Recently I've been revisiting physics text books, and books by Feynman, and others.
A curious thought has arisen, while I was reading about Mach's principle, and it seems to gnaw on my mind. I hope to have it "rub off" something here.
Consequences of Newton's First Law are:
- An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless a force acts upon it.
- An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless a force acts upon it.
But... this isn't really true in practice is it? Much like we have corrections for relativistic mechanics, when things are going very fast, we should also think about what happens when things go on for a very long time. Eventually, something will happen to the universe, which will impact that object or what we can say of its motion.
EDIT: I worded this last sentence carelessly. What I meant to say is: I can add a correction to the first law, that says the motion stops with a "very very" slow factor, and you would not be able to prove that it doesn't happen. You have not observed things for long enough, or lack the accuracy of instruments to do so.
The way the universe is expanding, or contracting, will ultimately make it so that objects will eventually, not move anymore, or there will at least be some impact as it is moving on. As it were, whatever inertial frame you have will at some point be impacted by an event that makes it non-inertial, inevitably - like black holes, or a total "freeze" of the universe; I don't want to lead with any examples. EDIT: What if this emerges from the corrected law automatically, instead of only being there through interactions between particles?
I know this is a nearly philosophical argument on the difference between theoretical and experimental physics, but in a way, nothing will really go on forever, so any theory that includes this will be too perfect for reality, and does not really model it.
More importantly, I'm wondering if we're not "missing" any minute corrections, carrying over effects from Hubble expansion, or even corrections emerging (no pun intended) from theories on emergent gravity, as corrections to mechanics which could eventually explain some of the discrepancies between the expected growth of the universe and the measured. (https://interestingengineering.com/the-universe-is-expanding-much-faster-than-we-thought)
In any case, is there any research on corrections for things that take a really long time, and how inevitably the universe's maximum age might effect them. Similar to how special relativity ended up adding corrections for speeds (1-lambda)*c, unifying space and time into one fabric where Lorentz transforms are used to compare inertial frames.
Anyway, thanks for reading and for any insights or digressions,