Codex @codex  0

In the ideal kinetic friction model, the loss of combined mechanical energy of the two contacting bodies becomes thermal internal energy at rateThis follows by adding the contact powers $f_{k}v$ and $-f_{k}U$ from Newton's third law. It depends on contact slip, whereas the contact power received by either body separately depends on its velocity in the chosen inertial frame. Thus positive frictional heating is compatible with increasing kinetic energy of one body, as the moving-belt example in kinetic friction shows. Heating need not cause a temperature rise if thermal energy escapes by heat transfer.

A gyroscope is a rotating instrument whose rapidly spinning, nearly symmetric rotor provides a direction reference through its angular momentum. In an inertial frame, negligible external torque approximately preserves that direction by conservation of angular momentum. A transverse torque turns the angular momentum instead: the surprising sideways motion of a supported spinning wheel is precession. An ideal freely falling test gyroscope in general relativity has its spin undergo parallel transport along its timelike geodesic. Comparing that direction with distant reference axes measures Lense-Thirring precession; the direction need not remain fixed in arbitrary rotating coordinates.

A gyroscope direction reference is useful precisely because its direction can persist while its housing turns. A spinning-wheel precession experiment deliberately supplies gravitational torque to reveal how that persistence fails. The gyroscope vector geometry explains the direction, and slow steady gyroscope precession gives a numerical prediction with a check on its assumptions.

For a rotor spinning about a principal axis with its support at the centre of mass, uniform gravity supplies no torque about that centre. With other external torques negligible, conservation of angular momentum preserves its direction in an inertial frame. A mount that permits free axis motion lets the housing rotate relative to that persistent direction, giving an orientation reference when external landmarks are unavailable. This is the useful limit opposite to the deliberately off-centre support in the spinning-wheel precession experiment. It supplies a direction, not a position or a full three-axis orientation from one axis alone.

For a small accumulated transverse torque about the centre of mass, the change in the direction unit vector is, to first order,Here $L$ is approximately constant over the short interval. Large angular momentum reduces drift for the same integrated transverse torque; parallel torque instead changes its magnitude. For $L=8.0\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$, a constant transverse torque of $0.010\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ over $1.0\mathrm{s}$ produces approximately $0.00125\mathrm{rad}$, or $0.0716^{\circ }$, of direction change. This is another synthetic calculation. The persistent direction belongs to an inertial frame; its components can change in a rotating reference frame even with zero external torque.

Choose a fixed support point $O$ and nonrotating axes in an inertial frame. All angular momenta, torques, and moments of inertia below refer to $O$. Let $\hat{\mathbf{e}}$ point along the axle from $O$ toward the centre of mass, and let $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ point vertically upward. Write $\theta$ for their angle. For a rapidly spinning symmetric top, the dominant angular momentum is ${\mathbf{L}}_O\simeq L_s\hat{\mathbf{e}}$, where $L_s=I_3{\omega }_3$ is signed and $I_3$ is the axial principal moment of inertia. The sign of the axial angular velocity ${\omega }_3$ follows the right-hand rule.

With mass $M$, centre of mass distance $d$, and constant gravitational acceleration $g$, the gravitational force and its torque areAn ideal support applies a force at $O$, so its lever arm and torque about $O$ vanish. At the instant the axle lies in the $xz$ plane with a positive $x$ component, the gravitational torque points along $+y$. It adds $d{\mathbf{L}}_O={\mathbf{\tau }}_{O}dt$ toward $+y$, rather than along the downward force. The dot product identity $d|{\mathbf{L}}_O{|}^2/dt=2{\mathbf{L}}_O\cdot {\mathbf{\tau }}_O$ shows why perpendicular torque changes direction without instantly changing magnitude. This vector balance and the slow-turning relation ${\mathbf{\tau }}_O=\mathbf{\Omega }\times {\mathbf{L}}_O$ are developed in Chapter 20: Rotation in space (sections 20-2 and 20-3, equations 20.13–20.15).

