Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

Like Tree4Likes
  • 2 Post By topsquark
  • 2 Post By Woody
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Aug 2nd 2019, 01:32 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 76
When Does an Observer Become an Inertial Observer?

Inertial observers can legitimately use the famous time-dilation result of special relativity to determine simultaneity at a distance. Observers who are currently accelerating can't.

To be an inertial observer during some period of your life, do you have to be a PERPETUALLY inertial observer? I.e., is it required that you must NEVER have accelerated in the past, and that you can guarantee that you will NEVER accelerate in the future?

Or, can you be an inertial observer if it has been long enough since you stopped accelerating, and if you can guarantee that you will not accelerate for some period of time into the future?

Or, can you be an inertial observer for some period of time, provided that you don't accelerate during that period?

The question matters, because the answer specifies WHO is entitled to use the famous time-dilation result, and WHEN can they use it, in order to determine simultaneity at a distance.

Different answers to that question have produced several different published procedures for answering the question, "How old is that particular distant person, who is moving with respect to me, RIGHT NOW?".

Dolby and Gull, in their "Radar Simultaneity", say that an observer is an inertial observer if he has not accelerated too recently, and will not accelerate too far into the future (and they exactly specify how much is too much). Dolby and Gull's method is clearly non-causal.

Minguzzi says that an observer is an inertial observer if he hasn't accelerated too recently, but there is no requirement that he can't accelerate at any time in the future.

The "Momentarily Co-Moving Inertial Frames Montage" (MCMIFM) says that an observer is an inertial observer if he isn't CURRENTLY accelerating, even if he has accelerated infinitesimally-recently in the past, or will accelerate infinitesimally-soon in the future ... i.e., he can use the time dilatation result throughout any period of time in which he is not accelerating.

What say you?
__________________
Mike Fontenot
MikeFontenot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2nd 2019, 03:43 PM   #2
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,778
Originally Posted by MikeFontenot View Post
Inertial observers can legitimately use the famous time-dilation result of special relativity to determine simultaneity at a distance. Observers who are currently accelerating can't.

To be an inertial observer during some period of your life, do you have to be a PERPETUALLY inertial observer? I.e., is it required that you must NEVER have accelerated in the past, and that you can guarantee that you will NEVER accelerate in the future?

Or, can you be an inertial observer if it has been long enough since you stopped accelerating, and if you can guarantee that you will not accelerate for some period of time into the future?

Or, can you be an inertial observer for some period of time, provided that you don't accelerate during that period?

The question matters, because the answer specifies WHO is entitled to use the famous time-dilation result, and WHEN can they use it, in order to determine simultaneity at a distance.

Different answers to that question have produced several different published procedures for answering the question, "How old is that particular distant person, who is moving with respect to me, RIGHT NOW?".

Dolby and Gull, in their "Radar Simultaneity", say that an observer is an inertial observer if he has not accelerated too recently, and will not accelerate too far into the future (and they exactly specify how much is too much). Dolby and Gull's method is clearly non-causal.

Minguzzi says that an observer is an inertial observer if he hasn't accelerated too recently, but there is no requirement that he can't accelerate at any time in the future.

The "Momentarily Co-Moving Inertial Frames Montage" (MCMIFM) says that an observer is an inertial observer if he isn't CURRENTLY accelerating, even if he has accelerated infinitesimally-recently in the past, or will accelerate infinitesimally-soon in the future ... i.e., he can use the time dilatation result throughout any period of time in which he is not accelerating.

What say you?
I mostly agree with the MCMIFM idea. But I have no idea why anyone would care that a frame is going to or has already accelerate at some point in the past or future. As long as it is not accelerating it should be an inertial frame.

I have heard of a case where we can break any motion into differential elements and say that at one instant we have this inertial frame which changes over time. I really don't know anything about that system. I would think that the full GR would be more applicable in that case anyway.

-Dan
benit13 and neila9876 like this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3rd 2019, 08:40 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post

I mostly agree with the MCMIFM idea. But I have no idea why anyone would care that a frame is going to or has already accelerated at some point in the past or future. As long as it is not accelerating it should be an inertial frame.
In my opinion, physicists who put other restrictions on what is required for an observer to be an inertial observer, do so because they know that the MCMIFM assumption leads to the conclusion that, if the traveling twin suddenly increases his velocity in the direction AWAY from the home twin, that the home twin will suddenly get YOUNGER (according to the traveler). They find that result so ABHORRENT that they impose other restrictions on the definition of an inertial observer, in order to eliminate the possibility of negative ageing.
__________________
Mike Fontenot
MikeFontenot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5th 2019, 05:45 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 963
By their actions shall ye know them.

An inertial observer is one for whom the experiments, that require an inertial observation frame, work.
A non-inertial observer is one for whom those same experiments don't work.
topsquark and benit13 like this.
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Tags
inertial, observer



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inertial Equivalence Woody Special and General Relativity 4 Nov 26th 2018 10:16 AM
Finding the time it takes a light source to hit an observer PatrickSta Nuclear and Particle Physics 2 Aug 14th 2017 04:33 AM
an observer's point of view in frame S olyviab Special and General Relativity 0 Mar 31st 2010 07:07 PM
Relativity- inertial frames C.E Special and General Relativity 11 Apr 16th 2009 11:14 AM
inertial? noninertial? evabern Special and General Relativity 0 Sep 29th 2008 12:12 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed