2. Motion and inertia

Author(s):  
David Wallace

This chapter explores the question of what it means for something to move, and why physics cannot be done without an answer to that question. It does so mostly in the context of Newtonian physics, leaving considerations of the theory of relativity to the next chapter. We cannot simply define motion of one body as relative to another body if we want to do physics—we have to introduce the idea of a ‘rest frame’ that defines which bodies are at rest (Newton called this rest frame ‘absolute space’). But physics also satisfies the relativity principle—it is impossible to distinguish the rest frame from another frame moving at constant speed in that frame. So what physics really requires is not a preferred rest frame, but a family of inertial frames, all moving at uniform speeds relative to one another. The notion of ‘spacetime’ has been introduced as a way of understanding this family of inertial frames, but philosophers of physics disagree as to whether spacetime explains the nature of motion in physics, or merely codifies it. The chapter concludes by explaining how gravity can be thought of as a change in the structure of the inertial frames: though it was Einstein who first saw this clearly, it has nothing to do with relativity and makes sense even in Newtonian physics.

It is conventional to denote the physics of the period 1700-1900, from A the Principia to the advent of the relativity and quantum theories, as ‘classical’ or ‘Newtonian’ physics. These terms are not, however, very satisfactory as historical categories. The contrast between classical and ‘modern’ physics is perceived in terms that highlight the innovatory features of physics after 1900: the abandonment of the concepts of absolute space and time in Einstein’s theory of relativity, and of causality and determinism in quantum mechanics. ‘ Classical ’ physics is thus defined by ‘non-classical’ physics. The definitions and axioms of Principia , Newton’s exposition of the concepts of absolute space and time, and his statement of the Newtonian laws of motion, are rightly seen as fundamental to the 17th-century mechanization of the world picture.


Author(s):  
Michael Redhead

There are two parts to Albert Einstein’s relativity theory, the special theory published in 1905 and the general theory published in its final mathematical form in 1915. The special theory is a direct development of the Galilean relativity principle in classical Newtonian mechanics. This principle affirms that Newton’s laws of motion hold not just when the motion is described relative to a reference frame at rest in absolute space, but also relative to any reference frame in uniform translational motion relative to absolute space. The class of frames relative to which Newton’s law of motion are valid are referred to as inertial frames. It follows that no mechanical experiment can tell us which frame is at absolute rest, only the relative motion of inertial frames is observable. The Galilean relativity principle does not hold for accelerated motion, and also it does not hold for electromagnetic phenomena, in particular the propagation of light waves as governed by Maxwell’s equations. Einstein’s special theory of relativity reformulated the mathematical transformations for space and time coordinates between inertial reference frames, replacing the Galilean transformations by the so-called Lorentz transformations (they had previously been discovered in an essentially different way by H.A. Lorentz in 1904) in such a way that electromagnetism satisfied the relativity principle. But the classical laws of mechanics no longer did so. Einstein next reformulated the laws of mechanics so as to make them conform to his new relativity principle. With Galilean relativity, spatial intervals, the simultaneity of events and temporal durations, did not depend on the inertial frame, although, of course, velocities were frame-dependent. In Einstein’s relativity the first three now become frame-dependent, or ‘relativized’ as we may express it, while for the fourth, namely velocity, there exists a unique velocity, that of the propagation of light in vacuo, whose magnitude c is invariant, that is, the same for all inertial frames. It can be argued that c also represents the maximum speed with which any causal process can be propagated. Moreover in Einstein’s new mechanics inertial mass m becomes a relative notion and is associated via the equation m=E/c2 with any form of energy E. Reciprocally inertial mass can be understood as equivalent to a corresponding energy mc2. In the general theory Einstein ostensibly sought to extend the relativity principle to accelerated motions of the reference frame by employing an equivalence principle which claimed that it was impossible to distinguish observationally between the presence of a gravitational field and the acceleration of a reference frame. Einstein here elevated into a fundamental principle the known but apparently accidental numerical equality of the inertial and the gravitational mass of a body (which accounts for the fact that bodies move with the same acceleration in a gravitational field, independent of their inertial mass). By extending the discussion to gravitational fields which could be locally, but not globally, transformed away by a change of reference frame, Einstein was led to a new theory of gravitation, modifying Newton’s theory of gravitation, which could explain a number of observed phenomena for which the Newtonian theory was inadequate. This involved a law (Einstein’s field equations) relating the distribution of matter in spacetime to geometrical features of spacetime associated with its curvature, considered as a four-dimensional manifold. The path of an (uncharged spinless) particle moving freely in the curved spacetime was a geodesic (the generalized analogue in a curved manifold of a straight line in a flat manifold). Einstein’s theories have important repercussions for philosophical views on the nature of space and time, and their relation to issues of causality and cosmology, which are still the subject of debate.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastin Patrick Asokan

