1 2
7 8 9 30 31
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Derakon wrote:
There must be some energy loss for the pencil to stop. In an ideal setting (no losses from friction, air resistance, etc. and no outside inputs after the initial impulse), I'm not seeing where this energy would go. Thus in such a setting, the pencil should continue rolling indefinitely even on a level surface. As soon as you slope the surface up, though, the pencil will start making net KE -> PE trades with each revolution, and will eventually lack the KE to push itself over the energy barrier to the next revolution. My question then is, what is the uphill slope at which the pencil will start rolling back down instead of coming to a stop? :)
There's friction in this problem, it clearly mentions "friction prevents any sliding". Also, non-elastic collisions reduce the mechanical energy of the prism. This problem was actually proposed at an important physics event, there's nothing wrong with it. And yes, by horizontal axis, it means that the prism is aligned with the plane.
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
Ah, then you're talking about a non-ideal situation, and it's generally a good idea to clarify that. :) You did mention friction preventing sliding, but it's usually a good idea to specify that some energy will be lost from these interactions. That gets sufficiently involved that I don't really feel up to trying to work it out.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
p4wn3r wrote:
There's friction in this problem, it clearly mentions "friction prevents any sliding". Also, non-elastic collisions reduce the mechanical energy of the prism. This problem was actually proposed at an important physics event, there's nothing wrong with it.
I'm no physicist (nor even very good at it), but it sounds to me like the problem is too underspecified to give a simple answer. If there is friction that prevents sliding, it also means that some of the energy will be lost due to the friction. This would, I assume, depend on how much friction there actually is. How much of the energy will be lost due to the friction? I don't dare to even guess (other than it's probably not a simple linear formula). What is the formula for the amount of mechanical energy lost due to a non-elastic collision? What does this depend on? I assume there is such a formula, but I have no idea what it could be. What I don't understand is that if the collision is completely non-elastic (at least in theory, of course; in real life there's no such a thing), why is there energy loss? Where is this energy going? Dissipated as heat? (But wouldn't that require an elastic collision?)
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4017
I think you have it backwards - elastic collisions are where no energy is lost (Ke of body 1 + Ke of body 2 = a constant before and after the collision), non-elastic collisions are where energy is lost (friction, heat, crumple zones, air resistance...)
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Patashu wrote:
I think you have it backwards - elastic collisions are where no energy is lost (Ke of body 1 + Ke of body 2 = a constant before and after the collision), non-elastic collisions are where energy is lost (friction, heat, crumple zones, air resistance...)
I suppose I got confused about what "elastic collision" means.
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (749)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
p4wn3r wrote:
Also, I believe this is a typo, because it should have a square root, but didn't influence the posterior steps:
marzojr wrote:
Ut(τ) = dt(τ)/dτ = 1 / {1 - v(τ)2 / c2}
You are correct, there should have been a square root there.
p4wn3r wrote:
I like classical mechanics more. I'll post a problem I could solve with some considerable amount of work. I think people here will find it interesting. [snip]
Hrm. That problem is more annoying than difficult. I will give a hint to those going on the wrong direction: the friction is completely irrelevant except that it prevents sliding. Note that at each stage of the motion, there is one edge of the pencil touching the inclined plane; this edge will act as the axis of rotation for the pencil for about 60 degrees, when one face of the pencil will hit the incline and the axis of rotation will switch to the next edge of the pencil. Hence, at each such stage, the friction acts at the axis of rotation, hence it does not generate torque and does not alter rotational kinetic energy.
Marzo Junior
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
That was my reading as well. The friction is all static friction just to have a momentarily-fixed axis of rotation. So presumably any losses would have to come from the transition from one axis of rotation to another, during the apparently not-fully-elastic collision. I never did learn inelastic collision mechanics
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Derakon wrote:
Ah, then you're talking about a non-ideal situation, and it's generally a good idea to clarify that. :) You did mention friction preventing sliding, but it's usually a good idea to specify that some energy will be lost from these interactions.
Okay, interpretation is often a part of the question, but I'll clarify it. The situation is really non-ideal, there's friction and the prism can lose energy interacting with the plane, more specifically when it collides with it. Other than that, you don't need to consider other friction forces in the rolling motion besides the static one. As many have said, the actual friction coefficient doesn't matter, it's just necessary to keep in mind that it prevents sliding and friction/other dissipative forces can take some of its energy in the collision. In your latest post, I think you got the idea.
marzojr wrote:
Hrm. That problem is more annoying than difficult.
If you say so... I think it depends on what one thinks where difficulty lies, on the complexity and abstract nature of the more advanced concepts or in the continuous application of theorems/laws of the subject. Personally, I think the latter poses greater difficulty because providing shorter solutions to potentially exhaustive problems takes a lot more experience to master. However, I have to admit that physics is not very flexible to problem making. While in math, for example, you can make a problem solvable in 10 lines that will pose a challenge to many research mathematicians, in physics this is considerable harder, so difficulty is often achieved by making the problem bigger. I understand that many users won't have the time nor the interest to do all the necessary algebra though. I'll consider the problem solved if someone gives a precise description of the method and laws/theorems used to achieve the solution.
