Content deleted Content added
Metamusing (talk | contribs) m →Quantum reference frame: removed redundancy |
Metamusing (talk | contribs) m →Reference frame in classical mechanics and inertial frame: removed redundancy |
||
Line 5:
{{see also| Frame of reference | Inertial frame}}
Consider a simple physics problem: a car is moving such that it covers a distance of 1 mile in every 2 minutes, what is its velocity in metres per second? With some conversion and calculation, one can come up with the answer "13.41m/s"; on the other hand, one can instead answer "0, relative to itself". The first answer is correct because it recognises a reference frame is implied
When speaking of a car moving towards east, one is referring to a particular point on the surface of the Earth; moreover, as the Earth is rotating, the car is actually moving towards a changing direction, with respect to the Sun. In fact, this is the best one can do: describing a system in relation to some reference frame. Describing a system with respect to an absolute space does not make much sense because an absolute space, if it exists, is unobservable. Hence, it is impossible to describe the path of the car in the above example with respect to some absolute space. This notion of absolute space troubled a lot of physicists over the centuries, including Newton. Indeed, Newton was fully aware of this stated that all inertial frames are [[Observational equivalence|observationally equivalent]] to each other. Simply put, relative motions of a system of bodies do not depend on the inertial motion of the whole system.<ref name = "Dickson">{{cite journal|doi = 10.1016/j.shpsb.2003.12.003|last = Dickson|first = Michael|title = A view from nowhere: quantum reference frames and uncertainty| journal = Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics | volume = 35|issue = 2 |year = 2004 |pages = 195–220|bibcode = 2004SHPMP..35..195D}}</ref>
| |||