Re: About absolute reference frame......

socratus wrote:
1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
is absolute.
2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
is absolute.
3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
stars is absolute.
4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.

Your use of "proved" is too strong. "assumed" would be much more accurate.

Note also that the word "absolute" has many connotations, many of which do not really hold here.

In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on which locally-inertial frame one references them to. That means there is no "absolute frame" in modern physics, for suitable meanings of "absolute". I put it in quotes, because these phrases have such nebulous and variable meanings that one must be careful in interpreting them.

In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is "absolute" in the sense that at the location of earth it is a specific locally-inertial frame. But it is not "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are any different in it than in other locally-inertial frames (this was the meaning of "absolute" in ~century old aether theories, among others; all have been soundly refuted by experiments). That frame is no more "absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at rest. Or my little finger.


And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
What is farther?

I don't know what you are trying to ask. While current theories of physics have no "absolute frame", there just might be future theories which do so, but they necessarily must be constructed so it is exceedingly difficult to detect the "absolute frame", because of the absence of such detection in current experiments[#]. These possible future theories are related to quantum gravity....

[#] There are some people around here who claim that some
experiments have detected an "absolute frame", or the
"absolute motion of the earth", or somesuch. They are
wrong, and basically don't understand what experimental
physics is.


Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... stresses, but as for time being frame dependent, I have no clue ... that explanation were Lorentz, ... Physics can be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... stresses, but as for time being frame dependent, I have no clue ... that explanation were Lorentz, ... Physics can be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Axes of Evil are East of Eden II
    ... the absolute velocity of the Earth when a Michelson-Morley ... Century particle mechanics automatically guaranteed absolute ... The inertial frame falls freely weightless in what is called ... velocity violates the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • The Axes of Evil are East of Eden II
    ... the absolute velocity of the Earth when a Michelson-Morley ... Century particle mechanics automatically guaranteed absolute ... The inertial frame falls freely weightless in what is called ... velocity violates the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • The Axes of Evil are East of Eden II
    ... the absolute velocity of the Earth when a Michelson-Morley ... Century particle mechanics automatically guaranteed absolute ... The inertial frame falls freely weightless in what is called ... velocity violates the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast