Inertial frame of reference

In physics, an inertial frame of reference is a reference frame, tied to the state of motion
of an observer, with the property that each physical law portrays itself in the same form
in every inertial frame.[1][2] The contrasting case is the set of non-inertial frames, in which
the laws of physics change from frame to frame, and the usual forces governing laws of
physics must be supplemented by fictitious forces.

Introduction
For example, Newton's second law for a particle in an inertial frame takes the form:

with F the net force (a vector), m the mass of a particle and a the acceleration of the
particle (also a vector) measured by the observer. The force F is the vector sum of all
"real" forces on the particle, such as electromagnetic, gravitational, nuclear and so forth.
In contrast, Newton's second law in a rotating frame of reference, rotating at angular rate
Ω about an axis, takes the form:

which looks the same as in an inertial frame, but now the force F′ is the resultant of not
only F, but also additional terms (the paragraph following this equation presents the main
points without detailed mathematics):

where the angular rotation of the frame is expressed by the vector Ω pointing in the
direction of the axis of rotation, and with magnitude equal to the angular rate of rotation
Ω, symbol × denotes the vector cross product, vector xB locates the body and vector vB is
the velocity of the body according to the rotating observer (different from the velocity
seen by the inertial observer).

The extra terms in the force F′ are the "fictitious" forces for this frame. (The first extra
term is the Coriolis force, the second the centrifugal force, and the third the Euler force.)
These terms all have these properties: they vanish when Ω = 0; that is, they are zero for
an inertial frame (which, of course, does not rotate); they take on a different magnitude
and direction in every rotating frame, depending upon its particular value of Ω; they are
ubiquitous in the rotating frame (affect every particle, regardless of circumstance); and
they have no apparent source in identifiable physical sources, in particular, matter. Also,
fictitious forces do not drop off with distance (unlike, for example, nuclear forces or
electrical forces). For example, the centrifugal force that appears to emanate from the
axis of rotation in a rotating frame increases with distance from the axis.

All observers agree on the real forces, F; only non-inertial observers need fictitious
forces. The laws of physics in the inertial frame are simpler because unnecessary forces
are not present.

In Newton's time the fixed stars were invoked as a reference frame, supposedly at rest
relative to absolute space. In reference frames that were either at rest with respect to the
fixed stars or in uniform translation relative to these stars, Newton's laws of motion were
supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to the fixed stars, an
important case being frames rotating relative to the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not
hold in their simplest form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious
forces, for example, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force. Two interesting
experiments were devised by Newton to demonstrate how these forces could be
discovered, thereby revealing to an observer that they were not in an inertial frame: the
example of the tension in the cord linking two spheres rotating about their center of
gravity, and the example of the curvature of the surface of water in a rotating bucket. In
both cases, application of Newton's second law would not work for the rotating observer
without invoking centrifugal and Coriolis forces to account for their observations (tension
in the case of the spheres; parabolic water surface in the case of the rotating bucket).

As we now know, the fixed stars are not fixed. Those that reside in the Milky Way turn
with the galaxy, exhibiting proper motions. Those that are outside our galaxy (such as
nebulae once mistaken to be stars) participate in their own motion as well, partly due to
expansion of the universe, and partly due to peculiar velocities.[3] (The Andromeda
galaxy is on collision course with the Milky Way at a speed of 117 km/s.[4]) The concept
of inertial frames of reference is no longer tied to either the fixed stars or to absolute
space. Rather, the identification of an inertial frame is based upon the simplicity of the
laws of physics in the frame. In particular, the absence of fictitious forces is their
identifying property.[5]

In practice, although not a requirement, using a frame of reference based upon the fixed
stars as though it were an inertial frame of reference introduces very little discrepancy.
For example, the centrifugal acceleration of the Earth because of its rotation about the
Sun is about thirty million times greater than that of the Sun about the galactic center.[6]

To illustrate further, consider the question: "Does our Universe rotate?" To answer, we
might attempt to explain the shape of the Milky Way galaxy using the laws of physics.[7]
(Other observations might be more definitive (that is, provide larger discrepancies or less
measurement uncertainty), like the anisotropy of the microwave background radiation or
Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[8][9]) Just how flat the disc of the Milky Way is depends on its
rate of rotation in a inertial frame of reference. If we attribute its apparent rate of rotation
entirely to rotation in an inertial frame, a different "flatness" is predicted than if we
suppose part of this rotation actually is due to rotation of the Universe and should not be
included in the rotation of the galaxy itself. Based upon the laws of physics, a model is
set up in which one parameter is the rate of rotation of the Universe. If the laws of
physics agree more accurately with observations in a model with rotation than without it,
we are inclined to select the best-fit value for rotation, subject to all other pertinent
experimental observations. If no value of the rotation parameter is successful and theory
is not within observational error, a modification of physical law is considered. (For
example, dark matter is invoked to explain the galactic rotation curve.) So far,
observations show any rotation of the Universe is very slow (no faster than once every
60,000 billion years (10−13 rad/yr)[10]), and debate persists over whether there is any
rotation. However, if rotation were found, interpretation of observations in a frame tied to
the Universe would have to be corrected for the fictitious forces inherent in such rotation.
Evidently, such an approach adopts the view that "an inertial frame of reference is one
where our laws of physics apply" (or need the least modification).

