The reference system is very important in physics when we are going to study motion: It is fundamental to establish the position of the body being studied. Normally, in physics we use the system formed by the Cartesian axes and Cartesian coordinates as a reference frame. Such system is formed by 3 perpendicular axes OX , OY , and OZ called 3-dimensional space , although it is also possible to use just 2 axes OX, OY called 2 dimensional space or plane , and even a single axis OX known as 1 dimensional space or straight line.
Remember, if you are studying the motion of a body that is occurring in one or two dimensions you can simplify your work by adequately choosing the reference system: in two dimensions, we only use two axes generally OX and OY and in one dimension we use one axis generally OX. Occasionally, it is possible that the origin and orientation of the axes make it difficult to understand or to solve a problem, but we can always carry out transformations so that our system is adjusted to a more comfortable point of view.
In the previous example, in which a ball is seen falling on an inclined plane, we could use a system as the one in A or as the one in B, whichever is more convenient for us. Then we can state the law of inertia as the claim that, relative to an inertial system so defined, the motion of any fourth particle, or arbitrarily many particles, will be rectilinear.
See Figures 2 and 3. But which particles are free of forces? This might appear to be a matter of convention. Or one can compare a particle to a freely rotating planet: in intervals of time through which the planet rotates through equal angles, the particle moves equal distances. The law of inertia then states that relative to any inertial system, any fourth free particle will move uniformly.
Instead, he held that it is properly defined as rotation relative to a frame that satisfies his definition of a reference frame. A body that is rotating with respect to a reference frame and dial-traveller is rotating with respect to any other frame in uniform motion relative to the first. However, it does not quite fulfill its aim. Therefore the definition needs to be completed by the stipulation that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This completion was actually proposed by R. Muirhead in If one inertial frame is posited, in which accelerations properly correspond to Newtonian forces, then any other inertial frame is in uniform motion with respect to the first; the forces, masses, and accelerations measured in one will have the same measures in any other.
For the laws of motion essentially determine a class of reference frames, and in principle a procedure for constructing them. For the same reason, a skeptical question that is still commonly asked about the laws of motion—why is it that the laws are true only relative to a certain choice of reference frame?
Mach expressed the situation particularly clearly:. Even though, for Newton, absolute space was the implicit reference-frame for stating the laws of motion, the frame for their application was the standard one for most of the history of astronomy: the fixed stars. Newton could appeal to a particular case to test this general point: the orbits of the outer planets were stable with respect to the fixed stars, their perihelia showing no measurable precession unlike the perihelion of Mercury, for a famous example.
Newton argued, then, that a relative space in which these apsides are stable is a sufficient approximation to a space at rest or in uniform motion cf. Or do they only describe motions relative to a particular material frame, the fixed stars? Empirical evidence was insufficient to decide. Newton made this notion precise in Corollary VI to the laws of motion:. As Corollaries IV and V implied, for a given system of interacting bodies, their center of gravity is unmoved by the actions of the bodies among themselves, and will remain at rest or in uniform motion as long as the bodies are not disturbed by any external forces.
This, as we noted, was as close as Newton could come to the notion of an inertial frame. Corollary VI shows that, in very special ideal circumstances—accelerative forces that act equally on all bodies within a system, and accelerate them all in parallel directions—an accelerating system of bodies will behave, internally, as if there were no external forces acting on it at all.
Rather, it was threefold. The second point was that there was in fact a force acting equally and in parallel lines, at least to a high approximation, on important systems of celestial bodies. But because the accelerations of all the bodies are nearly equal and parallel, their motions among themselves are nearly the same as if no such forces acted, and the system may be treated as the sort of system described in Corollary V.
Evidently the accelerations are unequal, since Jupiter and the satellites are at varying distances from the sun, and they cannot be parallel since they are all directed at the center of the sun.
But these differences of distance and direction are so small, in comparison with the distance of the entire system from the sun, that they may be neglected.
Newton applied this same reasoning to the entire solar system: even if the entire system were accelerating toward some unknown gravitational source, he could treat the solar system itself as if it were an isolated system. He argued, from the analysis of accelerations within the system, that outside forces must be acting more or less equally and in parallel directions on all parts of the system. Newton raised this point in order to show that the possibility of such a force acting on the whole solar system would not affect his calculations of the forces acting within the system.
This calculation formed an important step in the argument for a heliocentric system. The two Corollaries identify two classes of frames of reference that may be treated as equivalent, because they involve, respectively, theoretically and practically indistinguishable states of motion. But over sufficiently limited segments of its orbit, its motion is sufficiently close to being inertial.
Moreover—and most important—the accelerative forces toward the sun are close enough to being equal and parallel that the forces acting within the system can be effectively isolated from the forces from without. A system of masses bound in orbit around a larger mass is by no means isolated, yet in the right conditions it may be treated as if it were. Schutz , p.
Moreover, it is typically used in a context in which a global inertial frame, with respect to which any such Newtonian system has a definite acceleration, would not be assumed to exist.
When a system of lesser bodies is, as a whole, revolving around a greater body, we have a geometrical framework to describe how closely the motions of the lesser system approximate the conditions of Corollary VI:.
As the size of the orbit is arbitrarily increased, the accelerations toward the center become indistinguishable from equal and parallel accelerations. At the distance of Jupiter or Saturn, a revolving system can be a very nearly regular Keplerian system.
As the distance to the Sun decreases, however, differences in magnitude and direction of the accelerations become significant, and at the distance of the Earth-Moon system the motions become nearly intractable. The decisive factor is the proportion between the size of the orbiting system and its distance from the center of attraction.
One crucial ground for the identification was the fact that the interplanetary force shares the most striking feature of terrestrial gravity, namely, that it imparts the same acceleration to all terrestrial bodies. This principle was discovered by Galileo, of course, but Newton tested it more severely, and with a greater variety of test bodies.
He constructed pendulums of identical wooden boxes suspended from strings of equal length, which he filled with different materials; he found that these differences made no difference to the speed of falling over many oscillations of the pendulums.
But Newton extended this principle beyond terrestrial gravity, to the accelerative forces acting on the planets and their satellites. For he showed that Jupiter and its moons—within the limits of observational accuracy—undergo the same accelerations toward the sun cf. Einstein ; see also Norton This circumstance undermines a defining characteristic of inertial frames: that with respect to a given inertial frame, every other inertial frame is in uniform rectilinear motion.
Corollary VI points the way, after all, toward an extended relativity principle. This reasoning, in turn, suggested the connection between the gravitational field and the curvature of space-time. See Einstein ; see also Related Entries: Einstein, Albert: philosophy of science general relativity: early philosophical interpretations of. As we saw, Newton could treat a quasi-inertial system like that of Jupiter and its moons, not as essentially different from the system of the Earth and the Moon, but as a limiting case of such a system: as the whole system becomes sufficiently far from the central body, the differences among the accelerations of its parts toward their common center become negligibly small.
But even Newton recognized, as we also saw, that the solar system as a whole might have an unknown and practically unknowable acceleration. In effect, he explained why his analysis of accelerations of the bodies in the system, among themselves, required no knowledge of any absolute accelerations. In the 19th century, Maxwell, without questioning the underlying framework of absolute space and time, pointed out that Corollary VI implied a kind of relativity of acceleration , pp.
Saunders, It is further suggested, following Cartan , , that the space-time structure and the gravitational field be unified in a curved space-time cf. Malament , chapter 4; see also Knox, and Weatherall The relevant conceptual resources and mathematical techniques for such approaches, evidently, developed only in the aftermath of general relativity. We return to this theme in 2.
By the early years of the 20 th century, the notion of inertial system seems to have been widely accepted as the basis for Newtonian mechanics, even if the specific works of Lange and Thomson were little noticed.
These transformations clearly preserve the invariant quantities of Newtonian mechanics, i. As far as Newtonian mechanics was concerned, then, the problem of absolute motion was completely solved; all that remained was to express the equivalence of inertial frames in a simpler geometrical structure.
The lack of a privileged spatial frame, combined with the obvious existence of privileged states of motion—paths defined as rectilinear in space and uniform with respect to time—suggests that the geometrical situation ought to be regarded from a four-dimensional spatio-temporal point of view.
The structure defined by the class of inertial frames can be captured in the statement that space-time is a four-dimensional affine space, whose straight lines geodesics are the trajectories of particles in uniform rectilinear motion. See Figure 4. That is, space-time is a structure whose automorphisms—the Galilean transformations that relate one inertial frame to another—are affine transformations: they take straight lines into straight lines, and parallel lines into parallel lines.
The former condition implies that an inertial motion in one frame will be an inertial motion in any other frame, and likewise for an accelerating or rotational motion. The latter implies that uniformly-moving particles or observers who are relatively at rest in one frame will also be relatively at rest in another. See Figure 5. Therefore, to assert that an inertial frame exists is to impose a global structure on space-time; it is equivalent to the assertion that space-time is an affine space that is flat.
The form of the Galilean transformations shows that, in addition to being affine transformations, they also preserve metrical relations on time and space. Distinct inertial frames will agree on simultaneity, and on ratios of time-intervals; they will also agree on the spatial distance between points at a given moment of time. Therefore, in the four-dimensional picture, the decomposition of space-time into hypersurfaces of absolute simultaneity is independent of the choice of inertial frame.
Another way of putting this is that Newtonian space-time is endowed with a projection of space onto time, i. Similarly, absolute space arises from a projection of space-time onto space, i.
See Figure 6. But Galilean relativity implies that this latter projection is arbitrary. While it assumes that we can identify the same time at different spatial locations, Newtonian mechanics provides no physical way of identifying the same spatial point at different times.
Thus the equivalence of inertial frames can be thought of as the arbitrariness of the projection of space-time onto space. Any such projection is, essentially, the arbitrary choice of some particular inertial frame as a rest-frame. The structure of Newtonian space-time also known as Galilean space-time, or neo-Newtonian space-time expresses this fact in a direct and obvious way.
See Stein and Ehlers for further explanation. This can be seen as arising from the projection of each of their inertial trajectories onto a single point of space. Relative motion is just a way of saying that sometimes different people will say different things about the motion of the same object.
In each of the above examples, we are really talking about two different people having two different frames of reference while measuring the relative velocity of one object. Frame of reference: When you are standing on the ground, that is your frame of reference. Since there is a finite number of known forces, one can in principle rule out each of them and reduce to a situation where no force is applied to the particle. Earth is an Inertial Reference Frame as it revolves around the Sun at a constant velocity.
But Earth rotating and at the same time revolving at a constant velocity is also due to a centripetal acceleration. Why is the centrifugal force the ladybug feels in the rotating frame called a fictitious force? It is a result of rotation. It is not part of an interaction between two objects. Centrifugal force is an outward force apparent in a rotating reference frame.
It does not exist when a system is described relative to an inertial frame of reference. When this choice is made, fictitious forces, including the centrifugal force, arise.
0コメント