inertial reference frames,
$$t'=t, \quad \vec{x}'=\vec{x}-\vec{v} t, \quad \vec{v}=\text{const}$$
or the Lorentz transformations (making the direction of the relative velocity that in the ##x##-direction),
$$c t'=\gamma (c t-\beta x), \quad \beta=v/c, \quad \gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2},$$
$$x' = \gamma (x-\beta c t).$$
The Galilei transformations of course belong to Newtonian and the Lorentz transformations to special relativistic physics, and in special relativity, the speed of light, ##c##, is a "limiting speed", i.e., nothing can move faster than the speed of light within an inertial frame of reference. There's no such limiting speed in Newtonian physics, of course.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

Replies
144
Views
9K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K