What will happen to a body that is not moving at all?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Makep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a body that is not moving, exploring concepts of motion, space-time, and the nature of existence within various physical frameworks such as general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. Participants question the meaning of motion, the relationship between bodies and their environments, and the fundamental nature of space and time.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the space-time continuum of a body is a product of its movement, suggesting that a body must generate its own inertial frame to exist independently.
  • Others argue that spatial motion is relative, asserting that there is no absolute state of "not moving," as all motion is dependent on the observer's frame of reference.
  • A participant mentions that all bodies exist as parts of a larger system, implying that independence is an illusion and that space, time, and mass are interconnected.
  • Some contributions highlight the idea that if a system does not move relative to all other systems, it raises questions about its existence and the nature of motion itself.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of acceleration and constant velocity, with participants questioning what constitutes movement and how it relates to displacement.
  • A reference to loop quantum gravity is made, suggesting a theoretical framework where particles emerge from quantum spacetime, though it is noted that this is not experimentally verified.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of motion and the implications of a body being "not moving." There is no consensus on the definitions and implications of motion, space, and time, leading to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of motion, the dependence on observer frames, and the hypothetical nature of some claims regarding the emergence of particles from spacetime.

  • #31
Doc Al said:
You are using a rather unusual meaning of "not moving", to say the least.

I recommend sticking with what Mentz114 said. "Not moving" is meaningless unless you specify with respect to what.

Yes point taken. I paraphrased it from Makep in the hopes of making it clearer to him. Obviously russ's suggestion that it should have been qualified with "can be considered" is superior. I tried to make it clearer using Makep's terminology because it was clear from the OP that it included the notion that "not moving" implied not existing as well as absolute motion. Neither of which makes any physical sense.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
atyy said:
The Principle of Equivalence fails for electric charges. A charge in an accelerating rocket will emit radiation, but a charge on the surface of the Earth will not. (A charge moving with constant velocity will not emit radiation.)

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? However, when you take into account the motion of the observer as well, the transferred energy depends on the relative acceleration, so that for example an observer in an accelerating rocket would not detect any radiation being emitted from a charge at rest within that rocket.
 
  • #33
Jonathan Scott said:
You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? However, when you take into account the motion of the observer as well, the transferred energy depends on the relative acceleration, so that for example an observer in an accelerating rocket would not detect any radiation being emitted from a charge at rest within that rocket.

Yes, that is interesting. I don't understand it enough to agree or not, but I was aware of this claim in the literature, so I should at least qualify my remarks with "naive equivalence principle". I will start a new thread since I'd like to ask you and others about this.
 
  • #34
Makep said:
Then how does a black hole develop, if not from becoming stationary or slowing down with respect to other systems.
A black hole is nowhere close to what you describe. We'd going so far away from the topic to discuss that, I'm not willing to do it. Your understanding of the issue at hand is not where it needs to be and I don't want to get into something entirely unrelated.
How can't it be an example. Is there limitations to thinking here?
Absolutely! We constrain our thought processes and discussions to science because this is a scientific discussion site!
Another example - how about the speed of thought.
There is no such thing as "the speed of thought".

As ZZ pointed out, this isn't a place for free-form, idle speculation. It isn't helpful to you or others who may be trying to learn from this thread and we don't allow it.
 

Similar threads

High School Traveling through space at zero km/s
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Undergrad Galilean relativity in terms of homogeneity
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
Undergrad How do you draw a spacetime diagram and what equation describes it?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Undergrad What initiates gravitational movement?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Graduate Does the EP imply that a free-falling observer follows a geodesic?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
930
Undergrad Question about geometrical engineering (placeholder name)
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Undergrad Teaching Minkowski diagrams effectively
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad The Derivative Nature of Time and Its Relation to Earth's Rotation and Speed
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Undergrad Understanding Einstein's second postulate of special relativity
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
Undergrad Potential energy and the gravitational field of a collapsing cloud of gas
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K