Abstract This paper shows that from the fact that the same Reality is perceived differently by the observers in different inertial frames, we can draw a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of light's speed in all inertial frames without any need for bringing in paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper also proves that Lorentz Transformation has failed in its attempt to do the impossible task of establishing t' ≠ t to explain the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames without contradicting the interchangeability of frames demanded by the First Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.


Author(s):  
Hanoch Gutfreund ◽  
Jürgen Renn

This chapter shows how Einstein has developed and described the mathematical apparatus that is necessary to formulate the physical contents of the general theory of gravity. It first discusses the transition from the special to the general relativity principle. According to Einstein's understanding of such a general relativity principle, physical laws are independent of the state of motion of the reference space in which they are described. The chapter argues that such a generalization of the relativity principle to include accelerated reference frames is possible because all inertial effects caused by acceleration can be alternatively attributed to the presence of a gravitational field. The model of a rotating disk is then used to show that general relativity implies non-Euclidean geometry and that the gravitational field is represented by curved spacetime. After the introduction of these basic concepts and principles, the chapter presents the mathematical formulation of the theory.


1988 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 859-864
Author(s):  
H. E. Wilhelm

Abstract The Lorentz transformations between the space-time coordinates of a point in two inertial frames with arbitrary relative velocity, are reformulated as Galilei transformations with length and time contractions, by introducing the ether rest frame (in which light signals propagate isotropically with the vacuum speed of light). The generalized Galilei transformations for the (longitudinal) space coordinates (x1,2) and the time variables (t1,2) of a point in two inertial frames ∑1,2 are not only of analogous structure, but have remarkable symmetry properties, too. The appearing length and time contractions are absolute effects in the sense of Lorentz-Fitzgerald, i.e., a rod has its largest length and a clock its fastest rate when at rest in the ether frame ∑0. Thus, an analytical reformulation and a physical interpretation of the Lorentz transformations within Galilean relativity physics is achieved.


2015 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander L. Kholmetskii ◽  
Tolga Yarman

We continue the analysis of Thomas–Wigner rotation (TWR) and Thomas precession (TP) initiated in (Kholmetskii and Yarman. Can. J. Phys. 92, 1232 (2014). doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0015 ; Kholmetskii et al. Can. J. Phys. 92, 1380 (2014). doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0140 ), where a number of points of serious inconsistency have been found in the relativistic explanation of these effects. These findings motivated us to address covariant ether theories (CET), as suggested by the first author (Kholmetskii. Phys. Scr. 67, 381 (2003)) and to show that both TWR and TP find a perfect explanation in CET. We briefly reproduce the main points of CET, which are constructed on the basis of general symmetries of empty space–time, general relativity principles, and classical causality, instead of Einstein’s postulates of the special theory of relativity (STR). We demonstrate that with respect to all known relativistic experiments performed to date in all areas of physics, both theories, STR and CET, yield identical results. We further show that the only effect that differentiates STR and CET is the measurement of time-dependent TWR of two inertial frames, K1 and K2, related by the rotation-free Lorentz transformation with a third inertial frame, K0, in the situation, where the relative velocity between K1 and K2 remains fixed. We discuss the results obtained and suggest a novel experiment, which can be classified as a new crucial test of STR.


