Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

An inertial frame of reference is described as being a frame of reference in which the first law of Newton (the law of inertia) holds. This means that all events as described with respect to this frame of reference must have a zero net force acting on it and therefore traces a straight line with a uniform non-translatory motion. But, I have read in some books, especially "Introduction to Special Relativity" by the well-known Robert Resnick, wherein his definition of an inertial frame of reference also refers to such a frame of reference as being an unaccelerated system. This is where I am confused.

How can we describe a frame of reference as being unaccelerated if we occupy the frame of reference itself? No mechanical experiment conducted solely confined to a single frame of reference can determine the absolute motion of the frame of reference relative to another frame of reference. All that can be understood is that there is a certain uniform relative motion between frames of reference and no more. Is Robert Resnick saying that the inertial frame of reference is unaccelerated with reference to another frame of reference?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 0 down vote accepted

all events as described with respect to this frame of reference must have a zero net force acting on it

This is wrong: there may exist nonzero forces in an inertial frame of reference. These have to obey Newton's laws. If the forces do not obey Newton's laws in your frame of reference, then it is not an inertial frame.

Newton's laws are correct only in an inertial frame of reference. What is an inertial frame of reference? One in which Newton's laws are correct.

share|improve this answer
    
Your answer is much appreciated. –  Ram Sidharth Mar 20 '13 at 0:45
add comment

Yes, the (any) inertial frame is unaccelerated relatively to any other inertial frame. The previous sentence, if it were the only thing we could say, would be a circular definition of the inertial systems of a sort. But given one inertial frame, it would still be enough to find all the other inertial frames.

You should view the situation as follows: Newton's theory or, analogously, Einstein's special theory of relativity postulates that there exist inertial frames. We may also say that it's those in which all the objects that are unexposed to any forces remain in a uniform motion in the same direction. One may see that the previous sentence implies that there exist infinitely many inertial frames; and they're in uniform unaccelerated motion with respect to each other.

All other frames, those that are not in uniform unaccelerated motion in the same direction relatively to an inertial frame, are non-inertial and according to these frames, objects may move along curved or accelerated paths even if no forces act upon them.

share|improve this answer
    
Your answer appears to partially resolve my question, but could you be a little more specific? –  Ram Sidharth Mar 15 '13 at 12:35
    
Specific about what? I guess that the answer is No because I don't understand what you're dissatisfied with. –  Luboš Motl Mar 15 '13 at 17:15
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.