Why Inertia is so interesting?

AI Thread Summary
Inertia is often considered puzzling in modern physics, particularly regarding its relationship with mass and acceleration. The discussion highlights that while classical mechanics provides a basic understanding, the complexities arise when integrating concepts like gravitational mass and inertial mass, as explored by Einstein. The challenge lies in explaining why different particles have varying masses and how this relates to inertia. Mach's principle is suggested as a relevant topic for further exploration. Overall, inertia's role is crucial in maintaining the stability of the universe, preventing chaotic behavior at high speeds.
Angelos
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi...

Many times I have read articles about how strange inertia is and that no theory we have so far can not explain it etc. However I don't see that problem with it. What is so weird on inertia? It seems to me as normal thing that if some reference frame accelerate the particles in this frame are trying to stay with the velocity they had. It's probably because I really have knowledge of classical mechanics only. Please can you help me here and show me why Inertia is so interesting? Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Angelos said:
Hi...

Many times I have read articles about how strange inertia is and that no theory we have so far can not explain it etc.

Regulars on here will know what's coming...

In this forum, whenever someone says "I read somewhere..." or "I heard somewhere...", we would PREFER that you give an exact reference to what this "somewhere" is. Tell us the exact source so that we can double check what you thought you have understood out of it.

It makes no sense to try and correct or explain what you read without figuring out if what you interpreted is what was being written in the first place. We can't tell if you read some crackpot article, or if you understood something incorrectly, or if the article is pointing out beyond the scope of what one can explain currently.

I have seen many cases where, after we spend a lot of effort in trying to explain to the reader, it turned out that the reader misinterpreted the article in the first place. So the whole question was moot! I'm sure you can imagine why such a thing can be annoying and frustrating.

So to prevent that (and this applies to everyone who has the intention of posting such a question), please CITE YOUR SOURCES clearly! If you can't, then it can't be THAT important. Or maybe this would be a good warning in the future for people to SAVE and RECORD your sources whenever you read anything interesting or puzzling.

Zz.
 
Ok. I'm sorry for that. As you might expected I don't have any certain sources and so I will try to rewrite my question.

Why is it so hard to explain inertia in terms of modern physics? I'm high school junior so I know only classical mechanics and little bit of special relativity. You probably will want know how I know that it's hard. So the answer is that I heart it. I cannot vindicate it differently. If it is not true just report this topic and I'm sorry for your time.

I will be glad for any help or link to web about this topic.
 
the problem cmoes when you try to explain why ceratin particles have the masses they do, ie why doesn't a brick have 10000x the amount of inertia it does right now.
 
Inertia becomes an issue when gravity is considered. Einstein thought about gravitational mass and inertial mass and decided they must be the same.

Try looking up Mach's principle in Wiki.

But I'm not sure what you are actually asking.
 
Without inertia, any mass could be accelerated to the speed of light with little difficulty, and that would make for a very strange universe indeed; one which would likely be in constant destructive chaos.
Just some thoughts...
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Law of inertia (inertial observer and inertial frames of reference)
Replies
2
Views
1K
A thought I had about inertia, and derivatives of acceleration
Replies
1
Views
2K
How can I calculate the moment of inertia of any object?
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Conservation of Momentum versus Conservation of Velocity
Replies
6
Views
2K
Why does mass/energy have inertia?
Replies
22
Views
3K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Classical Rotation: Referencing Rotational Motion in Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
1K
The conservation of angular momentum
Replies
9
Views
5K
Inertia (and, to some extent, circular motion again)
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
B Confusion while trying to build intuition of centripetal force
Replies
15
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top