Mach's principle: A response to Mashhoon and Wesson's paper (Q5891661)

Barbour replies to the paper by \textit{B. Mashhoon} and \textit{P. S. Wesson} [Ann. Phys., Berlin 524, No. 2, A44 (2012; Zbl 1246.83264)]. The main point of the ongoing discussion is the status of Mach's principle, and the question in which theories it is fulfilled. The most problematic part of the related research is the fact, that till now, no generally accepted version of that principle exists. Of course, almost all authors agree with formulations like: Mach's principle from 1883 states that the definition of what an inertial frame of reference is, depends on the distribution of mass in the Universe.NEWLINENEWLINEThe differences in the views appear if one goes into the details, e.g., whether one has to take really all masses in the Universe or only those from a small neighbourhood around the particle of interest. As a consequence, there is even no general agreement of whether Einstein's general relativity theory fulfills that principle. Another point of disagreement in the literature is the question of whether testing the validity of Mach's principle within a given theory is a purely theoretical question or whether this can only be done by experiments or observations.NEWLINENEWLINEThe present paper clearly describes these differences, and cites also several original papers in the reference list.