Understanding Newton's Laws in Non-Inertial Reference Frames

pkc111
Messages
224
Reaction score
26
Hi,

I was wondering if someone could explain things simply to me (sorry, I am a high school science teacher and not really into the high level maths side of things).

I would like to ask if the General Theory of Relativity says anything about objects obeying Newtons Laws in non-inertial reference frames. A lot of the sources I've come across say that it confirms that Newtons Laws are obeyed in ALL reference frames - including non-inertial ones -hence its name "General" theory of relativity.

But I don't get how the laws are obeyed in a car accelerating from a traffic light- where objects appear to change their motion without an applied force.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

The general theory of relativity is based on the equivalence principle that says that acceleration is equivalent to a gravity field. If, for this discussion, we ignore Earth gravity, an accelerating car can be considered stationary in a constant uniform gravity field. Everything outside the car is free-falling in this gravity field and constantly accelerating backwards. Things inside the car are either free-falling in it, or held by the matter of the car that applies a force equals to m*a on them.

You can read about general relativity here:

http://www.polarhome.com:763/~rafimoor/english/GRE.htm

The article is informal and does not use higher mathematics.

Regards
Rafi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pkc111 said:
Hi,



But I don't get how the laws are obeyed in a car accelerating from a traffic light- where objects appear to change their motion without an applied force.

Thanks.

They do have a force - its the frictional force - If you put your briefcase on the car seat and accelerate your car - the briefcase also gets accelerated because it is pushed by the friction of the seat or becasue it contacts the backrest - try putting some wheels or bearings on your lose items in the car and accelerate - they want to stay at rest so they slide backward when you accelerate forward - when you are stopping, they slide forward. Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by some force.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top