B Rotation is absolute, linear motion is relative?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between absolute rotation and relative linear motion, emphasizing that acceleration can be detected in a closed system, while linear velocity cannot. Participants highlight that within a rotating frame, such as a turntable, one can discern rotation through acceleration vectors, but not linear motion without an external reference. The conversation also touches on how sensory systems, like the vestibular system in the inner ear, can detect rotation, while linear acceleration may go unnoticed. Additionally, the effects of centrifugal force on fluids in rotating systems are examined, illustrating how water behaves differently in a rotating bucket compared to one undergoing linear acceleration. Ultimately, the complexities of motion perception and the physics of rotating frames are explored in depth.
  • #51
A.T. said:
That is ambiguous / not clear.

That is correct.
For me moon not rotate because always point toward me, bucket dont rotate in right case from ground frame,bucket dont rotate in left case in relation to G-room frame...etc

everthing is relative, why would one frame be more true then other...From frame that you are looking from,this is correct...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
John Mcrain said:
everthing is relative,
Proper acceleration, the kind you can measure with an accelerometer, is not.
John Mcrain said:
why would one frame be more true then other...
Neither frame is "more true". Both will agree on direct observables (e.g. are there forces being applied to the water, or if the bucket rotating with respect to the lab). They may interpret these things differently ("rotating", for example, might mean in the invariant sense where there are detectable forces, or it might mean "rotating relative to me", which might or might not mean in the measurable sense and definitely depends on what frame you are using.).
 
  • #53
Ibix said:
Both will agree on direct observables

For right case ,bucket is rotate in relation to G-room, but not rotate in relation to ground.
Two frames show different results...
 
  • #54
John Mcrain said:
why would one frame be more true then other...
Not more true, but simpler with flatter water surface.
 
  • #55
John Mcrain said:
For right case ,bucket is rotate in relation to G-room, but not rotate in relation to ground.
Two frames show different results...
Any two frames will always agree on all direct observables. Frames of reference are conjured with paper and pencil. They are creations of the mind. They can never have physical effects.
 
  • #56
jbriggs444 said:
Any two frames will always agree on all direct observables. Frames of reference are conjured with paper and pencil. They are creations of the mind. They can never have physical effects.
Is roatation of bucket direct observables?
 
  • #57
John Mcrain said:
Is roatation of bucket direct observables?
I would say whether something is rotating or not is determined by whether or not it's feeling a centripetal force. That is a direct observable and something all frames will agree on.
 
  • #58
Ibix said:
I would say whether something is rotating or not is determined by whether or not it's feeling a centripetal force. That is a direct observable and something all frames will agree on.
I only say ,for my right case ,bucket rotate in relation to G-room, but not rotate in relation to ground.
Two frames show different results...
so someone can ask; is water spin in bucket or not...
 
  • #59
John Mcrain said:
I only say ,for my right case ,bucket rotate in relation to G-room, but not rotate in relation to ground.
And all frames can agree on those measurements.
John Mcrain said:
Two frames show different results...
No they don't. They differ on whether the buckets ate rotating relative to themselves, but that's because they have different definitions of "themself", not because they have different results.
John Mcrain said:
so someone can ask; is water spin in bucket or not...
They could just look. There can be only one answer. It is well known for a bucket bolted to the floor of the turntable, but harder to calculate for a bucket on a turntable on a turntable, in part because it likely depends on things like the frictional forces between the water and the bucket.
 
  • #60
Ibix said:
but harder to calculate for a bucket on a turntable on a turntable, in part because it likely depends on things like the frictional forces between the water and the bucket.
You mean if friction is zero between water and bucket walls, water will contiue to spin for some time after G room is stoped, for right case?
 
  • #61
John Mcrain said:
You mean if friction is zero between water and bucket walls, water will contiue to spin for some time after G room is stoped, for right case?
I mean in general. You'll note A.T.'s analysis explicitly talks about "lag" and "tending to" his solution.
 
  • #62
John Mcrain said:
why would one frame be more true then other...
As for the why-part: We don't really know. Mach's principle is the idea that inertial frames are related to the large-scale distribution of matter in the universe.
 
  • #63
Mach's principle seems to be vague enough that obviously people still today argue about, whether general relativity is "Machian". I don't think so, because GR is based on strict locality, i.e., all observations are defined as local observations, and all there is left from Newton's Lex I, still valid within special relativity, is that in any spacetime point there exist local inertial frames of reference, i.e., Poincare symmetry is a local gauge symmetry. The gauge group of GR is general (local) diffeomorphism invariance (aka "general covariance").

