4 ms·
The question about reference frames, even relative ones, is really interesting and has quite a long history. The current view of them really started only with N
by jampekka 2y ago
The question about reference frames, even relative ones, is really interesting and has quite a long history. The current view of them really started only with Newton, and e.g. Leibniz actually had a different view, and rejected the idea of space "independent" of objects or time "independent" of events.
Leibniz was partly vindicated by Einstein, although I think Leibniz' idea of relationalism was even more fundamental (and perhaps untenable).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationalism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/
- Xmd5a 2y agoThe bridge between Leibniz and Einstein is Mach. From your wikipedia entry: >The relational point of view was advocated in physics by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz[7] and Ernst Mach (in his Mach's principle).[7] It was rejected by Isaac Newton in his successful description of classical physics. Although Albert Einstein was impressed by Mach's principle, he did not fully incorporate it into his general theory of relativity. More: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle >The proposition is that the existence of absolute rotation (the distinction of local inertial frames vs. rotating reference frames) is determined by the large-scale distribution of matter, as exemplified by this anecdote:[2] >>You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move? [a][2]