Background
A brief comparison of inertial frames in special relativity and in Newtonian mechanics,
and the role of absolute space is next.

A set of frames where the laws of physics are simple

According to the first postulate of special relativity, all physical laws take their simplest
form in an inertial frame, and there exist multiple inertial frames interrelated by uniform
translation: [11]

Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that,

“ in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws
hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in
uniform translation relatively to K. ”
The principle of simplicity can be used within Newtonian physics as well as in special
relativity; see Nagel[12] and also Blagojević.[13]

The laws of Newtonian mechanics do not always hold in their simplest

“ form...If, for instance, an observer is placed on a disc rotating relative to the
earth, he/she will sense a 'force' pushing him/her toward the periphery of the
disc, which is not caused by any interaction with other bodies. Here, the
acceleration is not the consequence of the usual force, but of the so-called
inertial force. Newton's laws hold in their simplest form only in a family of
reference frames, called inertial frames. This fact represents the essence of
the Galilean principle of relativity:
   The laws of mechanics have the same form in all inertial frames. ”
In practical terms, the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that scientists
within a box moving uniformly cannot determine their absolute velocity by any
experiment (otherwise the differences would set up an absolute standard reference
frame).[14][15] According to this definition, supplemented with the constancy of the speed
of light, inertial frames of reference transform among themselves according to the
Poincaré group of symmetry transformations, of which the Lorentz transformations are a
subgroup.[16] In Newtonian mechanics, which can be viewed as a limiting case of special
relativity in which the speed of light is infinite, inertial frames of reference are related by
the Galilean group of symmetries.
[edit] Absolute space

Main article: Absolute space and time

Newton posited an absolute space considered well approximated by a frame of reference

stationary relative to the fixed stars. An inertial frame was then one in uniform translation
relative to absolute space. However, some scientists (called "relativists" by Mach[17]),
even at the time of Newton, felt that absolute space was a defect of the formulation, and
should be replaced.

Indeed, the expression inertial frame of reference (German: Inertialsystem) was coined
by Ludwig Lange in 1885, to replace Newton's definitions of "absolute space and time"
by a more operational definition.[18][19] As referenced by Iro, Lange proposed:[20]

A reference frame in which a mass point thrown from the same point in three
“ different (non co-planar) directions follows rectilinear paths each time it is
”
thrown, is called an inertial frame.

A discussion of Lange's proposal can be found in Mach.[17]

The inadequacy of the notion of "absolute space" in Newtonian mechanics is spelled out
by Blagojević:[21]

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. ”
The utility of operational definitions was carried much further in the special theory of
relativity.[22] Some historical background including Lange's definition is provided by
DiSalle, who says in summary:[23]

The original question, “relative to what frame of reference do the laws of

“ motion hold?” is revealed to be wrongly posed. For the laws of motion
essentially determine a class of reference frames, and (in principle) a
procedure for constructing them. ”
[edit] Newton's inertial frame of reference
Figure 1: Two frames of reference moving with relative velocity . Frame S' has an
arbitrary but fixed rotation with respect to frame S. They are both inertial frames
provided a body not subject to forces appears to move in a straight line. If that motion is
seen in one frame, it will also appear that way in the other.

Within the realm of Newtonian mechanics, an inertial frame of reference, or inertial

reference frame, is one in which Newton's first law of motion is valid.[24] However, the
principle of special relativity generalizes the notion of inertial frame to include all
physical laws, not simply Newton's first law.

Newton viewed the first law as valid in any reference frame moving with uniform
velocity relative to the fixed stars;[25] that is, neither rotating nor accelerating relative to
the stars.[26] Today the notion of "absolute space" is abandoned, and an inertial frame in
the field of classical mechanics is defined as:[27][28]

An inertial frame of reference is one in which the motion of a particle not

“ subject to forces is in a straight line at constant speed. ”
Hence, with respect to an inertial frame, an object or body accelerates only when a
physical force is applied, and (following Newton's first law of motion), in the absence of
a net force, a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will continue to move
uniformly—that is, in a straight line and at constant speed. Newtonian inertial frames
transform among each other according to the Galilean group of symmetries.