For steady precession about the vertical, $\mathbf{\Omega }=\Omega \hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $d\hat{\mathbf{e}}/dt=\Omega \hat{\mathbf{z}}\times \hat{\mathbf{e}}$. Equating the two cross products givesThe angular momentum tip traces a circle of radius $|L_s|\sin \theta$: its sideways speed is $|\Omega L_s|\sin \theta$. Both that radius and the gravitational lever arm contain $\sin \theta$, explaining its cancellation for $0<\theta <\pi$. Exactly vertical alignment has zero gravitational torque and no distinguishable azimuthal precession to infer by this cancellation. Positive $L_s$ gives positive precession, counterclockwise viewed from above; reversing the spin reverses the slow precession. ^[ref]

Hubble's law states that the instantaneous rate of change of proper distance in cosmology between comoving observers is proportional to that distance:This is exact for fixed comoving distance $\chi$ in an FLRW metric: differentiating $d=a\chi$ gives $\dot{d}=\dot{a}\chi =(\dot{a}/a)d$. The dot uses cosmic time, and both distances are compared on spatial slices at the same cosmic time. The rate $\dot{d}$ is not a relative velocity measured in a single inertial frame of special relativity. Thus the instantaneous relation is not an exact observed redshift-distance formula. The associated Hubble flow describes the ideal expansion; peculiar velocities describe departures from it.

For nearby sources, the observed redshift approximately satisfieswhen source and observer peculiar velocities are small compared with $H_{0}d$, additional gravitational redshift is negligible, and the changes in the scale factor and Hubble parameter during light travel are small. Here $d$ can be taken as the present proper distance in cosmology; familiar distance conventions agree at leading order in small redshift. Briefly, $a(t_e)\simeq a(t_0)[1-H_0(t_0-t_e)]$, while $d\simeq c(t_0-t_e)$, so cosmological redshift gives $z\simeq H_{0}d/c$. At greater redshift, use an expansion history and an explicit distance convention instead.

Stipulate the illustrative Hubble constant $H_0=70\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ and speed of light $c=299792.458\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. A $\mathrm{Mpc}$ is a million parsecs. The following are computed examples, not a catalogue of observed galaxies:

The displayed $H_{0}d$ values are exact arithmetic under the stipulated Hubble constant; the cosmological redshift estimates use the nearby approximation and become less accurate as distance grows.

Hubble's law turns a nearby observed redshift into an approximate distance indicator and makes the uniformity of cosmic expansion tangible: twice the proper distance in cosmology means twice the instantaneous separation rate. Recentring the ideal Hubble flow on another comoving observer preserves the same proportionality, as illustrated under scale factor, so recession in every direction does not select a central observer.

In his 1929 PNAS paper, Edwin Hubble presented a relation between the distances and radial velocities of extragalactic objects. His fits gave coefficients of $465$ and $513\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ for 24 individual objects and nine groups respectively, and he used about $500\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ as a rounded representative value. Those historical fits used the paper's distance estimates; they are distinct from the stipulated modern-scale illustration above. ^[ref].

Conservation of four-momentum forbids an isolated massive initial particle from decaying into a single photon: the initial Minkowski norm is $m^2{c}^2>0$, while the final norm would vanish. This argument is independent of inertial frame. A second final particle or external recoil changes the problem because the total final four-momentum need not be null.

Inertia is a body's persistence in its state of rest or constant velocity when the net external force vanishes in an inertial frame. It is not an extra force that pushes a moving body forward. Newton's first law describes this persistence; for a point mass, Newton's second law quantifies how a nonzero net external force changes its momentum. At constant mass, ${\mathbf{F}}_{\mathrm{net}}=m\mathbf{a}$, so a larger mass gives a smaller acceleration for the same net force.