In our present universe, according to the "cosmological standard model" we have, on large-scale course grained average, a maximally symmetric FLRW spacetime geometry, according to which the physically distinguished local inertial frames are given by the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background raditation at any point in spacetime.
 
  • #64
@A.T.

Lets say we connect turntable(with frictionless bearings) at the bucket bottom.

1.If we set this bucket at center of G-room, bucket will not rotate,because friction is zero.

2.If we set this bucket close to wall of G-room,after we stop rotation of G-room,will be bucket rotate?
When G-room is rotating, bucket is free to spin due to friction less bearings, will bucket resist to spin in relation to ground frame(dont change orinetation) or it will resist to spin in relation to G-room(keep same face toward center of G-room)?
 
Last edited:
  • #65
John Mcrain said:
@A.T.

Lets say we connect turntable(with frictionless bearings) at the bucket bottom.

1.If we set this bucket at center of G-room, bucket will not rotate,because friction is zero.

2.If we set this bucket close to wall of G-room,after we stop rotation of G-room,will be bucket rotate?
When G-room is rotating, bucket is free to spin due to friction less bearings, will bucket resist to spin in relation to ground frame(dont change orinetation) or it will resist to spin in relation to G-room(keep same face toward center of G-room)?
Is it just an empty bucket? If the bearing is such that no moments can be applied to the bucket, its angular momentum will remain constant in inertial frames.
 
  • #66
A.T. said:
Is it just an empty bucket? If the bearing is such that no moments can be applied to the bucket, its angular momentum will remain constant in inertial frames.
So during rotation of G-room, bucket will keep same orientation in relation to ground(inertail,stationary frame), but it will rotate in relation to G-room(rotating frame). So this is basicaly same case as my "right case".
When I draw my "right case", I was thinking that bucket to keep same orientation to ground it will need some mechanics/gears to allow this movememt, but it turn out it is enough to put bucket on turntable with frictionless bearings and inertia will do rest of job.
Problem is I didnt know if bucekt will resist to spin in relation to ground or to G-room.
Why you ask if is bucket empty?
 
  • #67
vanhees71 said:
the physically distinguished local inertial frames are given by the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background raditation at any point in spacetime.
Just like we receive CMB that was emitted by matter which is now very far away, we might also be affected by this matter in terms of inertia.

But this seems impossible to test and either way doesn't change much about out local physics.
 
  • #68
John Mcrain said:
So during rotation of G-room, bucket will keep same orientation in relation to ground(inertail,stationary frame), but it will rotate in relation to G-room(rotating frame). So this is basicaly same case as my "right case".
If an empty bucket starts at rest in the ground frame, and is mounted on a vertical friction-less axis though its CoM, yes.
John Mcrain said:
Why you ask if is bucket empty?
Because water will complicate things, It can move relative to the bucket and thus shift the CoM.
 
  • #69
A.T. said:
Just like we receive CMB that was emitted by matter which is now very far away, we might also be affected by this matter in terms of inertia.

But this seems impossible to test and either way doesn't change much about out local physics.
the CMB is the remnant of electromagnetic thermal radiation within the soup of hot and dense charged matter, which was very close to thermal equilibrium, in the early universe. It decoupled from the matter about 400'000 years after the big bang when atoms were formed and matter got electrically neutral.
 
  • #70
@A.T.
How do you know all this without experiments?

I need to take my kitchen turntable to find answers,I was so happy when stoped turntable and water spins inside glass (left case)!

images.jpg
 
  • #71
John Mcrain said:
How do you know all this without experiments?
It's Newtonian mechanics, not rocket science. It works quite well. Conservation of angular momentum is well confirmed experimentally. Galileo did a lot of the experimental work.
 
  • #72
Rocket science is a great deal also Newtonian mechanics ;-).
 
  • #73
jbriggs444 said:
It's Newtonian mechanics, not rocket science. It works quite well. Conservation of angular momentum is well confirmed experimentally. Galileo did a lot of the experimental work.
What physics field is consider the hardiest? Does this frames questions what we are talking here is valid in micro world, atom and smaller particels?
 
  • #74
Even I never study physics or math, I feel stupid when I see that my questions are so easy and trivial for you here...
 
  • #75
John Mcrain said:
Even I never study physics or math, I feel stupid when I see that my questions are so easy and trivial for you here...
You should not feel stupid. Instead, enjoy the learning and keep asking questions. We all had to learn this stuff sometime... :smile:
 
Back
Top