What is the reference frame the earth rotates relative to?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the reference frame relative to which Earth rotates and how this relates to the Coriolis Effect. The concept of absolute motion has been debated since Newton, who believed in absolute space, while later theories like Mach's principle and general relativity introduced complexities regarding local versus global reference frames. In general relativity, there is an absolute local definition of rotation that does not rely on the universe being Euclidean. A method to establish a non-rotating frame involves using light pulses and mirrors to create a photon gyroscope. The conversation highlights the ongoing exploration of these fundamental questions in physics.
klaatu2
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Please excuse my ignorance - I am a biologist by training - but this is one of those questions that just keeps bothering me and I can't find the answer with Google/Wikipedia.

Take as our example the ocean currents on the Earth caused by the Coriolis Effect of the Earth turning. When I read up on this accounts quickly jump into the maths of mapping between two reference frames. We talk about sitting in a rotating box and being able to tell it is rotating using a Foucault Pendulum etc.

But how does the Earth know that it is rotating relative to the universe and not the universe rotating relative to it? If the universe were spinning around the Earth our ocean currents would stop.

Two clear questions:

If spin is always relative to two frames of reference how do the frames of reference decide which one is stationery and which one is spinning?

If spin is not always relative is there some absolute frame of reference against which all mechanical spin is ultimately measured?

Many thanks for your thoughts on this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
klaatu2 said:
If spin is not always relative is there some absolute frame of reference against which all mechanical spin is ultimately measured?
This is a deep question, one to which physicists don't quite have the answer to yet.

To Newton, the answer to this question was clearly "yes". Newton thought motion was absolute. Newton used a spinning bucket of water as an argument for absolute space. One can tell whether or not a frame is rotating with respect to inertial by looking at the surface of a bucket of water. The surface won't be flat if the water in the bucket is spinning.

This troubled various physicists over the years. Mach's principle, named after Ernest Mach, says that the local behavior is somehow dictated by the mass of the universe as a whole. Einstein tried to incorporate Mach's principle into general relativity. However, general relativity is not fully Machian. A bit of a concept of absolute space remains in general relativity.

Imagine a universe that comprised but one liquid planet. Mach's principle would say that there is no way to tell if the planet is rotating. General relativity says that an equatorial bulge would form if the planet is rotating. Whether such a universe could exist, and whether general relativity would describe such a universe: Who knows? There is no way to know.

Getting back to our universe, general relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, has some concept of absolute space. Acceleration and rotation are locally absolute in general relativity. Reference frames are only local in general relativity. Compare to Newtonian mechanics, where the concept of absolute space is global. Reference frames in Newtonian mechanics have infinite extent.
 
Thanks DH.

I find your answer strangely comforting!
 
Moderator note: This is in response to a now-deleted post.
I am leaving this post intact because that deleted post caused confusion that needs to be cleared up.[/color]

I am not sure I follow you.

I think you are saying we live in a euclidian universe and so there is a single frame of reference that spin is measured against. i.e. the ocean currents are caused by the Earth spinning relative to the invisible 3D, euclidian graph paper we live in.

Is that right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No it isn't.

What DH said is that in general relativity there is an absolute local definition of rotation. It has nothing to do with the universe being Euclidean (which it isn't). And you don't have to look at the stars at all, you can sit in a closed room and define a nonrotating frame very simply using just local experiments.

Here's what to do: send light pulses out along three perpendicular directions, your x, y and z axes. Put mirrors in the way so the light pulses reflect off the mirrors and come back at you. The directions that you see them come back are the same as the original x, y and z directions. You have just built a photon gyroscope, and as long as the light beams keep reflecting back at you, (x, y, z) constitute a local nonrotating reference frame.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top