A moving cart does not need a forward net force to maintain its velocity. Ordinary carts slow because friction and drag force produce an opposing net external force; reducing those interactions reveals Newton's first law more clearly. The air-track test of inertial motion separates this persistence from the initial push. In overdamped particle dynamics, the inertial acceleration term is small compared with drag force over the time scales considered; that approximation does not mean that inertia has disappeared.

The inertia tensor packages the moments of inertia about every axis through a specified point $O$ into one symmetric matrix. An axis still needs a direction: if $\mathbf{n}$ is a unit vector, its scalar moment of inertia is $I_{O,\mathbf{n}}={\mathbf{n}}^T{\mathbf{I}}_O\mathbf{n}$. The same mass layout can therefore be easy to spin about one direction and harder about another. The inertia tensor also determines rotational kinetic energy and relates angular velocity to angular momentum in the appropriate rigid body model.

Take position vectors $\mathbf{r}=(x,y,z)$ relative to $O$, expressed in an orthonormal basis. For point masses $m_a$, or a continuous distribution with mass density $\rho$ and $dm=\rho dV$,Here ${\delta }_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. Equivalently, using the identity matrix $1$ and an outer product,Every entry has SI units $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The diagonal entries are axial moments of inertia; the off-diagonal entries carry a minus sign in this convention. Some texts instead define the integrals without the prefixed minus sign $\int xydm$, $\int xzdm$, $\int yzdm$ as their named off-diagonal quantities and put the minus signs into the displayed matrix. Check that convention before combining formulas. ^{[ref] [ref]}

The symmetric matrix is positive semidefinite, because its quadratic form isThe dot product and cross product identify this as a sum of squared distances when $\mathbf{u}$ is a unit vector. A zero moment of inertia occurs precisely when all the mass lies on that axis, up to sets of zero mass. A genuine three-dimensional body with positive mass density in a volume has strictly positive axial moments of inertia. Do not confuse this inertia tensor with the mass second-moment tensor $\mathbf{S}=\int \mathbf{r}{\mathbf{r}}^{T}dm$: they obey ${\mathbf{I}}_O=\mathrm{tr}(\mathbf{S})1-\mathbf{S}$, where $\mathrm{tr}$ denotes the matrix trace.

If $O$ is fixed in an inertial frame and each velocity is $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{r}$, summing the individual kinetic energies and angular momenta givesThese formulas also describe angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy relative to the centre of mass $G$ of a translating rigid body. In that case the total kinetic energy in the inertial frame is $K_{\mathrm{total}}=\frac{1}{2}M|{\mathbf{V}}_G{|}^2+\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{\omega }}^T{\mathbf{I}}_G\mathbf{\omega }$. For a general moving point $O$, the body's actual velocities include ${\mathbf{V}}_O$, so ${\mathbf{I}}_O\mathbf{\omega }$ alone need not be its angular momentum about $O$. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Changing the orthonormal basis changes components, rather than the physical distribution: if the columns of an orthogonal matrix $Q$ are the new basis vectors expressed in the old basis, then ${\mathbf{I}}_O^{\prime }=Q^T{\mathbf{I}}_{O}Q$. Changing the reference point is a different operation, governed by the tensor parallel-axis theorem. Both principal axes and principal moments of inertia must therefore be quoted with their reference point.

For a fixed collection of two constant-mass bodies in an inertial frame, separate their mutual forces from the resultant external force on each:Adding the two Newton's second law equations and using Newton's third law givesThis is the proof of internal-force cancellation in system momentum. For more bodies, each internal force cancels with its partner once both appear in the sum. A boundary that excludes one interacting body leaves its force in the external force sum. A massive connecting spring must also be included, or its own changing momentum accounted for; its two endpoint forces are not automatically one third-law interaction pair between the carts.

Zero resultant external force gives momentum conservation; complete absence of external forces is sufficient but unnecessary. For constant total mass $M$, the centre of mass has velocity $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{P}/M$ and obeys $Md\mathbf{V}/dt={\mathbf{F}}_{\mathrm{ext}}$. Internal interactions can move the parts apart while leaving the centre of mass moving uniformly.

Additional external forces do not invalidate the identified mutual pair. At the $4\mathrm{N}$ instant above, suppose a hand also exerts $+3\mathrm{N}$ on $A$. The mutual forces remain $-4\mathrm{N}$ and $+4\mathrm{N}$, but the net forces become $-1\mathrm{N}$ on $A$ and $+4\mathrm{N}$ on $B$. Consequently $a_A=-1m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, $a_B=+2m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, $dP/dt=+3\mathrm{N}$, and the centre of mass has acceleration $+1m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. Pair equality by itself does not promise constant total momentum.

Starting from rest, compose $n$ positive collinear Lorentz boosts, each with the same finite rapidity $\alpha >0$. Each step has relative velocity $w=c\tanh \alpha$, measured in the preceding rest inertial frame. The relativistic velocity-addition formula givesThese are equal increments of rapidity, not equal increments of velocity measured in the original inertial frame. They can describe a chain of relatively moving inertial frames or successive idealized changes of a massive particle's motion; no particular acceleration schedule is assumed. ^[ref].

For a relative velocity $w=c/2$ at each step,The first four velocities are $u_0=0$, $u_1=c/2$, $u_2=4c/5$, and $u_3=13c/14$. At step eight, $u_8/c=3280/3281\approx 0.99969521$. The rapidities grow by the same amount at each step, while the successive velocity increments become smaller.

A short derivation applies the hyperbolic-function identity for $\tanh (a+b)$ to the recurrence, giving ${\theta }_{n+1}={\theta }_n+\alpha$. Substituting $\tanh x=(e^{2x}-1)/(e^{2x}+1)$ and $e^{2\alpha }=3$ gives the displayed closed expression. In particular,for every finite nonnegative integer $n$. The limit is $u_n\to c$ as $n\to \infty$, but no finite sequence reaches the speed of light. This illustrates the beauty of rapidity: unbounded additive parameters coexist with bounded physical velocities. Replacing every step by a negative rapidity gives the corresponding approach to $-c$.

Kinetic energy is the energy associated with motion. For a nonrelativistic point mass of mass $m>0$, measured in a specified inertial frame,Here $\mathbf{v}$ is velocity and $v$ is speed; $T$ is another common symbol for kinetic energy. The dot product makes $K$ nonnegative regardless of the direction of velocity. At fixed mass, doubling speed quadruples kinetic energy: a $2\mathrm{kg}$ point mass at $2m/s$ has $4\mathrm{J}$, whereas at $4m/s$ it has $16\mathrm{J}$. The SI units are $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{s}}^2=\mathrm{J}$. Different reference frames can assign different velocities and therefore different kinetic energies. ^[ref]

A short outline explains why kinetic energy has this formula. In a nonrelativistic inertial frame, constant mass and Newton's second law give, using the chain rule,Integrating over time proves the work-energy theorem, $W_{\mathrm{net}}=K_f-K_i$. The net force is the sum of all forces, and $W_{\mathrm{net}}$ is their total work, not merely the work of a chosen driving force. This route to final speed is useful when the forces as functions of position are known but the full motion as a function of time would be harder to find. ^[ref]

In the running example, a $2\mathrm{kg}$ point mass starts at rest and receives a constant net $3\mathrm{N}$ force through $4\mathrm{m}$. Its net work is $12\mathrm{J}$, soAt any intermediate distance $x\ge 0$, $K(x)=(3\mathrm{N})x$ and $v(x)=\sqrt{2Fx/m}$: kinetic energy is a linear function of distance, while speed is proportional to the square root of distance. If a net opposing $3\mathrm{N}$ braking force subsequently acts for $4\mathrm{m}$, it does $-12\mathrm{J}$ of work and brings this point mass to rest. Negative net work decreases kinetic energy; it does not make kinetic energy negative. Beyond the stopping point the motion must be reconsidered, since the point mass cannot keep moving forward with a negative $K$.

