Question about rotating reference frames

In summary, the concept of rotation in an inertial frame means that an object will turn around even if there are no other objects in the vicinity. If you rotate your frame relative to something else, you will see forces like the Coriolis force. The concept of rotation does not mean anything when there is nothing to rotate relative to.
  • #1
Amaterasu21
64
17
Hello,

I have a few questions about rotation and relative motion.

  1. Suppose we transport the proverbial spinning ice skater used to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum to beginning physics students to a universe with only her and two planets. She is now spinning in deep space. Presumably she can measure her rotation and angular momentum relative to the two planets. However, now suppose we can somehow remove these planets, leaving the ice skater spinning by herself... spinning relative to what? Does the concept of "rotation" mean anything when there's nothing around you to rotate relative to? However, let's suppose she was to draw in her arms and decrease her radius. What happens? What is her angular momentum?
  2. Let's suppose a star is 10 light years away, and when I look at it, I spin round with a period of one second. From the star's reference frame, I'm spinning round once a second. No problem there. But from my reference frame, doesn't the star complete a 31.4...etc. light-year long circuit around me in one second? But wouldn't that mean the star is traveling almost a billion times faster than the speed of light? How can both my reference frame and the star's then be equally valid?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Amaterasu21 said:
Hello,

I have a few questions about rotation and relative motion.

  1. Suppose we transport the proverbial spinning ice skater used to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum to beginning physics students to a universe with only her and two planets. She is now spinning in deep space. Presumably she can measure her rotation and angular momentum relative to the two planets. However, now suppose we can somehow remove these planets, leaving the ice skater spinning by herself... spinning relative to what? Does the concept of "rotation" mean anything when there's nothing around you to rotate relative to? However, let's suppose she was to draw in her arms and decrease her radius. What happens? What is her angular momentum?
  2. Let's suppose a star is 10 light years away, and when I look at it, I spin round with a period of one second. From the star's reference frame, I'm spinning round once a second. No problem there. But from my reference frame, doesn't the star complete a 31.4...etc. light-year long circuit around me in one second? But wouldn't that mean the star is traveling almost a billion times faster than the speed of light? How can both my reference frame and the star's then be equally valid?
I think you are confusing things. The issues with rotating reference frames come about when the observer does not realize that they are rotating. I.e. when we think that our position on the Earth is stationary. If we treat the rotating frame as stationary, we will see some new, unexpected forces -- coriolis, etc. We can tweak our models and insert these imaginary forces to get the physics right in our fictional non-rotating frames.

1. The skater is rotating in space -- a perfectly fine inertial frame. If she pulls in her arms, she will twirl faster, just as she does on the ice. Her angular momentum remains the same. She is very cold, however, since she is not dressed for deep space...
 
  • #3
Quantum Defect said:
I think you are confusing things. The issues with rotating reference frames come about when the observer does not realize that they are rotating. I.e. when we think that our position on the Earth is stationary. If we treat the rotating frame as stationary, we will see some new, unexpected forces -- coriolis, etc. We can tweak our models and insert these imaginary forces to get the physics right in our fictional non-rotating frames.

1. The skater is rotating in space -- a perfectly fine inertial frame. If she pulls in her arms, she will twirl faster, just as she does on the ice. Her angular momentum remains the same. She is very cold, however, since she is not dressed for deep space...

I'm aware of concepts like centrifugal force and the Coriolis force, but surely no force - fictitious or not - could ever accelerate an object to a speed greater than c? If I treat my reference frame as stationary when I'm rotating, then how could any force be pushing this star 10 light years away to circle round me at 990 million times c?

Also, can you treat space as an inertial frame that you can move and rotate relative to? Doesn't that contradict the idea that there's no preferred/absolute reference frame in relativity?
 
  • #4
Amaterasu21 said:
Does the concept of "rotation" mean anything when there's nothing around you to rotate relative to?

This is really a philosophy question, not a physics question. We can never actually run this experiment because we can't empty the universe of everything except the skater, so there's no way to investigate the question scientifically. You can assume a particular answer for purposes of modeling a scenario. See further comments below.

Amaterasu21 said:
let's suppose she was to draw in her arms and decrease her radius. What happens? What is her angular momentum?

You can't answer this question without adopting a model, and a model implies that you've assumed an answer to the question of what the "rotation" of the skater means. In this particular case, you've assumed that there is a background spacetime with respect to which the skater is rotating. Under that assumption, you can easily show that the skater's angular velocity, relative to that same background spacetime, will increase when the skater pulls in her arms. But you have to make the assumption to do that.

Amaterasu21 said:
wouldn't that mean the star is traveling almost a billion times faster than the speed of light?

Yes, but that's ok because in non-inertial frames the speed of light "speed limit" doesn't work the same way as it does in inertial frames; you have to reformulate it. If you consider a light ray emitted by the star in the direction of its motion relative to you, that light ray will travel even faster than the star does, so the star is still traveling slower than light; it's just that the speed of light itself, in a non-inertial frame, can be "faster than light", i.e., faster than the value ##c## that we obtain for the speed of light in an inertial frame.
 
