What are the implications of rotational reference frames?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the implications of using rotational reference frames in physics, suggesting that one can view the Earth as stationary while the universe rotates around it. This perspective introduces fictitious forces and raises questions about the behavior of non-rotating objects, which may appear to exceed the speed of light when observed from such frames. The conversation also touches on the relativity of rotation and whether there exists a unique reference frame where physical laws like conservation of momentum hold true. Additionally, it considers the existence of cardinal directions across different inertial frames, suggesting a universal consistency. The complexities of these concepts highlight the nuanced nature of motion and reference frames in physics.
CaptainQuasar
Messages
372
Reaction score
0
It occurred to me that, as far as calculating the position or movement of objects a reference frame can be rotational, see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame" . So instead of seeing the Earth as orbiting the sun you could say that the Earth is stationary and the rest of the universe is rotating around an axis going through the sun and perpendictular to the plane of the Earth's orbit. (I feel dizzy…)

Of course, this results in all sorts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force" . It also seems notable to me that this will also mean that non-rotating objects a certain distance from the axis will appear to be moving faster than c. And accelerating at a ridiculous rate, of course.

I was wondering if anything interesting is derived from the fact that any object can be construed as rotating at any rate by selecting a different rotational reference frame. And also if anything interesting happens as the speed of rotation approaches the speed of light with respect to a non-rotating reference frame. (Not physically possible with any known material, of course, but you get what I mean.)

It seems that this relativity of rotation can't be "real" in that there's only one reference frame where conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, etc. aren't violated. (Or is there a Lorentz-transformation-like way of correcting for that?) So does that mean that even though the universe doesn't have a "here" and a "there" (i.e. no absolute inertial reference frame) it does have an "up" and a "down", left and right, forwards and backwards? (Obviously these are anthropomorphic labels but the point is that cardinal directions are the same somehow everywhere and everywhen and in every inertial reference frame.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In talking about orbits you have the wrong concept in mind for a rotating reference frame. The motion that occurs when one body orbiting another body is not rotation; its an orbit. A rotating body is spinning about some axis located within the body. The reason the surface of the Earth is called a rotating reference frame is because the Earth is rotating about its own axis (which is why our days are only 24 hours long).
 
D H said:
A rotating body is spinning about some axis located within the body.

Uh, thanks. But the reference frame that an orbiting body would be stationary in would still be a rotational one - I'm talking about a reference frame rotating, not an object - and the various questions above still apply.
 
Maybe what confused you is that the phantom forces in the situation I describe aren't things like centrifugal force but are things like the Corolis force, with other objects in the universe accelerating along curved paths. Look at the animation on the right in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MOVING CLOCKS In this section, we show that clocks moving at high speeds run slowly. We construct a clock, called a light clock, using a stick of proper lenght ##L_0##, and two mirrors. The two mirrors face each other, and a pulse of light bounces back and forth betweem them. Each time the light pulse strikes one of the mirrors, say the lower mirror, the clock is said to tick. Between successive ticks the light pulse travels a distance ##2L_0## in the proper reference of frame of the clock...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K