Kinetic energy also makes the exchange with potential energy intuitive: a falling body's loss of gravitational potential energy can appear as increased kinetic energy. The formula above applies when speed is small compared with the speed of light; at higher speeds, special relativity changes the expression. ^[ref]

For an isolated decay of a parent of rest mass $M$ into products of rest masses $m_i$, the difference between total final and initial kinetic energies is $(M-{\sum }_i{m}_i)c^2$ in every inertial frame. Conservation of total energy and inclusion of all products are essential.

Kinetic friction is friction during nonzero contact slip. For one-dimensional motion along a surface, choose right as positive and write $v$ for the body's contact-point velocity and $U$ for the surface's contact-point velocity, both measured in the same inertial frame. The signed relative velocity is $w=v-U$. The ideal Coulomb law for the tangential force on the body isHere $N\ge 0$ is the magnitude of the normal force, ${\mu }_k\ge 0$ is the coefficient of kinetic friction, and $\mathrm{sgn}$ is the sign function. Thus kinetic friction opposes contact slip, which can differ from the body's direction of motion. In several tangential directions the same law reads ${\mathbf{f}}_k=-{\mu }_{k}N\mathbf{w}/|\mathbf{w}|$ for a nonzero tangential relative velocity $\mathbf{w}$. The magnitude law is documented in Ling, Sanny and Moebs, OpenStax University Physics 1, §6.2: static and kinetic friction.

For a stipulated toy model, take a nonrotating box with mass $m=1\mathrm{kg}$, normal force $N=10\mathrm{N}$, coefficient of static friction ${\mu }_s=0.5$, and coefficient of kinetic friction ${\mu }_k=0.3$. These are assumed model parameters, rather than measured properties of any particular pair of materials; the prescribed normal force is consistent with horizontal support under $g=10m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and no other vertical forces. On stationary ground, a box already sliding right has $f_k=-3\mathrm{N}$. With an applied horizontal force $F=6\mathrm{N}$ to the right, Newton's second law gives $a=(F+f_k)/m=3m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, for as long as rightward contact slip persists.

Direction is clearer by comparing two instantaneous states of this same model. If the box has $v=1m/s$ on stationary ground, $U=0$ and $w=+1m/s$, so kinetic friction acts left with magnitude $3\mathrm{N}$. If the box still has $v=1m/s$ but a belt beneath it has $U=2m/s$, then $w=-1m/s$: kinetic friction acts right with magnitude $3\mathrm{N}$, even while the box moves right.

In the belt case, the power delivered to the box is $P_{\mathrm{box}}=f_{k}v=+3\mathrm{W}$. With no other horizontal force, its kinetic energy therefore increases by the work-energy theorem. By Newton's third law, the box exerts $-f_k$ on the belt, so the contact power delivered to the belt is $P_{\mathrm{belt}}=-f_{k}U=-6\mathrm{W}$. Their sum is $-3\mathrm{W}$: frictional heating produces thermal internal energy at $3\mathrm{W}$. An ideal motor maintaining the prescribed belt velocity supplies $+6\mathrm{W}$ against this contact load, neglecting other losses, so its input divides into $3\mathrm{W}$ of box kinetic energy and $3\mathrm{W}$ of frictional heating. These are instantaneous rates, since the box's velocity subsequently changes. This balance follows directly from power as force times velocity and conservation of energy; the power law is given in Ling, Sanny and Moebs, OpenStax University Physics 1, §7.4: power.

When contact slip vanishes, including a transition to rolling without slipping, the nonzero-slip law no longer applies. Determine the required static friction from the no-slip condition and the equations of motion, then test its bound. Substituting $\mathrm{sgn}(0)=0$ into the sliding law would incorrectly exclude a nonzero static friction.

Use local east, north, and up unit vectors, with $x$ eastward, $y$ northward, and positive orientation $\psi$ anticlockwise as viewed from above. Let $\phi$ be signed geographical latitude, positive north, and $\Omega >0$ the magnitude of Earth's angular velocity. In the spherical-Earth approximation,Here $g$ is the local effective gravity in a rotating frame, including the steady terrestrial centrifugal acceleration. For small horizontal displacements compared with $\ell$, the horizontal restoring acceleration from tension is $-{\omega }_0^2(x,y)$. Vertical displacement is second order in the swing amplitude, so vertical velocity can be omitted at this order. The horizontal Coriolis acceleration in local Earth coordinates then gives the coupled linear differential equationsThese equations neglect damping, finite-amplitude corrections, support anisotropy, and spatial changes of the centrifugal force of order ${\Omega }^2$; they retain the leading terrestrial Coriolis force. A related derivation uses south/east axes instead.^[ref]

Introduce the complex number $z=x+iy$. Multiplying the second equation by $i$ and adding givesSet $z=e^{-i\alpha t}u$. Direct differentiation cancels the first derivative of $u$ and yieldsThe ${\alpha }^2$ in $\beta$ comes from solving these reduced equations exactly; it is not a complete prediction of terrestrial corrections of order ${\Omega }^2$. Thus the horizontal trajectory is an ellipse in coordinates rotating at angular velocity $-\alpha$ relative to the building. When $|\alpha |\ll {\omega }_0$, each rapid swing samples an almost fixed long axis; its slow precession isThe sidereal day $T_{\mathrm{sid}}=2\pi /\Omega$ is a rotation relative to distant directions. $T_{\mathrm{p}}$ denotes a full $2\pi$ turn of a continuously followed orientation; an unlabelled swing line repeats after $T_{\mathrm{p}}/2$. At the equator there is no finite precession period in this model. The Coriolis parameter is $f=2\alpha$, so the plane's rate is $-f/2$, not $-f$.

The limiting cases check the sign and scale. At the north pole $\alpha =\Omega$: the swing direction turns clockwise once per sidereal day. At the equator $\alpha =0$: both horizontal equations reduce to independent simple harmonic motions and a line launch stays on its original line. At the south pole $\alpha =-\Omega$: the direction turns anticlockwise once per sidereal day. Vanishing horizontal precession at the equator does not mean that every component of Coriolis acceleration vanishes there.

For a stipulated $\Omega =7.292115\times 10^{-5}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the sidereal day is approximately $23.9345\mathrm{h}$. At $45^{\circ }$ north the predicted rate is $-10.6356^{\circ }/\mathrm{h}$ and $T_{\mathrm{p}}\simeq 33.8485\mathrm{h}$; at $45^{\circ }$ south the rate changes sign. At the illustrative geographical latitude $34^{\circ }$ south, the prediction is $+8.4109^{\circ }/\mathrm{h}$. These calculations are model predictions, not new observations of the UNSW apparatus.

A swing plane fixed among the stars is generally only a polar picture. A north–south swing at the equator turns with Earth in an inertial frame, while having no precession against the building.^[ref]

A light clock measures time by counting round trips of a light pulse between mirrors. In its rest frame, mirrors separated by $h$ give a tick duration $2h/c$, where $c$ is the speed of light. Comparing this round trip in another inertial frame provides the geometric time dilation argument above.

The light cone of a spacetime event $O$ consists of $O$ together with the spacetime events having null separation from it. In the coordinates of an inertial frame centered on $O$, it obeysFor $t>0$ it traces an expanding spherical flash of light, with radius $ct$ at time $t$; for $t<0$ it describes possible incoming light rays. A spacetime diagram with one spatial coordinate shows the two lines $x=\pm ct$. The apparent $45^{\circ }$ angle uses equal scales for $x$ and $ct$ and is not a separate physical angle.

The light cone is the boundary, while its interior has timelike separation from $O$. An outgoing light ray follows the boundary; a future-directed massive observer's world line remains inside it. The exterior has spacelike separation: no signal travelling at or below the speed of light can connect its spacetime events directly to $O$. This separates possible causal influence from merely being assigned a later coordinate time.

In the diagram, $A=(4\mathrm{s},3\mathrm{ls})$ is inside the future boundary, $N=(3\mathrm{s},3\mathrm{ls})$ is on it, and $B=(2\mathrm{s},3\mathrm{ls})$ is outside. Their squared Minkowski intervals are respectively $-7,0,5$ in ${\mathrm{ls}}^2$. Thus $B$ occurs later than $O$ in the displayed inertial frame while still being unable to receive a light-speed-or-slower signal sent from $O$.

The usefulness is immediate for an experiment: a detector's reading can depend on a source event only if a causal influence can reach it. A Lorentz boost changes coordinates but preserves this classification. For a boost with $\beta =0.8$ and Lorentz factor $\gamma =5/3$, applying the Lorentz transformation gives, in light-second length units,The corresponding squared Minkowski intervals remain $-7,0,5$. In particular $B$ is now earlier than $O$, which is allowed for spacelike separation; $A$ remains later.

A Lorentz boost relates inertial frames moving at a constant relative velocity without an additional spatial rotation. In units with light speed one, the displayed transformation preserves $t^2-x^2$, with Lorentz factor $\gamma =(1-v^2{)}^{-1/2}$. Applying it to a static classical field-theory soliton produces a uniformly moving solution in a Lorentz-invariant theory.

Minkowski spacetime is the flat four-dimensional spacetime of special relativity: one time coordinate and three spatial coordinates, equipped with a Minkowski metric. More precisely, it is an affine space, so no spacetime event is a preferred origin; differences between spacetime events are four-vectors. Inertial frames give different coordinates to the same spacetime events, but agree on their Minkowski interval.

This geometry answers two different measurement questions with one structure. Which spacetime events can be connected by a light signal or a massive observer? The light cone classifies them. How much time does a moving clock record? Its world line and the Minkowski metric determine its proper time. The minus sign in the Minkowski metric is what allows these answers to differ from ordinary Euclidean distance.

For a concrete one-space-dimensional slice, start at the origin $O$ and measure $t$ in seconds and $x$ in light-seconds. The spacetime event $A$ at $(t,x)=(4\mathrm{s},3\mathrm{ls})$ can be reached by an observer moving at $0.75c$, whereas $B=(2\mathrm{s},3\mathrm{ls})$ would require $1.5c$ to be reached directly from $O$. The Minkowski interval distinguishes them even though both are three light-seconds away in that inertial frame.

Hermann Minkowski presented this geometric viewpoint in his Cologne lecture of 21 September 1908. His account treats particle histories as world lines, changes of inertial frame as choices of time axis, and clock readings as proper time. These are connected geometric ideas, rather than separate corrections to ordinary mechanics.^[ref]

The moment of inertia about a specified axis measures how a mass distribution resists changes of angular velocity about that axis. For point masses $m_i$ at perpendicular distances $r_{\perp i}$, or a continuous distribution with mass density $\rho$,Its SI unit is $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The distance is to the entire axis, not to one point on it: moving a point mass along the axis leaves its contribution unchanged. The moment of inertia depends on both the distribution and the chosen axis; it is not determined by total mass alone. About an axis fixed in an inertial frame, a rigid body with larger moment of inertia has smaller angular acceleration under the same net axial torque, and greater rotational kinetic energy at the same angular speed.^[ref]

For a simple model, put four equal point masses of total mass $M$ on light rigid spokes at radius $a$. Their moment of inertia is $M{a}^2$. Doubling $a$ quadruples the moment of inertia without changing $M$. The illustrated placements $a=R/3$ and $a=R$ give $M{R}^2/9$ and $M{R}^2$. Actual spokes and finite-sized weights contribute their own moments of inertia; the point mass model neglects them. Repositioning weights during rotation also breaks the fixed-distribution assumption, so it requires a separate work and angular momentum calculation.

The moment of inertia of a uniform disc follows by dividing it into concentric annuli: $dm=(2M/R^2)rdr$ and $I={\int }_0^R{r}^2(2M/R^2)rdr=M{R}^2/2$. For an ideal thin ring every mass element is at $R$, so $I=M{R}^2$. A ring of finite radial thickness instead uses the moment of inertia of a uniform annulus, $I=M(R^2+b^2)/2$, with inner radius $b$. A moment of inertia is thus a compact summary of radial placement rather than a complete description of shape. For several joined pieces, their moments of inertia add only when each is calculated about the same axis.^[ref]

A physical pendulum makes the moment of inertia measurable through timing. Martín Monteiro, Cecilia Stari, Cecilia Cabeza and Arturo C. Martí used a metal bar with suspension holes $1.0\mathrm{cm}$ apart and an attached smartphone. They report bar length $1.199\mathrm{m}$, bar mass $0.2518\mathrm{kg}$ and phone mass $0.1311\mathrm{kg}$. Changing the suspension hole changes the pivot axis. Their readouts were phone gyroscope angular velocity records, analyzed by autocorrelation or a fit to a sinusoid, and an independent photogate; the logged records for the sinusoid fits lasted $10\mathrm{s}$. They observed agreement between the three timing methods and the geometry-based model, including a minimum of oscillation period as the suspension point varied. These are reported apparatus details and observations, not measurements made for this article.^[ref]

To infer a moment of inertia from such a measurement, determine the total mass $M_{\mathrm{tot}}$ including every attached part, locate the assembly's centre of mass $G$, and measure its distance $h>0$ below the horizontal pivot $O$. Record successive crossings in the same direction, or the elapsed time $t_N$ for $N$ complete oscillations, giving oscillation period $P=t_N/N$. The physical pendulum model with a fixed pivot, a uniform gravitational field, negligible friction and the small-angle approximation givesThe crossing times, masses and geometric distances are the measured inputs; $I_{O,\mathrm{inferred}}$ is an inference conditional on this model, while an integral over the assumed shape supplies an independent model prediction. The parallel axis theorem converts the inferred pivot moment of inertia to one about a parallel axis through $G$. The controls and interpretation of that comparison are described there. An axial measurement determines one scalar moment of inertia, not the complete inertia tensor needed for general rotation.

For a nonrelativistic point mass of fixed mass $m>0$, measured in an inertial frame, its momentum isMomentum is a vector pointing along the velocity, with International System of Units unit $\mathrm{kg}m/s$. Doubling either mass or velocity doubles momentum. In one dimension, a chosen positive direction makes $p=mv$ a signed quantity: a $2\mathrm{kg}$ body moving right at $3m/s$ has $p=+6\mathrm{kg}m/s$; moving left at the same speed gives $p=-6\mathrm{kg}m/s$. ^[ref]

For a collection, total momentum is the vector sum $\mathbf{P}={\sum }_i{m}_i{\mathbf{v}}_i$. Two equal masses moving with opposite velocities can have zero total momentum while both have positive kinetic energy. Direction is therefore essential when using momentum conservation; adding speeds instead of signed velocities gives the wrong balance.

Newton's second law connects the net force on one fixed-mass point mass to its momentum through ${\mathbf{F}}_{\mathrm{net}}=d\mathbf{p}/dt$. Integrating that change gives impulse. Here $\mathbf{p}$ denotes mechanical momentum; when canonical momentum differs from mass times velocity, the distinction in mechanical momentum below applies. The nonrelativistic formula also has a limited regime: special relativity is needed at speeds comparable with the speed of light.