Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Historical controversy
The idea of absolute space has proved particularly controversial from Newton's time to the present. For example, Leibniz was of the opinion that space made no sense except as the relative location of bodies, and time made no sense except as the relative movement of bodies.[3] Bishop Berkeley suggested that, lacking any point of reference, a sphere in an otherwise empty Universe could not be conceived to rotate, and a pair of spheres could be conceived to rotate relative to one another, but not to rotate about their center of gravity.[4] A more recent form of these objections was made by Mach. Mach's principle proposes that mechanics is entirely about relative motion of bodies and, in particular, mass is an expression of such relative motion. So, for example, a single particle in a Universe with no other bodies would have zero mass. According to Mach, Newton's examples simply illustrate relative rotation of spheres and the bulk of the Universe.[5]
When, accordingly, we say that a body preserves unchanged its direction and velocity in space, our assertion is nothing more or reference according to modern ideas. less than an abbreviated reference to the entire universe. Ernst Mach; as quoted by Ciufolini and Wheeler: Gravitation and Inertia, p. 387
Two bodies orbiting around a common barycenter. Supposing the bodies tied by a rope to hold them together (rather than gravity, which is ignored in this example), the rope is under tension if the bodies are rotating relative to absolute space (according to Newton), or because they rotate relative to the Universe itself (according to Mach), or because they rotate relative to an inertial frame of
Absolute time and space These views opposing absolute space and time may be seen from a modern stance as an attempt to introduce operational definitions for space and time, a perspective made explicit in the special theory of relativity. Even within the context of Newtonian mechanics, the modern view is that absolute space is unnecessary. Instead, the notion of inertial frame of reference has taken precedence, that is, a preferred set of frames of reference that move uniformly with respect to one another. The laws of physics transform from one inertial frame to another according to Galilean relativity, leading to the following objections to absolute space, as outlined by Milutin Blagojevi:[6] The existence of absolute space contradicts the internal logic of classical mechanics since, according to Galilean principle of relativity, none of the inertial frames can be singled out. Absolute space does not explain inertial forces since they are related to acceleration with respect to any one of the inertial frames. Absolute space acts on physical objects by inducing their resistance to acceleration but it cannot be acted upon. Newton himself recognized the role of inertial frames.[7] The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a straight line. As a practical matter, inertial frames often are taken as frames moving uniformly with respect to the fixed stars.[8] See Inertial frame of reference for more discussion on this. In 1903 Bertrand Russell wrote a defense of absolute space and time in Principles of Mathematics, while admitting (page 465) that in the analysis of rational dynamics "non-Newtonian dynamics, like non-Euclidean geometry, must be as interesting to us as the orthodox system."
Absolute time and space relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space Ether; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.[11] 1924: Because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four dimensional, since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone. According to special relativity too, the aether was absolute, since its influence on inertia and the propogation of light was thought of as being itself independent of physical influence....The theory of relativity resolved this problem by establishing the behaviour of the electrically neutral point-mass by the law of the geodetic line, according to which inertial and gravitational effects are no longer considered as separate. In doing so, it attached characteristics to the aether which vary from point to point, determining the metric and the dynamic behaviour of material points, and determined, in their turn, by physical factors, namely the distribution of mass/energy. Thus the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not absolute but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter.[12]
See also
Luminiferous aether Free space Inertial frame Mach's principle Absolute rotation Newtonian time in economics
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/