Are inertial forces "real"

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by pmb, Nov 22, 2013.

?

Are inertial forces real

Poll closed Nov 29, 2013.
  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
    75.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Other (e.g. what does "real" mean, etc)

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Though an accurate mainstream statement, it is not quite true. The idea that inertia is an intrinsic property of mass is really a hold over from a Newton, even perhaps pre-Newton concept of matter. But is does retain a hold on the mainstream view. Where it is not quite true, even from a mainstream perspective is that, within the context of the Standard Model, the mass and thus inertia of fundamental particles, emerges from their interaction with the Higgs Field. That would make at least some part of an object's inertia, emergent rather than intrinsic.

    This transition, from fundamentally intrinsic to fundamentally emergent, moves a step further in the context of some of the work and ideas of Puthoff, Haisch & Reuda, who suggest from within an SED context that inertia emerges from an interaction of the fundamental charged particles matter is composed of with the zero-point field, as the object moves through the field. In which case inertia as a whole would be emergent rather than an intrinsic property.

    =======

    Now to my vote. I vote yes, but I qualify that as being made from a classical everyday experience of inertia, where we can certainly measure the inertial force of a moving object as it impacts a scale and the force of gravity with every step up a staircase. So my yes, is based on that everyday experience.

    I don't believe we can say with any certainty what the origins of inertia are, at this time. The answer it would seem to me lies at a quantum level, and very well may involve an interaction with the ZPF.., though from inertia to gravity seems a hard stretch right now, following that trajectory. Still, though classically I say yes, I am more inclined to favor a fundamental origin of inertia, as an emergent quantum scale interaction, rather than an intrinsic property.

    It really seems to me to depend upon from where you look at the question.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    I guess it is how you look at it, while the fundamental mechanism for mass is a Goldstone boson, one of the inert properties of particles is that of mass. Inertia is best seen as the presence of matter itself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Also, I should have said in post 20, we still haven't found a mediator for gravity so it is doubtful that gravity is even a real force itself.

    Gravity is a pseudoforce as well as far as we can tell.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I'm looking forard to clear discussion between brucep, Tach, and pmb about intrinsic and extrinsic spacetime curvature, and the applicaton of GR and SR to the spacetime of a uniform gravitational field.

    I hope that people can articulate any disagreement clearly and politely, while critically examining their own assumptions and understanding, and honestly considering the arguments of the others.

    Please don't turn this discussion into a fight.
     
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    There is no fight, I simply pointed out some obvious errors.
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Good!
    I expect that pmb and brucep will like to discuss that with you. Please don't let that discussion become a fight.
     
  10. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    Nope. There are certain people here who've convinced me to put them in my kill file. Tach and Trapped are two such people. One of them was extremely rude to me and I forget now what the reason for the other was - but I had a reason. Therefore I don't talk to them.
     
  11. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    You know that gravity is considered to be one of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. Do you think that the gravitational force does not use something like a graviton to mediate the gravitational force? This is one of the reasons I think of the gravitational force as being real, i.e. because I believe its mediated by gravitons.
     
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You are definitely talking to me, you were man enough (according to your own words) to admit your error on the gravitational redshift in this thread. So, it must be that you don't talk with Trapped.
     
  13. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    Sorry. I meant zero spacetime curvature.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2013
  14. pmb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    228
    Oops! Yes. Thanks for catching that. Bruce caught that too. I did mean that a uniform g-field as zero spacetime curvature as one of its defining properties. Thanks you two!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You edited your error after it was flagged.
     
  16. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    There is no notion of "extrinsic spacetime curvature" in relativity. The only curvature in GR is intrinsic, as embodied by the Riemann tensor, for example.
     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Does 'extrinsic spacetime curvature' have any meaning?
    If it doesn't, then why use the 'intrinsic' qualifier in 'intrinsic spacetime curvature'? Why not just say 'spacetime curvature'?
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    It does have a meaning, not in relativity, as I explained.

    Standard terminology. In order to make it perfectly clear that we aren't talking about extrinsic curvature.
     
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    In what non-relativity context do we talk about spacetime curvature?
     
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    None, to my best knowledge. Spacetime is a relativity concept, you can't have " non-relativity context" and "spacetime (curvature)" in the same sentence. Where are you going with this?
     
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    You said that "extrinsic spacetime curvature" has a meaning, but not in relativity.
    In what non-relativity context does it have a meaning?
     
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    "extrinsic curvature" has a meaning (in geometry) . "extrinsic spacetime curvature" has no meaning. "intrinsic spacetime curvature" has meaning (mostly in GR). In SR, "zero spacetime curvature" is a standard expression describing the Lorentzian space. Does this help?
     
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Yes, thank you.
    So, is "zero spacetime curvature" the same as "zero intrinsic spacetime curvature"?

    Wouldn't that imply that a uniform gravitational field, with zero intrinsic spacetime curvature, is the same as Lorentzian space, with zero spacetime curvature?
     

Share This Page