Query regarding Special Relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Special Relativity (SR) in the context of two metallic balls colliding. Participants explore the nature of motion, inertial and non-inertial frames, and the effects of collisions on the state of motion of the balls.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that according to SR, there is no measurement that can determine whether an object is stationary or in motion, leading to questions about the nature of motion between colliding balls.
  • Others propose that the concept of motion is relative, and that SR accepts the existence of motion between the balls during their collision.
  • A participant suggests that while SR states it is impossible to determine if an inertial object is at rest or in motion, this does not apply to accelerated objects, which can experience motion.
  • Some argue that the two balls cannot be considered non-inertial if no external forces are acting on them, suggesting that all forces involved are internal.
  • Another viewpoint is that each ball is inertial before and after the collision but becomes non-inertial at the moment of impact due to acceleration.
  • There is a distinction made between inertial reference frames and the inertial states of the objects involved, with some participants emphasizing that acceleration changes the inertial status of the balls.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of motion and the inertial status of the balls during and after the collision. There is no consensus on whether the balls can be considered non-inertial in the absence of external forces, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the complexity of defining inertial frames and the conditions under which objects are considered inertial or non-inertial, indicating that assumptions about forces and motion are critical to the discussion.

aditya ver.2.0
Messages
67
Reaction score
4
According to SR, there is no measurement that can determine whether an object is stationary or under motion. So if two metallic balls collide with each other, then aren't there motion between the two balls? Only then they will collide.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aditya ver.2.0 said:
According to SR, there is no measurement that can determine whether an object is stationary or under motion. So if two metallic balls collide with each other, then aren't there motion between the two balls? Only then they will collide.

There is no measurement that can distinguish between these situations:
1) Left-hand ball is at rest, right-hand ball is moving right-to-left and strikes the left-hand ball
2) Right-hand ball is at rest, left-hand ball is moving left to right and strikes right-hand ball
3) Left-hand ball is moving left-to-right, right-hand ball is moving right-to-left at same speed, both balls meet in the middle.
4) ...

The first case corresponds to what an observer at rest relative to the left-hand ball sees, the second case corresponds to what an observer at rest relative to the right-hand ball sees, the third case is what an observer at rest in the center sees.
 
aditya ver.2.0 said:
According to SR, there is no measurement that can determine whether an object is stationary or under motion. So if two metallic balls collide with each other, then aren't there motion between the two balls? Only then they will collide.
Are you asking about what happens after the two balls collide and instead of motion toward each other there is now motion away from each other?

If so, the two balls are not inertial. SR only states that it's impossible to determine if an inertial object is absolutely at rest or in motion. SR is not claiming that you cannot tell that an accelerated object experiences motion at some time.

So if we follow through on what Nugatory said, we cannot tell if each ball started out at rest and ended up in motion, or started out in motion and ended up at rest, or started out in motion and ended up in a different motion.
 
aditya ver.2.0 said:
According to SR, there is no measurement that can determine whether an object is stationary or under motion. So if two metallic balls collide with each other, then aren't there motion between the two balls? Only then they will collide.
Yes, there is motion between the balls -- special relativity is happy to accept that. Relativity does away with motion in the absolute sense and considers only relative motion.
 
bapowell said:
Yes, there is motion between the balls -- special relativity is happy to accept that. Relativity does away with motion in the absolute sense and considers only relative motion.
Special Relativity is also happy with a single ball that starts out at rest in its own Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) and then accelerates so that now it is in motion according to that same IRF. It doesn't have to be relative motion between two objects. Motion is relative to an IRF. In fact, the object doesn't even have to start out at rest in its own IRF, it can be an inertial object moving according to some arbitrary IRF.
 
ghwellsjr said:
Are you asking about what happens after the two balls collide and instead of motion toward each other there is now motion away from each other?

If so, the two balls are not inertial. SR only states that it's impossible to determine if an inertial object is absolutely at rest or in motion. SR is not claiming that you cannot tell that an accelerated object experiences motion at some time.

So if we follow through on what Nugatory said, we cannot tell if each ball started out at rest and ended up in motion, or started out in motion and ended up at rest, or started out in motion and ended up in a different motion.
Sir,
How can the two balls be non- inertial as no external force is being exerted over the closed system. It all the inner forces that are being circulated.
 
aditya ver.2.0 said:
Sir,
How can the two balls be non- inertial as no external force is being exerted over the closed system. It all the inner forces that are being circulated.

If the two balls collide and change directions, then there is no inertial frame in which one of the balls is at rest.
 
Hi. aditya ver2.0. SR says we can choose IFRs so that one of them stands.
Ball A is still and Ball B is moving
Ball B is still and Ball A is moving
Ball A is moving and Ball B is moving
But it does not say
Ball A is still and Ball B is still
stands.
 
aditya ver.2.0 said:
Sir,
How can the two balls be non- inertial as no external force is being exerted over the closed system. It all the inner forces that are being circulated.
I was talking about each ball individually being non-inertial throughout the scenario. They are each inertial at the beginning and up to the moment of impact and then they are each inertial after they collide and bounce away from each other but at the moment of impact, they are each non-inertial. Since you said the two balls were metallic, I thought you wanted them to bounce away from each other as a result of their collision.

And an important point that I was making in my posts is that there is a distinction between an Inertial Reference Frame that we use to describe the motions of the object(s) in a scenario and the inertial states of the object(s). However, I don't know if that was an issue that you are concerned about or not. Do you understand that "inertial" means not accelerating or not changing its state of motion? So if a ball that starts out inertial, traveling in a straight line at a constant speed, hits another object and either changes its speed and/or changes its direction, then it has accelerated and is no longer inertial? It doesn't matter whether you consider the force that accelerates the ball to be external or internal.
 
  • #10
aditya ver.2.0 said:
Sir,
How can the two balls be non- inertial as no external force is being exerted over the closed system. It all the inner forces that are being circulated.
Each ball experiences a force. Each ball accelerates according to an accelerometer attached to the ball. Each ball is non inertial.

The center of mass of the two balls is inertial, but the balls are not inertial. Similarly, a spinning wheel in free space is not inertial even though its center of mass is.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
2K