Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Harold14370

Thread: what do spinning reference frames spin against?

  1. #1 what do spinning reference frames spin against? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    I was just wondering why there would be a preferred reference frame in regards to spin.

    such as a spinning reference frame is a non-inertial reference frame and so i suppose you could work out what the inertial reference frame was due to measuring a centrifugal force and a coriolis force.

    This leads me to believe there is some non spinning grid in the universe.

    does this grid stay straight or does it follow gravity lines?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I was just wondering why there would be a preferred reference frame in regards to spin.

    such as a spinning reference frame is a non-inertial reference frame and so i suppose you could work out what the inertial reference frame was due to measuring a centrifugal force and a coriolis force.

    This leads me to believe there is some non spinning grid in the universe.

    does this grid stay straight or does it follow gravity lines?
    This is an ill-formed question. Anyways, a rotating object is rotating wrt the point located at the intersection of the two perpendiculars onto the velocities at two different points on the trajectory. (they points should not be chosen diametrically opposed).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    This is an ill-formed question.
    What am I doing wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Anyways, a rotating object is rotating wrt the point located at the intersection of the two perpendiculars onto the velocities at two different points on the trajectory. (they points should not be chosen diametrically opposed).
    huh?

    what about a rotating reference frame?

    I suppose that rotating reference frames are accelerating, so lets talk about an object:

    if an object is rotating, then it must be rotating wrt a non rotating reference frame, so this non rotating reference frame would be non rotating in regards to any other non rotating reference frame right?

    So therefore there must be a sort of grid system in the universe where to hang these non rotating reference frame.

    If something is rotating, then it should have a certain speed of spin wrt the non rotating reference frame, so therefore it should be possible to find out the "grid" in which things are rotating against.
    Last edited by 514void; January 22nd, 2014 at 11:49 PM. Reason: more understanding of replyee's misunderstanding of the question
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    80
    can you repeat the idea of inertial and non-inertial frames?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by ASG141 View Post
    can you repeat the idea of inertial and non-inertial frames?
    umm, i read some wiki page that said that inertial frames are ones that move with a constant velocity and don't accelerate or rotate

    Inertial frame of reference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and that non inertial frames do accelerate or rotate or whatever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    This is an ill-formed question.
    What am I doing wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Anyways, a rotating object is rotating wrt the point located at the intersection of the two perpendiculars onto the velocities at two different points on the trajectory. (they points should not be chosen diametrically opposed).
    huh?

    what about a rotating reference frame?

    I suppose that rotating reference frames are accelerating, so lets talk about an object:

    if an object is rotating, then it must be rotating wrt a non rotating reference frame, so this non rotating reference frame would be non rotating in regards to any other non rotating reference frame right?

    So therefore there must be a sort of grid system in the universe where to hang these non rotating reference frame.

    If something is rotating, then it should have a certain speed of spin wrt the non rotating reference frame, so therefore it should be possible to find out the "grid" in which things are rotating against.
    You don't know what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    You don't know what you are talking about.
    Ok I'll try again.

    Suppose you have a freely spinning body in space, with negligable outside forces acting on it.
    how does it know its spinning?
    it feels a centrigugal force.
    suppose it could change the speed of its rotation somehow, it could speed up its rotation or slow its rotation.
    It would know if it speeds up or slows down because of the centrifugal force.
    It could find the speed of rotation where it didn't feel the centrifugal force.

    from its perspective it could line itself up with the universe.

    What is the stuff in the universe called that things can align their spin to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    The universe doesn't really have any property with which something may line up.

    There is no speed that something can rotate and not experience a force. The spinning only happens because of a centripetal force (a force towards the centre).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I think it's a pretty good question. See Newton's bucket.
    Bucket argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Newton discusses a bucket filled with water hung by a cord.[9] If the cord is twisted up tightly on itself and then the bucket is released, it begins to spin rapidly, not only with respect to the experimenter, but also in relation to the water it contains. (This situation would correspond to diagram B above.)
    Although the relative motion at this stage is the greatest, the surface of the water remains flat, indicating that the parts of the water have no tendency to recede from the axis of relative motion, despite proximity to the pail. Eventually, as the cord continues to unwind, the surface of the water assumes a concave shape as it acquires the motion of the bucket spinning relative to the experimenter. This concave shape shows that the water is rotating, despite the fact that the water is at rest relative to the pail. In other words, it is not the relative motion of the pail and water that causes concavity of the water, contrary to the idea that motions can only be relative, and that there is no absolute motion. (This situation would correspond to diagram D.) Possibly the concavity of the water shows rotation relative to something else: say absolute space? Newton says: "One can find out and measure the true and absolute circular motion of the water"
    Strange and 514void like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    80
    this may be trivial.

    a solenoid moved in the vicity of a wire may induce current due to relative velocity measured in the inertial frame of the observer. if the observer now moves keeping the solenoid and the wire stationary to give the impression of relative velocity, there will be no current.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think it's a pretty good question.
    I agree. It is a good question. Ultimately, the real question is: What is it that defines the inertial frames of reference? My own personal take on this is that if we consider all the possible frames of reference, then some of them must be inertial, and consequently, the others must be non-inertial. Therefore, reality is forced to make a choice as to which ones are the inertial frames of reference. This is known as symmetry breaking. And because reality is forced to make a choice, that choice must manifest itself as some field. That field is known as the connection in general relativity. In the standard theory of general relativity, the connection is determined entirely by the metric tensor field, and the metric tensor field also determines the inertial frames of reference.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    80
    why must some be and some not be. an assumption?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    sounds way too complicated
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,298
    Please stop posting asinine nonsense.

    Edit: Post this was a response to deleted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    I think the rotating bucket thing is a bit too complicated too, the detailed analysis focuses on the shape of the water which isn't even relevant.
    The relevant bit is why the water doesn't stay flat relative to the bucket when it spins.

    mach sort of tries to prove/disprove it with a reference frame to the earth and other celestial bodies...
    but it doesn't do either.
    I looked at mach's principle wiki page where i found that he thought that centrifugal forces only happen when something is spinning relative to everything else in the universe.
    That seems a bit far fetched to me....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    I read some other wiki page about absolute rotation here:
    Sagnac effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It sort of proves that there is a sort of spin medium that spin can be measured against.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    You don't know what you are talking about.
    Ok I'll try again.

    Suppose you have a freely spinning body in space, with negligable outside forces acting on it.
    how does it know its spinning?
    ....by using an accelerometer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I read some other wiki page about absolute rotation here:
    Sagnac effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It sort of proves that there is a sort of spin medium that spin can be measured against.
    Helicopters use laser gyroscopes (based on the Sagnac effect) to determine the angular speed , no need for any "spin medium".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by ASG141 View Post
    why must some be and some not be. an assumption?
    No. What's the alternative? They can't all be inertial because given any such frame of reference, one can accelerate relative to that frame of reference and therefore construct a non-inertial frame of reference. And they can't all be non-inertial because given any such frame of reference, one can counter-accelerate relative to that frame of reference and therefore construct an inertial frame of reference.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    In the standard theory of general relativity, the connection is determined entirely by the metric tensor field, and the metric tensor field also determines the inertial frames of reference.
    True, but I think we should at least consider the possibility of the presence of torsion also. I just have an intuition that there might be more to geometrodynamics than Levi-Civita.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    In the standard theory of general relativity, the connection is determined entirely by the metric tensor field, and the metric tensor field also determines the inertial frames of reference.
    True, but I think we should at least consider the possibility of the presence of torsion also.
    I always do. That's why I referred to the "standard theory of general relativity". Also, my wording in other posts is also suggestive of extensions to the standard theory. I have a particular interest in the torsion tensor as well as the covariant derivative of the metric tensor. However, my main focus is trying to establish the physicality or non-physicality of such fields.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I always do. That's why I referred to the "standard theory of general relativity". Also, my wording in other posts is also suggestive of extensions to the standard theory. I have a particular interest in the torsion tensor as well as the covariant derivative of the metric tensor. However, my main focus is trying to establish the physicality or non-physicality of such fields.
    I think the main issue here is that the presence of torsion would render the Dirac equation non-linear - unsurprisingly, since we would expect to see some form of spin-spin coupling. However, I am not aware of any empirical data that supports the presence of such interactions. Having said that, I am quite interested in Einstein-Cartan gravity myself, since the choice of the Levi-Civita connection seems entirely arbitrary to me. I am a firm believer in that if Einstein had known about the intricacies of relativistic quantum mechanics, he would likely not have omitted torsion in the first place. But maybe that's just me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    What would happen if we have linear particle accelerators in a inertial frame, maybe in space calibarated with sagnac effect detectors.
    I bet alot of scientists would love to make that project happen, and also NASA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    I wonder if galaxies would drag the torsion field along with it, that might make the dark matter thing go away?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Time warp and Einstein : Trillion Frames Per Second
    By sciencestudy in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 1st, 2013, 01:42 AM
  2. Is the age of the universe the same in all frames?
    By sigurdW in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: August 18th, 2012, 11:44 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: February 27th, 2012, 08:56 PM
  4. Rotating Frames of Reference
    By wallaby in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 8th, 2010, 03:20 PM
  5. Spin-spin coupling or spin-spin splitting in NMR
    By shanshan in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 24th, 2010, 02:18 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •