Rotation is absolute, linear motion is relative?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of absolute rotation and relative linear motion, exploring the distinctions between how these motions can be perceived or measured in various scenarios, particularly within a closed environment. Participants examine theoretical and practical implications, including examples from physics and everyday experiences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that "absolute" is not well-defined, but typically refers to the ability to measure acceleration in a closed system, unlike linear velocity.
  • It is proposed that in a closed box on a rotating turntable, one can detect rotation but not linear motion without a reference point.
  • Some argue that acceleration vectors differ in a rotating frame compared to a linear one, which could theoretically allow for detection with precise measurements.
  • Others challenge this by stating that if the box is not centered on the turntable, the acceleration directions would be the same as in linear motion.
  • A participant mentions that the human vestibular system can detect rotation, suggesting that the fluid in the ears responds to changes in orientation.
  • There is a discussion about how occupants in an aircraft may not perceive changes in motion without visual references, highlighting the complexity of detecting motion in different contexts.
  • Some participants reference historical examples, such as naval gunnery, to illustrate how rotation can be detected and accounted for in practical applications.
  • The concept of spatial disorientation is introduced, indicating that gradual changes in motion may not activate the vestibular system effectively.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the definitions and implications of absolute rotation versus relative linear motion. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the interpretations or examples provided.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on specific definitions of motion, the assumptions about measurement precision, and the varying contexts in which motion is experienced or detected. The discussion also touches on the complexities of human perception in relation to motion.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
  • #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 ;-).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #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:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
985
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
871
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K