2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (8) ◽  
pp. 757-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Leonidovich Rozov

AbstractWe discuss the feasibility of using, along with Minkowski equations obtained on the basis of the theory of relativity and used at present in electrodynamics, alternative methods of describing the processes of interaction between electromagnetic fields and moving media. In this article, a way of describing electromagnetic fields in terms of classical mechanics is offered. A system of electrodynamic equations for slowly moving media was derived on the basis of Maxwell’s theory within the framework of classical mechanics using Wilsons’ experimental data with dielectrics in a previous article [A. Rozov, Z. Naturforsch. 70, 1019 (2015)]. This article puts forward a physical model that explains the features of the derived equations. The offered model made it possible to suggest a new approach to the derivation of electrodynamic equations for slowly moving media. A variant of Galileo’s relativity principle, in accordance with which the electrodynamic equations for slowly moving media should be considered as Galilean-invariant, is laid down on the basis of both the interpretation of Galileo’s concept following from Galileo’s works and Pauli’s concept of postulate of relativity within the framework of the represented physical model.


1997 ◽  
Vol 12 (40) ◽  
pp. 3153-3159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rainer W. Kühne

The possibility of the existence of magnetic charges is one of the greatest unsolved issues of the physics of this century. The concept of magnetic monopoles has at least two attractive features: (i) Electric and magnetic fields can be described equivalently. (ii) In contrast to quantum electrodynamics, models of monopoles are able to explain the quantization of electric charge. We suggest a quantum field theoretical model of the electromagnetic interaction that describes electricity and magnetism as equivalent as possible. This model requires the cross-section of Salam's "magnetic photon" to depend on the absolute motion of the electric charge with which it interacts. We suggest a tabletop experiment to verify this magnetic photon. Its discovery by the predicted effect would have far-reaching consequences: (i) Evidence for a new gauge boson and a new kind of radiation which may find applications in medicine. (ii) Evidence for symmetrized Maxwell equations. (iii) Evidence for an absolute rest frame that gives rise to local physical effects and violation of Einstein's relativity principle.


Author(s):  
T.A. Ryckman

Much of the early philosophical attention given Einstein’s theory of gravitation was not uncontaminated by a grim post-war atmosphere conducive to public diversions, hysteria and national chauvinism. Most was ill-informed regarding the mathematical and physical content of the theory. Even amongst the scientifically literate, there was disagreement as to the theory’s philosophical implications. In part, this lack of clarity is due to Einstein. In an endeavour to eliminate references to ‘absolute space’ as the earlier special (or, as it was then known, restricted) theory of relativity (STR) had eliminated reference to ‘absolute time’, Einstein had motivated his theory of gravitation as arising from an epistemologically mandated generalization of the relativity principle of STR, which governed only inertial motions, and he misleadingly baptized it a theory of ‘general relativity’, wherein all motions are regarded as relative to other bodies. This the theory does not show. Also, some incautiously expressed remarks on the formal requirement of general covariance were seized upon as evidence for antithetical epistemological and ontological attitudes. Amidst such confusions, it is not at all surprising that inherently antagonistic philosophical outlooks claimed vindication or confirmation by the general theory of relativity (GTR). In turn, the perceived failure of both Machian positivism and Neo-Kantianism to accommodate the revolutionary theory spurred the development of a new ‘scientific philosophy’, logical positivism. The subsequent course of philosophy of science in the twentieth century was indelibly marked by this development. Yet it would turn out that Einstein himself refused to be a cooperative exemplar for any of the major philosophical schools, positivism, Kantianism, or, to its embarrassment, logical positivism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document