Absolute Rotation: Newton or Mach?

The development of modern physics in the form of relativity theory and quantum mechanics came out from an idea that classical Newtonian mechanics must be wrong because it appears to ask for both absolute space/position and absolute time/change and so absolute motion. 

But this is a misconception since it is clear from Newton's laws of motion that both space/position and time/change is relative. In particular Newton's 2nd Law for inertial motion with $v$ velocity and $t$ time 

• $\frac{dv}{dt} =  0$          (or more generally a 2nd Law of the form $\frac{dv}{dt} =  f$ with $f$ force/unit mass)

is invariant under shifts to $v+v_0$ and $t+t_0$ with constants $v_0$ and $t_0$, referred to as Galilean invariance. Inertial motion is thus relative, which means that some outside reference is required. Traveling in a car you cannot determine speed without looking outside (or on a speedometer setting the reference). The essence of the 2nd Law is to connect material motion to force.

So Newton was full aware that inertial motion is relative, but he took a step further and asked if non-inertial motion such as rotation can be detected in an absolute sense without outside reference? He then used his famous rotating water bucket experiment to argue that a curved water surface indicates rotation without outside reference. This was questioned by Mach who suggested that in fact an outside reference must be involved as the totality of all celestial objects. 

Who is then right Newton or Mach? Check out this recent video by Alexander Unzicker.

Other examples showing that rotation of a system can be detected within the system without outside reference build on the Coriolis force creating winds in a rotating Earth atmosphere (below) and mysteriously appearing when seeking to change radial distance on a carousel. Foucault’s pendulum in Pantheon showed that the Earth is rotating.

A variant of Newton's bucket experiment involves a system of two equal masses joined by a weightless elastic spring for which rotation can be discovered by examining the length of the spring compared to its tensionless rest length, which can be inspected by disassembling the system.  

In the same way it is possible to determine if the whole Universe is rotating and observations show that it is not. 

To me it thus seems pretty clear that Newton was right, and so the key motivation of Einstein that he was wrong, is not valid. More support to this view is given here. I have asked Unzicker about his view and will report.   

The development of quantum mechanics also found motivation from an idea that the physics of atoms could not be captured in terms of understandable deterministic Newtonian mechanics, and so required a whole new form of non-deterministic mechanics beyond understanding and scientific agreement today taking the form of standard quantum mechanics stdQM. RealQM presents an alternative to stdQM in a setting of classical Newtonian continuum mechanics.

Einstein introduced his special theory of relativity based on a principle of Lorentz invariance in contradiction to the Galilean invariance of Newton's 2nd Law, while asking for mercy: Newton, forgive me!

To sum up: Both relativity theory and stdQM are formed as corrections to supposedly incorrect Newtonian mechanics and so loose rationale if after all Newton is not incorrect... 

Recall that Einstein's special relativity came out from an apparent clash between Newtonian material motion and immaterial Maxwellian light propagation with Newton carrying the guilt. An alternative to special relativity is presented as Many-Minds Relativity connecting Newtonian material motion and immaterial propagation of light through a Doppler effect leading to a modified 2nd Law of the form $\frac{dv}{dt}=(1+v)f$ with $v>-1$. 

PS Unzicker says that he believes that Mach is correct, as a working hypothesis without proof (yet).