  • #5
PeterDonis said:
Yes, but that's ok because in non-inertial frames the speed of light "speed limit" doesn't work the same way as it does in inertial frames; you have to reformulate it. If you consider a light ray emitted by the star in the direction of its motion relative to you, that light ray will travel even faster than the star does, so the star is still traveling slower than light; it's just that the speed of light itself, in a non-inertial frame, can be "faster than light", i.e., faster than the value ##c## that we obtain for the speed of light in an inertial frame.

Ahh, that's a little confusing. Isn't the speed of light measured at the same value by all observers?

If that doesn't apply to non-inertial reference frames, how can that ever be tested, since just about everything in the Universe is accelerating? My understanding is the most famous and well-publicised test of invariant light speed was the Michelson-Morley experiment and that was about Earth's motion around the Sun, which isn't at a constant velocity!
 
  • #6
Amaterasu21 said:
If that doesn't apply to non-inertial reference frames, how can that ever be tested
Just like anything else in physics, which is just an idealization, that applies approximately in certain situations.
 
  • #7
So just to clarify, the speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial reference frames, but doesn't have to be for accelerating observers?

I thought General Relativity extended the Principle of Relativity to accelerating observers, though?
 
  • #8
Amaterasu21 said:
Isn't the speed of light measured at the same value by all observers?

Locally, yes--if you measure the speed of a light ray as it is passing you, you will always get ##c##, regardless of where you are in spacetime and what your state of motion is.

But as soon as you start talking about the speed of light that is spatially separated from you, that no longer holds; you can make the "speed" of light distant from you assume any value you like by choosing appropriate coordinates.

Amaterasu21 said:
I thought General Relativity extended the Principle of Relativity to accelerating observers, though?

It does. But the extended version of the principle of relativity only says what I said above--that local measurements of the speed of light will always give ##c##. It doesn't say that the speed of light is always ##c## for non-local measurements.
 
  • #9
Ahh, got it! Thank you everyone, I think my questions have been resolved. (I'm still not entirely comfortable with the skater rotating "relative to space/space-time", since it seems to imply an absolute reference frame. But PeterDonis seemed to imply that "there is an absolute space-time which the skater rotates relative to" is a modelling assumption I'd have to make for this scenario to mean anything?)
 
  • #10
Amaterasu21 said:
"there is an absolute space-time which the skater rotates relative to" is a modelling assumption I'd have to make for this scenario to mean anything?

Exactly. Without that assumption (or something equivalent to it), you can't make any predictions at all about what will happen, which basically means the scenario is meaningless.
 
  • Like
Likes Amaterasu21
  • #11
Amaterasu21 said:
Ahh, got it! Thank you everyone, I think my questions have been resolved. (I'm still not entirely comfortable with the skater rotating "relative to space/space-time", since it seems to imply an absolute reference frame. But PeterDonis seemed to imply that "there is an absolute space-time which the skater rotates relative to" is a modelling assumption I'd have to make for this scenario to mean anything?)

Spacetime doesn't give an absolute criterion for rest, but it does give an absolute criterion for inertial motion. For an analogy, take a plain white piece of paper. If you draw a curve on the piece of paper, you can define the "slope" of the curve at any point to be the ratio of the changes in vertical and horizontal directions as you move along the curve. There is no absolute standard for what is "vertical" and what is "horizontal", and so there is no absolute notion of "slope", only relative to a coordinate system. However, there is an absolute notion of "constant slope" (namely, a straight line).
 

1. What is a rotating reference frame?

A rotating reference frame is a coordinate system that is attached to a body that is undergoing rotational motion. It is a way to describe the motion of objects in relation to a non-inertial frame of reference.

2. How is a rotating reference frame different from an inertial reference frame?

An inertial reference frame is a coordinate system that is not accelerating or rotating, while a rotating reference frame is attached to a body that is rotating. This means that objects in a rotating reference frame experience fictitious forces, such as the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, which do not exist in an inertial reference frame.

3. What are some examples of rotating reference frames?

Some examples of rotating reference frames include a merry-go-round, a spinning top, and a rotating Earth. In each of these cases, the reference frame is attached to a body that is undergoing rotational motion.

4. How do you describe the motion of objects in a rotating reference frame?

In a rotating reference frame, the motion of objects is described using both translational and rotational components. The translational components describe the motion of the object in relation to the rotating frame, while the rotational components describe the rotation of the frame itself.

5. What are the applications of rotating reference frames in science and engineering?

Rotating reference frames are used in a variety of fields, including mechanics, aerospace engineering, and astrophysics. They are particularly useful in analyzing the motion of objects in systems that involve rotational motion, such as rotating machinery and celestial bodies.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
711
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top