Skip to main content
edited title
Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k

How can one tell they are accelerating?

edited tags
Source Link
Qmechanic
  • 213.1k
  • 48
  • 590
  • 2.3k

In Newtonian mechanics all inertial reference frames follow the same laws of physics. Why does this break down for acceleration. In a rocket you feel acceleration because the rocket is accelerating but everything inside is staying at the same speed so it looks like there is a force pushing it back.

But if everything in the rocket is equally accelerated, let's say because the rocket is charged including all of the inside, so that the rocket doesn't push on anything and it is accelerating towards a much larger opposite charge, how can you tell you're accelerating, it will just look like the earth is accelerating away from you

Is there some mathematical way of showing from both reference frames that it will look like you are the one being accelerated? What would the path of constant acceleration look like if the speed of light is constant? And is there a Lorentz transform for acceleration, or even a general Lorentz transform for a more complicated motion?

Thanks

In Newtonian mechanics all inertial reference frames follow the same laws of physics. Why does this break down for acceleration. In a rocket you feel acceleration because the rocket is accelerating but everything inside is staying at the same speed so it looks like there is a force pushing it back.

But if everything in the rocket is equally accelerated, let's say because the rocket is charged including all of the inside, so that the rocket doesn't push on anything and it is accelerating towards a much larger opposite charge, how can you tell you're accelerating, it will just look like the earth is accelerating away from you

Is there some mathematical way of showing from both reference frames that it will look like you are the one being accelerated? What would the path of constant acceleration look like if the speed of light is constant? And is there a Lorentz transform for acceleration, or even a general Lorentz transform for a more complicated motion?

Thanks

In Newtonian mechanics all inertial reference frames follow the same laws of physics. Why does this break down for acceleration. In a rocket you feel acceleration because the rocket is accelerating but everything inside is staying at the same speed so it looks like there is a force pushing it back.

But if everything in the rocket is equally accelerated, let's say because the rocket is charged including all of the inside, so that the rocket doesn't push on anything and it is accelerating towards a much larger opposite charge, how can you tell you're accelerating, it will just look like the earth is accelerating away from you

Is there some mathematical way of showing from both reference frames that it will look like you are the one being accelerated? What would the path of constant acceleration look like if the speed of light is constant? And is there a Lorentz transform for acceleration, or even a general Lorentz transform for a more complicated motion?

deleted 750 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Joshua Pasa
  • 805
  • 7
  • 25

In special relativity, one of the postulates is thatNewtonian mechanics all inertial reference frames follow the same laws of physics. Why does this break down for acceleration. In a rocket you feel acceleration because the rocket is accelerating but everything inside is staying at the same speed so it looks like there is a force pushing it back.

But if everything in the rocket is equally accelerated, let's say because the rocket is charged including all of the inside, so that the rocket doesn't push on anything and it is accelerating towards a much larger opposite charge, how can you tell you're accelerating, it will just look like the earth is accelerating away from you.

If you can tell that you have a force applied onto you, could a positively charged particle detect acceleration if it falls towards a planet but the planet has a positive charge to exactly cancel the acceleration due to gravity for the positive particle. How can it detect a force?

Is there some mathematical way of showing from both reference frames that it will look like you are the one being accelerated? What would the path of constant acceleration look like if the speed of light is constant? And is there a Lorentz transform for acceleration, or even a general Lorentz transform for a more complicated motion?

How does general relativity describe particles that are not going at a constant velocity. Does it describe the motion as a curvature in space-time in their perspective, can all forces be described as a curvature in space-time using EFE: $$R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa S_{\mu\nu}$$ Where $\kappa$ is a constant and $S_{\mu\nu}$ is the source of the acceleration e.g. the electromagnetic force.

Thanks

In special relativity, one of the postulates is that all inertial reference frames follow the same laws of physics. Why does this break down for acceleration. In a rocket you feel acceleration because the rocket is accelerating but everything inside is staying at the same speed so it looks like there is a force pushing it back.

But if everything in the rocket is equally accelerated, let's say because the rocket is charged including all of the inside, so that the rocket doesn't push on anything and it is accelerating towards a much larger opposite charge, how can you tell you're accelerating, it will just look like the earth is accelerating away from you.

If you can tell that you have a force applied onto you, could a positively charged particle detect acceleration if it falls towards a planet but the planet has a positive charge to exactly cancel the acceleration due to gravity for the positive particle. How can it detect a force?

Is there some mathematical way of showing from both reference frames that it will look like you are the one being accelerated? What would the path of constant acceleration look like if the speed of light is constant? And is there a Lorentz transform for acceleration, or even a general Lorentz transform for a more complicated motion?

How does general relativity describe particles that are not going at a constant velocity. Does it describe the motion as a curvature in space-time in their perspective, can all forces be described as a curvature in space-time using EFE: $$R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa S_{\mu\nu}$$ Where $\kappa$ is a constant and $S_{\mu\nu}$ is the source of the acceleration e.g. the electromagnetic force.

Thanks

In Newtonian mechanics all inertial reference frames follow the same laws of physics. Why does this break down for acceleration. In a rocket you feel acceleration because the rocket is accelerating but everything inside is staying at the same speed so it looks like there is a force pushing it back.

But if everything in the rocket is equally accelerated, let's say because the rocket is charged including all of the inside, so that the rocket doesn't push on anything and it is accelerating towards a much larger opposite charge, how can you tell you're accelerating, it will just look like the earth is accelerating away from you

Is there some mathematical way of showing from both reference frames that it will look like you are the one being accelerated? What would the path of constant acceleration look like if the speed of light is constant? And is there a Lorentz transform for acceleration, or even a general Lorentz transform for a more complicated motion?

Thanks

Rollback to Revision 7
Source Link
BioPhysicist
  • 58.6k
  • 19
  • 116
  • 193
Loading
Rollback to Revision 5
Source Link
David Hammen
  • 42k
  • 8
  • 79
  • 129
Loading
added 833 characters in body; edited tags; deleted 11 characters in body
Source Link
Joshua Pasa
  • 805
  • 7
  • 25
Loading
added 208 characters in body; edited body
Source Link
Joshua Pasa
  • 805
  • 7
  • 25
Loading
added 8 characters in body
Source Link
Joshua Pasa
  • 805
  • 7
  • 25
Loading
edited body
Source Link
Joshua Pasa
  • 805
  • 7
  • 25
Loading
Just one L
Source Link
Kyle Kanos
  • 28.8k
  • 41
  • 69
  • 135
Loading
Source Link
Joshua Pasa
  • 805
  • 7
  • 25
Loading