- #1

feynman1

- 435

- 29

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter feynman1
- Start date

- #1

feynman1

- 435

- 29

- #2

- #3

- 10,131

- 10,729

Proper acceleration can be measured by a spring balance with no reference to any frame. A reference frame is inertial or not depending on whether objects defined to be at rest in the frame measure proper acceleration.Then which reference frame is this acceleration with respect to?

- #4

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

The proper acceleration of an observer is an invariant. It is not "with respect to" anything.Then which reference frame is this acceleration with respect to?

The acceleration of a non-inertial frame is given as the proper acceleration of observers at rest throughout the non-inertial frame. Therefore, it is also not "with respect to" anything. It is invariant, and depending on the details of the specific non-inertial frame, it can vary from location to location throughout the frame.

Edit: thus also an inertial frame is inertial in an invariant sense and not "with respect to" anything, since inertial means roughly that the proper acceleration of a stationary object is 0 everywhere

Last edited:

- #5

- #6

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

I prefer to define it as the quantity that is measured by an accelerometer. But the two definitions are equivalent.

- #7

feynman1

- 435

- 29

If This acceleration is most naturally quantified with respect to inertial frames, then are inertial frames absolute and are they always inertial?

- #8

feynman1

- 435

- 29

- #9

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

Um, yes, inertial frames are always inertial.If This acceleration is most naturally quantified with respect to inertial frames, then are inertial frames absolute and are they always inertial?

Not all kinematic quantities are relative. Proper time is not, nor is proper acceleration.

In fact, it is necessary that proper acceleration be invariant. Otherwise you could not unambiguously define an inertial frame.

- #10

feynman1

- 435

- 29

Then this reference frame has an acceleration=0, then how is this acceleration measured, is it measured with respect to a reference frame?Um, yes, inertial frames are always inertial. Rainy afternoons are always rainy. And magical fairies are always magical.

- #11

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

It is measured with an accelerometer. As I said above.Then this reference frame has an acceleration=0, then how is this acceleration measured, is it measured with respect to a reference frame?

- #12

feynman1

- 435

- 29

Okay thanks but can we speak only Newtonian mechanics and forget about special relativity?Um, yes, inertial frames are always inertial.

Not all kinematic quantities are relative. Proper time is not, nor is proper acceleration.

In fact, it is necessary that proper acceleration be invariant. Otherwise you could not unambiguously define an inertial frame.

- #13

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

No, I don’t think so. Newton didn’t have a very clear concept of reference frames at all, and some of his key ideas on the matter were wrong. The modern clarity on reference frames was largely due to relativity forcing us to confront and fix some Newtonian errors.Okay thanks but can we speak only Newtonian mechanics and forget about special relativity?

In any case, Newtonian physics has more invariants, not more relative quantities

- #14

feynman1

- 435

- 29

Got it thanks. So is my question unanswerable at all within the Newtonian framework?No, I don’t think so. Newton didn’t have a very clear concept of reference frames at all, and some of his key ideas on the matter were wrong. The modern clarity on reference frames was largely due to relativity forcing us to confront and fix some Newtonian errors.

In any case, Newtonian physics has more invariants, not more relative quantities

- #15

- #16

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

Which of your many questions are you specifically referring to?Got it thanks. So is my question unanswerable at all within the Newtonian framework?

- #17

feynman1

- 435

- 29

the original postWhich of your many questions are you specifically referring to?

- #18

feynman1

- 435

- 29

As per the galilean transformation, two systems need to move relative to each other with a constant speed. Then what if there’s a relative acceleration between them and how to apply the galilean transformation?

- #19

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

I already answered it in post 4, which is valid in Newtonian physics toothe original post

- #20

feynman1

- 435

- 29

Is proper acceleration even defined in classical physics/introductory physics before relativity?I already answered it in post 4, which is valid in Newtonian physics too

- #21

The point is that in classical mechanics there are certain distinguished frames of reference, so-called inertial frames, where Newton's law of inertia holds (free particles move at constant velocities). A Galilean transformation maps from one inertial frame to a different inertial frame. (And of course a transformation between two frames undergoing non-zero relative acceleration is not Galilean...!)As per the galilean transformation, two systems need to move relative to each other with a constant speed. Then what if there’s a relative acceleration between them and how to apply the galilean transformation?

Take, for instance, a particle with a trajectory ##\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{X}(t)## in one inertial frame. It's acceleration in this frame is nothing but ##\mathbf{a}(t) = \ddot{\mathbf{X}}(t)##. Under a Galilean transformation, for example to a second inertial frame moving at a constant velocity ##\mathbf{v}## with respect to the first and with initial displacement ##\mathbf{s}##, the trajectory in this new inertial frame is ##\mathbf{x}' = \mathbf{X}'(t) = \mathbf{X}(t) - \mathbf{v}t - \mathbf{s}##, which again implies ##\mathbf{a}'(t) = \ddot{\mathbf{X}}(t)##. The acceleration of the particle as measured by any inertial frame is then the same, i.e. ##\mathbf{a}(t) = \mathbf{a}'(t)##.

That's partly why inertial frames are distinguished, because the accelerations of particles as measured by any frame in that class are invariant. Whilst, by a suitable choice of non-inertial frame, you can make the acceleration whatever you want

Last edited by a moderator:

- #22

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 29,634

- 15,139

An odd complaint, since the person who dragged in SR was...you.Okay thanks but can we speak only Newtonian mechanics and forget about special relativity?

I count five answers to your original question. Clearly these answers don't satisfy you. It might help if you explained how and why they don't satisfy you. Otherwise we will keep going around in circles.

- #23

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

Proper acceleration is just the acceleration measured by an accelerometer. It is perfectly compatible with Newtonian physics.Is proper acceleration even defined in classical physics/introductory physics before relativity?

- #24

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,682

- 18,363

No.Aren't all kinematic quantities measured w.r.t a reference frame?

- #25

A.T.

Science Advisor

- 11,672

- 2,964

Proper acceleration can be thought of as relative to a local free falling frame. But this boils down to what an accelerometer measures, so you don't need to introduce that frame.

- #26

Nugatory

Mentor

- 14,132

- 7,922

Yes. It’s essential to understanding what’s going on with centripetal and centrifugal forces when you’re swinging a weight on a string in a circle, for example.Is proper acceleration even defined in classical physics/introductory physics before relativity?

Introductory physics texts often simplify things by choosing coordinates in which the frame-dependent coordinate acceleration (which is “relative”) happens to be equal to the proper acceleration. This simplification is one of the things that you’ll unlearn when you come to a more complete treatment of the subject.

- #27

How so? You can do all the analysis simply with the definition of acceleration with respect to a frame ##F## ##\mathbf{a} \big{|}_{F} = \frac{\mathrm{d^2} \boldsymbol{x}}{\mathrm{d}t^2} \big{|}_F## and if you're using a non-inertial frame then the additional relationship ##\frac{\mathrm{d} \mathbf{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} \big{|}_{Oxyz} = \frac{\mathrm{d} \mathbf{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} \big{|}_{O'x'y'z'} + \boldsymbol{\omega} \times \mathbf{u}## for any arbitrary vector ##\mathbf{u}##, which is required in order to obtain the equation of motion in the non-inertial frame (either by finding the Lagrangian in the rotating frame, or by deriving the relationship between ##\mathbf{a} \big{|}_{Oxyz}## and ##\mathbf{a} \big{|}_{O'x'y'z'}## and then substituting for ##\mathbf{a} \big{|}_{Oxyz}## in Newton's equation, where ##Oxyz## constitute inertial co-ordinates).Yes. It’s essential to understanding what’s going on with centripetal and centrifugal forces when you’re swinging a weight on a string in a circle.

The point I'm making is that I haven't really noticed any classical mechanics textbooks use 'proper acceleration', and there isn't particularly a need to introduce it.

- #28

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

The term may not be used, but accelerometers are classical devices and their readings are perfectly compatible with classical mechanics. There is nothing inherently non-classical about proper acceleration, and borrowing the term aids greatly in clarity.The point I'm making is that I haven't really noticed any classical mechanics textbooks use 'proper acceleration', and there isn't particularly a need to introduce it.

- #29

- 10,131

- 10,729

The ##\left.\mathbf{a}\right|_F## you defined is coordinate acceleration, and physical accelerometers will not measure this in general. So you clearly have two concepts here - coordinate acceleration and whatever it is the accelerometers are measuring. The latter is proper acceleration, whether it's called that or not, and I would say that it's actually the truly important concept because it's where the maths corresponds to something directly measurable. (The point I'm making is that I haven't really noticed any classical mechanics textbooks use 'proper acceleration', and there isn't particularly a need to introduce it.

Last edited:

- #30

But that can just be stated: let ##K## beThe ##\left.\mathbf{a}\right|_F## you defined is coordinate acceleration, and physical accelerometers will not measure this in general. So you clearly have two concepts here - coordinate acceleration and whatever it is the accelerometers are measuring. The latter is proper acceleration, whether it's called that or not, and is actually the truly important concept because it's where the maths corresponds to something directly measurable.

It's nicer to start from the principle of Galilean relativity, which implies a Galilean structure defined by the property that Newton's equation is invariant with respect to the group of Galilean transformations, and from that

Relativity is different, because there the four-acceleration ##a^{\mu} = \mathrm{d}^2 x^{\mu} / \mathrm{d}s^2## can be defined without even acknowledging any reference system, and is an entirely different quantity to co-ordinate acceleration. Whilst in classical mechanics, 'proper acceleration' is just a special case of co-ordinate acceleration!

- #31

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

Why would you need to define it mathematically? We are doing science, not math.Accelerometers are a nice heuristic, but you can't really define an accelerometer mathematically.

- #32

- #33

- 10,131

- 10,729

Then you have a problem. Ultimately, all the maths we do is supposed to support predictions like "if the dial on this machine reads ##x\pm \delta x## units then the dial on that machine will read ##y\pm \delta y## units". If it's not capable of doing that, what's it got to do with the real world?accelerometers are a nice heuristic, but you can't really define an accelerometer mathematically.

Don't get me wrong - all of the mathematical abstraction is incredibly powerful and can lead to remarkable insights. But if it can't relate to direct observables then it's either unfinished or useless for physics.

- #34

Dale

Mentor

- 33,724

- 11,338

I 100% disagree with this. In my opinion not only are operational definitions necessary for science, they are the most important ones.I still don't think one should be using mythical objects such as accelerometers in definitions of physical quantities

- #35

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 29,634

- 15,139

Agreed. Why do you need to define it mathematically if you can just buy one?Why would you need to define it mathematically?

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 463

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 970

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 74

- Views
- 692

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 381

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 609

- Replies
- 83

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 377

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 744