If this rule is interpreted as saying that straight-line motion is an indication of zero net
force, the rule does not identify inertial reference frames, because straight-line motion
can be observed in a variety of frames. If the rule is interpreted as defining an inertial
frame, then we have to be able to determine when zero net force is applied. The problem
was summarized by Einstein:[29]

The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an

“ argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far
from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only
by the fact that it moves without acceleration. ”
There are several approaches to this issue. One approach is to argue that all real forces
drop off with distance from their sources in a known manner, so we have only to be sure
that we are far enough away from all sources to ensure that no force is present.[30] A
possible issue with this approach is the historically long-lived view that the distant
universe might affect matters (Mach's principle). Another approach is to identify all real
sources for real forces and account for them. A possible issue with this approach is that
we might miss something, or account inappropriately for their influence (Mach's
principle again?). A third approach is to look at the way the forces transform when we
shift reference frames. Fictitious forces, those that arise due to the acceleration of a
frame, disappear in inertial frames, and have complicated rules of transformation in
general cases. On the basis of universality of physical law and the request for frames
where the laws are most simply expressed, inertial frames are distinguished by the
absence of such fictitious forces.

Newton enunciated a principle of relativity himself in one of his corollaries to the laws of
motion:[31][32]

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.

This principle differs from the special principle in two ways: first, it is restricted to
mechanics, and second, it makes no mention of simplicity. It shares with the special
principle the invariance of the form of the description among mutually translating
reference frames.[33] The role of fictitious forces in classifying reference frames is pursued
further below.

[edit] Separating non-inertial from inertial reference

frames
Main article: Fictitious force
See also: Non-inertial frame, Rotating spheres, and Bucket argument

Figure 2: Two spheres tied with a string and rotating at an angular rate ω. Because of the
rotation, the string tying the spheres together is under tension.

Figure 3: Exploded view of rotating spheres in an inertial frame of reference showing the
centripetal forces on the spheres provided by the tension in the tying string.

Inertial and non-inertial reference frames can be distinguished by the absence or presence
of fictitious forces, as explained shortly.[34][35]

The effect of his being in the noninertial frame is to require the observer to
“ introduce a fictitious force into his calculations…. ”
The presence of fictitious forces indicates the physical laws are not the simplest laws
available so, in terms of the special principle of relativity, a frame where fictitious forces
are present is not an inertial frame:[36]
 The equations of motion in a non-inertial system differ from the equations in
“ an inertial system by additional terms called inertial forces. This allows us to
”
detect experimentally the non-inertial nature of a system.

Bodies in non-inertial reference frames are subject to so-called fictitious forces (pseudo-
forces); that is, forces that result from the acceleration of the reference frame itself and
not from any physical force acting on the body. Examples of fictitious forces are the
centrifugal force and the Coriolis force in rotating reference frames.

How then, are "fictitious' forces to be separated from "real" forces? It is hard to apply the
Newtonian definition of an inertial frame without this separation. For example, consider a
stationary object in an inertial frame. Being at rest, no net force is applied. But in a frame
rotating about a fixed axis, the object appears to move in a circle, and is subject to
centripetal force (which is made up of the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force). How
can we decide that the rotating frame is a non-inertial frame? There are two approaches to
this resolution: one approach is to look for the origin of the fictitious forces (the Coriolis
force and the centrifugal force). We will find there are no sources for these forces, no
associated force carriers, no originating bodies.[37] A second approach is to look at a
variety of frames of reference. For any inertial frame, the Coriolis force and the
centrifugal force disappear, so application of the principle of special relativity would
identify these frames where the forces disappear as sharing the same and the simplest
physical laws, and hence rule that the rotating frame is not an inertial frame.

Newton examined this problem himself using rotating spheres, as shown in Figure 2 and
Figure 3. He pointed out that if the spheres are not rotating, the tension in the tying string
is measured as zero in every frame of reference.[38] If the spheres only appear to rotate
(that is, we are watching stationary spheres from a rotating frame), the zero tension in the
string is accounted for by observing that the centripetal force is supplied by the
centrifugal and Coriolis forces in combination, so no tension is needed. If the spheres
really are rotating, the tension observed is exactly the centripetal force required by the
circular motion. Thus, measurement of the tension in the string identifies the inertial
frame: it is the one where the tension in the string provides exactly the centripetal force
demanded by the motion as it is observed in that frame, and not a different value. That is,
the inertial frame is the one where the fictitious forces vanish. (See Rotating spheres for
original text and mathematical formulation.)

So much for fictitious forces due to rotation. However, for linear acceleration, Newton
expressed the idea of undetectability of straight-line accelerations held in common:[32]

If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of
“ parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will continue to move among
themselves, after the same manner as if they had been urged by no such
forces. ”
This principle generalizes the notion of an inertial frame. For example, an observer
confined in a free-falling lift will assert that he himself is a valid inertial frame, even if he
is accelerating under gravity, so long as he has no knowledge about anything outside the
lift. So, strictly speaking, inertial frame is a relative concept. With this in mind, we can
define inertial frames collectively as a set of frames which are stationary or moving at
constant velocity with respect to each other, so that a single inertial frame is defined as
an element of this set.

For these ideas to apply, everything observed in the frame has to be subject to a base-line,
common acceleration shared by the frame itself. That situation would apply, for example,
to the elevator example, where all objects are subject to the same gravitational
acceleration, and the elevator itself accelerates at the same rate.