Timeline for Thought experiment in Mach's principle - Can a void universe be considered with special relativity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2023 at 4:29 | answer | added | rjpetti | timeline score: 0 | |
| S Jun 1, 2022 at 13:09 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 1, 2022 at 13:09 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| May 25, 2022 at 11:42 | answer | added | Eric Smith | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 25, 2022 at 11:40 | comment | added | lalala | Lense-Thirring effect comes to mind. rotating matter (sphere in that case) will generate rotational drag. | |
| May 25, 2022 at 11:08 | answer | added | JanG | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 24, 2022 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1529114999985143814 | ||
| May 24, 2022 at 14:35 | comment | added | user87745 | @Qmechanic . If we consider a cosmological constant, then the void universe couldn't have Flat Minkowski's spacetime anymore and things become more complicated. If it is zero, I think we could reverse this statement : what do you think about it ? | |
| May 24, 2022 at 14:19 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | Can we assume that the cosmological constant is zero? | |
| May 24, 2022 at 12:34 | answer | added | Agnius Vasiliauskas | timeline score: 2 | |
| S May 24, 2022 at 11:27 | history | bounty started | CommunityBot | ||
| S May 24, 2022 at 11:27 | history | notice added | user87745 | Draw attention | |
| May 22, 2022 at 7:04 | comment | added | JanG | The second point is in a relative distance to the first one. However, I think you mean something else. Have you read Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos"? Its second chapter is dedicated to the issue of Mach's principle and Einstein's relativity theory. You could possibly find there the answer to your question. | |
| May 21, 2022 at 20:05 | comment | added | user87745 | @JanGogolin . Thanks for your quick answer. If we need two points to define an axis of rotation, this axis is still located as respect of a more general frame, which remains constant compared to this axis of rotation : in other words, there is yet an absolute referential, and this is in contradiction with the general relativity, isn't this ? | |
| May 21, 2022 at 17:40 | comment | added | JanG | One thought more: "This idea clashes with common sense, insofar as it is difficult to conceive of a movement, in this case a rotation, without any point of reference". I would say one needs just two points to define axis of rotation. That can be made locally without any reference to some distant objects. | |
| May 21, 2022 at 15:50 | comment | added | JanG | @ACact. The problem I see is that the void spacetime must glued to the outer (no mass free) spacetime. I think more feasible would be to assume that the distance to other masses is space-like, i.e. there is no interaction with them during the experiment. | |
| May 21, 2022 at 14:36 | comment | added | user87745 | @JanGogolin . Yes that's the core of question : in this thought experiment, making appear suddenly an astronaut make suddenly the space time from special relativity to general relativity since if we have matter/energy in the universe, you have a space which is curved by the presence of this matter/energy. This is pretty brutal as thought experiment, isn't it ? But once said that, how inertial movement is involved in this way to see ?, I mean, how Mach principle occurs in this context ? Any explanations are welcome. Regards | |
| May 21, 2022 at 14:29 | comment | added | JanG | If I understand you right you think of a universe with a void free of matter described by flat (matter free) spacetime with observer whose matter's contribution to spacetime curvature is negligible. Is that correct? | |
| May 21, 2022 at 11:44 | history | asked | user87745 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |