What is an Inertial Coordinate System?

Arguably the single most important insight leading to the development of modern
science was the recognition of a class of spatio-temporal coordinate systems in terms of
which the motions of bodies satisfy (to high precision) a very simple set of
mathematical relations, namely, Newton's laws of motion. The content of these laws
consists of the assertion that for any isolated system of material particles the total
quantity of motion (defined as mass times velocity) in any direction is conserved. In
terms of a suitable system of space and time coordinates x,y,z,t this can be expressed by
saying that the three quantities

for any isolated system of n particles are constant. If we consider a single isolated
particle (meaning not subject to any external influence), this implies that the speed and
direction of motion of any such particle is constant, which represents Newtons first
law. For two isolated particles, these equations imply that the rates of change of their
individual momenta must be equal and opposite, which represents the combined
empirical content of Newtons second and third laws. Given one such suitable system
of coordinates we can define infinitely many others by applying either a simple rotation
or a boost transformation to the coordinates. (In Newtons day a boost was considered
to be a Galilean transformation, although today we would apply a Lorentz
transformation.) These transformations are essentially defined to preserve suitability,
i.e., they are defined such that in terms of the resulting coordinates the three quantities
given above are constant for any isolated system of particles.

Newton's laws, as defined above, are obviously not valid in terms of arbitrary systems
of coordinates. In order for those laws to be valid, the coordinates must be such that
inertia is both homogeneous (the same at every place and time) and isotropic (the same
in every direction). These requirements, together, are sufficient to fully determine the
suitable coordinate systems (up to arbitrary scale factors), and since this definition is
based on the properties of inertia, we may called such systems inertial coordinate
systems. However, this term tends to be misleading, because although it is true that the
coordinates themselves must be inertial, in the sense that any object whose position is
stationary in terms of these coordinates must be in inertial motion (i.e., must be
unaccelerated), this is not sufficient to ensure that all the conditions of an inertial
coordinate system are satisfied. We must also require that, if an objects spatial
coordinates are linear functions of the time coordinate, then it is in inertial motion,
which implies that the coordinate axes must be linear not only in time (i.e.,
unaccelerated) but also in space. These conditions are sufficient to ensure that Newtons
first law is satisfied, but they are still not sufficient to ensure that all three of Newtons
laws are formally satisfied in terms of these coordinates. So far we have only imposed
the requirement of inertial homogeneity, but the coordinates must also satisfy the
requirements of isotropy.

In order to fully specify the class of suitable coordinate systems in terms of which the
laws of mechanics are valid, we must not only stipulate that the coordinates are defined
such that free particles move at uniform speed in straight lines (i.e., Newtons first law) ,

1 de 9
we must also impose a suitable definition of simultaneity at spatially separate points.
Without this, Newtons third law is not generally satisfied (not even approximately).
This is a crucial aspect of the classical definition of what we may call Newtonian
coordinate systems. To understand the significance of this condition, consider the
figure below, which shows three different systems of space and time coordinates,
denoted by (x,t), (x',t'), and (x",t").

Any path that is a straight line with respect to one of these systems is a straight line with
respect to all of them, so if one of them (say, x,t) is a Newtonian coordinate system, then
Newton's first law (and arguably his second law) is satisfied with respect to each of
these three coordinate systems. However, Newton's third law is not satisfied with
respect to all of these coordinate systems. The transformation from (x,t) to (x',t') is of
the form

for constants , , and . Hence any straight line x = at + b maps to the straight line

Now suppose identical particles initially resting at the common origin of (x,t) and (x',t)
exert a mutual impulse on each other, causing them to accelerate away from the spatial
origin. According to Newton's third law, the net impulse exerted on these particles is
equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so they acquire the velocities v and v
with respect to the (presumed inertial) x,t coordinate system. (Note that this symmetrical
impulse form of the third law is unambiguously applicable, even in a relativistic
context). The paths of the two particles after the impulse are therefore described by the
equations x = vt and x = vt. Thus we have b = 0 and a = v, so the paths of the two
particles with respect to the x',t' system are

In other words, when described in terms of the x',t' coordinate system, two identical
particles initially at rest and exerting a mutual impulse on each other depart from the
origin at speeds whose magnitudes are in the ratio (1 + v) / (1 v), so Newton's third
law (in combination with the second) is violated unless equals zero.

2 de 9
This isn't just a minor detail. It is crucial for a meaningful understanding of reference
frames and mechanics. The coordinate systems in terms of which the resistance to
acceleration of a resting object is the same in all directions are not fully specified by the
requirement to be unaccelerated, i.e., by the requirement to satisfy Newton's first law.
The space and time components of a Newtonian inertial coordinate system must
satisfy all three of Newton's laws, and this amounts to the imposition of an operational
simultaneity. This aspect of inertial coordinate systems was clearly recognized at the
very beginnings of the modern science of dynamics in the writings of Galileo, who
wrote (in "Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems") about leaping in different
directions on the deck of a moving ship, noting that with equal force we will reach equal
distances (implicitly in equal times), regardless of the direction. This essentially
expresses Newton's third law and the conservation of momentum, which necessarily
entails a specific operational definition of simultaneity, namely, inertial simultaneity.
Unfortunately, this early insight seems to have been mostly forgotten by around 1900,
when Poincare and Einstein were credited as the first to suggest the need for an
operational definition of simultaneity. In truth the operational definition of simultaneity
entailed by Newtons third law had already been in use for over two centuries. The real
contribution of physicists in the early 1900's was to recognize that electromagnetic
simultaneity (i.e., synchronization based on light signals) and inertial simultaneity (i.e.,
synchronization based on mechanical inertial isotropy) are identical, thereby making it
feasible to unify mechanics and electromagnetism within a single relativistic
framework.

Given the convoluted history of the subject, it is perhaps not surprising that there is very
widespread confusion in the literature (at all levels) as to the necessary and sufficient
conditions for the laws of mechanics to be satisfied in terms of a given system of
coordinates. This confusion can be seen even in the unusually thoughtful presentation in
E. T. Whittakers historical introduction to relativity:

According to Newton's First Law of Motion, any particle which is free from the action of
impressed forces moves, if it moves at all, with uniform velocity in a straight lineWe can
assert as a fact of experience that certain systems of axes exist such that free particles move in
straight lines with reference to them. Moreover, we can assert that there exist certain ways of
measuring time such that the velocity of free particles along their rectilinear paths is uniform. A
set of axes in space and a system of time-measurement, which possess these properties, may be
called an inertial system of reference. In Newtonian mechanics, if S is an inertial system of
reference, and if S' is another system such that the axes of S' have any uniform motion of pure
translation with respect to the axes of S, and if the system of time-measurement is the same in
the two cases, then S' is also an inertial System of reference: the Newtonian laws of motion are
valid with respect to S' just as with respect to S.

The problem here as in almost the entire literature on this subject is the invalid
extrapolation from Newtons first law to all of Newtons laws. Whittaker correctly notes
that the first law is satisfied only in terms of space and time coordinates that are not
accelerating, but then he jumps to the assertion that the Newtonian laws (plural) of
motion are valid with respect to these same systems an assertion that is patently false.
Compatibility with Newtons first law is not sufficient to ensure compatibility with the
second and third laws. To cement the confusion, the phrase inertial coordinate system
is commonly used interchangeably to refer to (1) coordinate systems compatible with
Newtons first law, and (2) coordinates systems compatible with all three of Newtons
laws, despite the fact that the latter are only a subset of the former. There ought to be

3 de 9
two different terms for these distinct sets of coordinate systems, but unfortunately a
single term is used for both.

A further source of confusion when attempting to unravel the overlapping definitions is

due to the fact that Newtons second and third laws, in their usual formulations, entail
not just the essential symmetries of inertia but also, implicitly, the assumption that
relatively moving systems of fully symmetrical coordinate systems are related by
Galilean transformations, an assumption now known to be false. Therefore, we need to
extract the essence of Newtons three laws and separate them from assumptions about
coordinate transformations. The factual essence of the Newtonian and Galilean concept
of inertia is that there exists a system of space and time coordinates in terms of which
mechanical inertial is both homogeneous and isotropic. Homogeneity corresponds to the
fact that free objects move uniformly in straight lines (i.e., Newtons first law), and
isotropy corresponds to the fact that two identical resting objects acting against each
other acquire equal and opposite speeds in equal times (representing the factual content
of Newtons second and third laws). By rights such coordinate systems deserve the
name inertial, because they are the unique coordinate systems in terms of which
inertia is maximally symmetrical, but unfortunately the word inertial carries
connotations from its use as an adjective for material objects. A material object
possesses only an individual world-line within spacetime, and the object may be called
inertial if its space coordinates are linear functions of the time coordinate. In other
words, an object is inertial if and only if it is unaccelerated. In contrast, a system of
coordinates is much more extensive than a single worldline, and is not fully specified
merely by requiring the absence of acceleration. Coordinate systems can be defined in
infinitely many ways, but if we are to define our coordinate system in terms of inertia,
we need to stipulate not only the homogeneity but also the isotropy of inertia. Without
both of these requirements, the coordinate system is under-specified. Hence the term
inertial when applied to coordinate systems means more than just that free objects are
unaccelerated, it means that the resistance to acceleration of a resting body is the same
in all spatial directions.

Despite this, the most common definition of the term inertial coordinate system
appearing in the literature is simply a coordinate system compatible with Newtons first
law. It is, of course, permissible to define the term inertial coordinate system in this
way, but then we must recognize that (1) the systems so defined are not fully specified,
and (2) inertia is not generally isotropic in terms of coordinate systems that satisfy only
this partial definition. Unfortunately, almost every published reference on the subject (at
all levels) not only defines inertial coordinate systems purely in terms of Newtons first
law, they then immediately assume these coordinate systems are thereby fully defined
(which they arent) and that Newtons second and third laws hold good in terms of these
coordinates (which they dont).

Considering the central importance of Newtonian inertial coordinate systems (and the
equivalence classes known as inertial reference frames), its unfortunate that nearly all
modern textbooks give seriously deficient definitions of inertial coordinate systems.
From a large sampling of texts at all levels, it appears that every one of them claims that
a necessary and sufficient condition for a reference frame to be inertial is simply that it
is unaccelerated, and then they go on to claim that all of Newtons laws (or their
relativistic counterparts) are valid in terms of these coordinate systems. A coordinate
system is compatible with Newtons laws, they say, if and only if, with respect to that

4 de 9
system, every object not subject to an external force moves at uniform speed in a
straight line. As explained above, this is false. Satisfaction of Newton's first law of
motion is not sufficient to define an inertial coordinate system if, by inertial
coordinate system we mean a system of space and time coordinates in terms of which
the laws of mechanics are formally valid. Sometimes these texts invoke the second law
instead of the first, but they are used for the same purpose, i.e., simply to establish that
the reference frame is unaccelerated. The formal definition of inertial reference frames
given in every one of these sources fails to require that the third law be satisfied, despite
the fundamental importance of this requirement.

Needless to say, we can define terms any way we like, and it would be permissible to
define the phrase inertial coordinate system as simply a characterization of a large
class of coordinate systems, a small subset of which are fully compatible with the laws
of mechanics, but this cannot be what the text books are doing, because they
immediately assert that their definition based solely on Newtons first law is sufficient
to ensure compatibility with all the laws of mechanics, which is clearly false. So either
they are defining the term inertial coordinate system incorrectly, or they are
incorrectly describing the properties of those systems. It seems most reasonable to
reserve the expression inertial coordinate system to those systems of space and time
coordinates in terms of which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic, because this is
sufficient to unambiguously define a unique reference frame for each state of motion.
On this basis, the definition of inertial coordinate systems given in all existing modern
text books (at least all I have seen) is wrong. (I restrict this to modern texts, because
clearly Galileo, Newton, and the other 17th century originators of modern physics
understood the need for inertial isotropy, but this understanding seems to have been lost
in the intervening centuries. If it had not been forgotten, scientists would never have
regarded the concept of an operational definition of simultaneity to be novel when it
was re-introduced by Poincare and Einstein.)

As a typical example of the (deficient) definition of inertial reference frames, here is

how the standard college text, Physics, by Halliday and Resnik defines them:

...it is possible to find a family of reference frames in which a particle [free of applied forces] has
no acceleration. The fact that bodies stay at rest or retain their uniform linear motion in the
absence of applied forces is often described by assigning a property to matter called inertia.
Newton's first law is often called the law of inertia and the reference frames to which it applies
are called inertial frames. ...an inertial frame... is a reference frame that is either at rest or is
moving at constant velocity with respect to the average positions of the fixed stars; it is the set of
reference frames defined by Newton's first law, namely, that set of frames in which a body will
not be accelerated if there are no identifiable force-producing bodies in its environment.

As mentioned previously, it is permissible to define inertial frame in this limited

sense, but unfortunately Halliday and Resnik go on to assert that all three of Newtons
laws are (approximately) valid in terms of inertial frames, an assertion that would be
true only if we define inertial frame in the full sense, stipulating isotropy as well as
homogeneity. Of course, this reduces all of Newtons laws to tautologies, albeit
extraordinarily useful ones. They essentially amount to the definition of Newtonian
inertial coordinate systems, and the usefulness of this definition arises from the fact that
such coordinate systems actually exist.

By the way, in addition to the deficiency of Halliday and Resniks definition due to its
failure to invoke the third law, we should mention that the phrase "observations made

5 de 9
from an inertial frame" is pedagogically awful. Such statements have no real meaning,
and serve only to mislead and confuse students, because everything is "in" an inertial
frame. In fact, everything is in infinitely many inertial frames, so to talk about making
observations "from" an inertial frame is sloppy at best, and at worst it's indicative of a
real lack of clarity in understanding. The same type of awful terminology appears
throughout the literature, even in books on the theory of relativity, where it is crucially
important to be clear and precise about the meaning of statements made in terms of
specific systems of reference.

In any case, Halliday and Resnik are not alone in presenting an erroneous definition of
the reference systems in terms of which Newtons laws are formally valid. To
substantiate the claim that the failure to invoke Newton's third law in the definition of
inertial reference frames is widespread, consider the following summary of the
definitions given in several well-known texts:

A reference frame is said to be inertial when... every test particle that is initially at rest, and
every test particle that is initially in motion, continues that motion without change in speed or in
direction. [Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler]

...in order not to introduce effects due to the acceleration of the observer, we must take care to
apply [the second law] in a frame that is itself unaccelerated. We refer to these as inertial frames.
In many situations, one can often effectively assume that an inertial frame of reference is one at
rest with respect to the earth. [Philosophical Concepts in Physics, Cushing]

...let us assume that we have found an inertial reference frame, and therefore that Newton's laws
apply for motions relative to this frame. It can be shown that any other reference frame that is
not rotating but is translating with uniform velocity relative to an inertial frame is itself an
inertial frame... For example, if system B is translating with constant velocity with respect to an
inertial system A, then... observers on systems A and B see identical forces, masses, and
accelerations, and therefore [the second law] is equally valid for each observer. [Principles of
Dynamics, Greenwood]

In order to fix an event in space, an observer may choose a convenient origin in space together
with a set of three Cartesian coordinate axes. We shall refer to an observer's clock, ruler, and
coordinate axes as a frame of reference... there exists a privileged set of bodies, namely those not
acted on by forces. The frame of reference of a co-moving observer is called an inertial frame.
[Introducing Einstein's Relativity, D'Inverno]

The reference frame attached to a [free-falling] spacecraft simulates an inertial reference frame:
a test particle at rest relative to the spacecraft remains at rest, a test particle in motion remains in
motion with uniform velocity. [Gravitation and Spacetime, Ohanian and Ruffini]

Inertial reference frame, defined by uniform velocity of free test particles... [Gravitation, Misner,
Thorne, and Wheeler]

Newton's first law serves as a test to single out inertial frames among rigid frames: a rigid frame
is called inertial is free particles move without acceleration relative to it. [Essential Relativity,
Rindler]

A conceptual framework, rigidly connected with some material body or other well-defined point,
is often called a frame of reference among all the frames of reference conceivable, there exists
a set of frames with respect to which the law of inertia takes its familiar form: In the absence of
forces, the space coordinates of a mass point are linear functions of the time. These frames of
reference are called inertial frames. It was found that all of the laws of mechanics take the same
form when stated in terms of any one of these inertial systems [Introduction to the Theory of
Relativity, P. G. Bergmann]

6 de 9
This list could be extended indefinitely. Essentially every text book perpetuates this
fundamental error by defining inertial coordinate systems (and frames) only using
Newtons first law, and then subsequently assuming inertia is isotropic in terms of those
coordinate systems an assumption which is generally false. Appeals to notion of a
rigid framework in these texts may have been thought to connote some sense of
simultaneity, but of course only a perfectly rigid structure could accomplish this, and no
such structure can exist. The most we can have is a static configuration in equilibrium,
but the mere existence of an equilibrium configuration of entities does not single out
any particular correspondence between the time coordinates assigned to those various
structure. When Poincare and Einstein began to speak explicitly about the need for an
operational definition of simultaneity, many physicists regarded it as a novel idea, but
only because they had forgotten that ever since Galileo the definition of simultaneity
implicit in Newtonian mechanics had always been operationally based on the isotropy
of inertia, which is contained in the complete definition of Newtonian inertial coordinate
systems.

Oddly enough, some of the modern textbook definitions seem to have been carried over
from one text to another. For example, Taylor and Wheeler introduce their formal
definition (quoted above) by discussing at length a spaceship in free-fall. They say "we
call such a space ship that rises and falls freely an inertial reference frame...", and then
they go on to talk about the motions of "test particles", terms and images that reappear
almost verbatim in Ohanian and Ruffini. (The first endorsement on the book cover of
the latter is from Wheeler, who wryly comments that it is the best gravitation book on
the market "of 500 pages or less". Wheeler's own Gravitation is over 1200 pages.) To
their credit, Ohanian and Ruffini do refrain from repeating the ridiculous statement that
a space ship is an inertial reference frame (is it any wonder that students presented with
such statements becomes confused, and begin to talk in terms of measurements
performed in an inertial reference frame?), but they carry over the fundamentally
deficient definition, failing to ever mention the necessity of imposing Newton's third
law in order to give a complete definition of Newtonian inertial coordinates, and never
acknowledging the crucial fact that this represents the imposition of a definite
operational simultaneity. This illustrates how difficult it is even professional scientists
who, on some level, must surely know better to free our minds from the Galilean
assumption of absolute simultaneity.

Another source of confusion over the definition of inertial coordinate systems arises
when we consider curvilinear coordinates. In this regard the confusion is not universal,
but still very prevalent, especially in introductory texts (where it is arguably most
important to be clear). One way of expressing Newtons second law is that the
acceleration of a particle equals the net force (per unit mass) applied to the particle, but
the meaning of acceleration is ambiguous without further specification. We might
identify it with the second derivative of the particles space coordinates with respect to
the time coordinate, but this corresponds to the true acceleration in the Newtonian sense
only for certain systems of coordinates. Most texts acknowledge that this
correspondence fails with respect to accelerating systems of coordinates, but they
overlook the fact that it also fails with respect to curvilinear space coordinates. Of
course, its possible to include terms in the equations of motion (in addition to the basic
second derivative) to compensate for curvilinear space coordinates, but it is equally
possible to compensate for curved time coordinates (i.e., acceleration). In both cases we
are simply dealing with systems of coordinates whose time and/or space axes are curves

7 de 9
relative to inertial worldlines. From this point of view, a system of stationary polar
coordinates (for example) is not an inertial system, just as a rotating system of
rectangular coordinates is not an inertial system. In both cases, inertial worldlines are
cannot be characterized by spatial coordinates that are linear functions of the time
coordinate.

Some of the confusion in the literature regarding this point is simply due to careless
quotations taken out of context. For example, one widely accessible reference begins its
discussion of inertial reference frames by quoting from the first paragraph of
Einsteins 1916 paper on general relativity, in which he briefly recounts the foundations
of special 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.

From this one might conclude that Einstein was claiming that physical laws hold good
in their simplest form in unaccelerated polar coordinate systems (for example) just as
they do in rectangular coordinate systems. But this overlooks the context in which
Einsteins comment was made. In composing a research article for professional
physicists, one does not always go back and review every elementary consideration.
Einstein took for granted that the meaning of system of coordinates in which physical
laws hold good in their simplest form would be understood as referring to rectangular
coordinates. This was described quite explicitly in Einsteins 1905 paper on special
relativity, where he defines two systems of inertial coordinates K and k as follows:

Let us in stationary space take two systems of coordinates, i.e., two systems each of three rigid
material lines, perpendicular to one another and issuing from a point

Thus in this context he is using the term system of coordinates as synonymous with
rectangular coordinates, i.e., coordinates whose axes are perpendicular straight lines.
This convention simplifies the discussion of special relativity, but it should not be taken
to suggest that every proposition about unaccelerated rectangular coordinate systems
also applies to unaccelerated systems with curvilinear spatial coordinates. Clearly the
Newtonian (or special relativistic) laws of mechanics do not take their simplest form
when expressed in terms of stationary curved spatial coordinates, so in that sense they
are not Newtonian coordinate systems, despite being unaccelerated.

Still another source of confusion is the concept of a reference frame, whose common
definitions are based on the false presumption of absolute simultaneity among systems
of inertial coordinates. The only meaningful definition of a reference frame is that it
consists of an equivalence class of mutually stationary coordinate systems. On this basis
a reference frame includes coordinate systems with both rectangular and curvilinear
spatial coordinates, and yet (as noted above) the laws of mechanics do not take the same
form in terms of all these systems. Again, the fact that its possible to compensate for
curvilinear coordinates by including extra terms in the equations of motion does not
imply that they should be considered as Newtonian inertial coordinate systems, because
we can just as well compensate for curvilinear time axes (i.e., acceleration), and yet we
dont conclude that these constitute inertial coordinate systems. Perhaps the most
relevant quotation from Einstein on this subject is from his 1949 autobiographical notes,
in which he described how in 1908 he had realized that it was necessary to extend the

8 de 9
special theory of relativity to accommodate nonlinear coordinate transformations (of
space as well as time):

Why were another seven years required for the construction of the general theory of relativity?
The main reason lies in the fact that it is not so easy to free oneself from the idea that coordinates
must have a direct metrical significance.

9 de 9