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (749)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
p4wn3r wrote:
I understand that many users won't have the time nor the interest to do all the necessary algebra though. I'll consider the problem solved if someone gives a precise description of the method and laws/theorems used to achieve the solution.
In either case, I suppose I am disqualified because I not only already knew the problem, I already saw different solutions in the form of articles that were published about it.
Marzo Junior
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Well, it's been here long enough. The method to solve: Because of the small concavity, any force that will act during the collision will be applied at the new axis of rotation. Thus, there won't be any torque with relation to this axis and angular momentum will be conserved. From this relation, we can get the ratio of the angular velocity of the prism before the impact to the one after it. Since there's no sliding, the prism only rotates and its kinetic energy is only rotational and proportional to the square of its angular velocity. From this, we get the ratio of energy lost during the collision. We're also able to deduce the relation of the kinetic energy of the pencil immediately before the (n+1)th collision to the energy immediately before the nth collision. It can be seen as the amount of energy that didn't dissipate in the collision plus the potential energy it gained while going down the plane. We find the limit of the kinetic energy as n goes to infinity. If this limit is too small, the prism will eventually hit the plane, lose some energy and won't have enough mechanical energy to lift its center of mass to the highest point and won't be able to continue its movement. Therefore, the smallest angle is the one that gives just enough asymptotic kinetic energy to lift the pencil after a collision. This final equation will give the angle. The execution is not as pretty. First of all, the angular momentum of a rigid body is intimately related to its moment of inertia, so we have to calculate it for the pencil. To do this, instead of considering an hexagon with a central axis, we calculate the moment of inertia for a regular triangular prism rotating along its edge and multiply the result by six. So, considering the edge of the hexagonal of length a, its density rho and its longitudinal length L, the moment of inertia is given by the double integral: It's convenient to express it in function of the mass, so by using the formula for the volume of an hexagonal prism: Using Steiner's theorem, we find the moment for the rotation about one of the pencil's edges: Now we're ready to analyze the motion. The following pictures show the pencil before, during and after a collision, respectively: http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af49/p4wn3r/hexagonbefore.png http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af49/p4wn3r/hexagonduring.png http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af49/p4wn3r/hexagonafter.png Notice that point B is at rest before the collision, so it suffers no force from the plane. The small concavity implies that all interaction will occur at point A only, and since collisions take short time, force Fc is much larger than the weight, normal and static friction. In a theoretical situation where they take infinitesimal time, the effect of those other forces is zero and we can assume that only Fc is acting during the collisions. Thus, we can find a relation between the two rotating movements noticing that angular momentum is conserved with respect to A. So, we calculate the angular momentum before the collision. It can be seen as the addition of the angular momentum about the center of mass plus the momentum the prism would cause in A if its mass were all shrunk in its center of mass: The angular momentum after is easier to find, because it's only a rotation about A: From the equality of these formulas, we get that the ratio of angular velocities after the collision is 11/17. Since K = I omega^2 / 2, we get the amount of energy that dissipated: Let K_n denote the energy immediately before the nth collision. Before the (n+1)th collision, it'll have 121/289 of the energy it had before plus the potential energy it gained from the descent of the center of mass. Geometrically, after a 60º revolution, the center of the hexagon is a distance of "a" units from where it was before, on a line inclined \theta from the horizontal. So, the vertical descent of it is a*sin(theta) and: It can be proved that, for small enough angles, this sequence converges (you can solve the linear recurrence or prove it's bounded and monotonic after a certain point). Say that the limit is K, then: Finally, we notice that, for the movement to continue, K cannot be too small. At the smallest angle, the kinetic energy the prism has after hitting the plane is just enough to give it enough potential energy to lift its center of mass to the highest position in the trajectory. Geometrically, we can see that the segment OA is (30º-\theta) from the vertical. When it rotates, the difference of height of the center will be a(1-cos(\theta)). By equaling the remaining kinetic energy after collision with the potential energy to lift it this high, we get the final equation (I use u=121/168): This last equation can be solved as any other type of a cos(x) + b sin (x) = c . We divide it by sqrt(a^2+b^2) and now the coefficients multiplying sin and cos obey the fundamental trigonometric relation and are the sine and cosine of another angle, and we can simplify it applying the sin(a+b) formula. I know many other physics problems whose solutions will make this one look very small :P
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
While cooking I thought about this: Suppose you want to boil 5 dl of water. Or in terms of a physics problem, you want it to reach a certain temperature. You have a pot and an electric stove. Consider two strategies: a) You just put the 5 dl of water in the pot and wait for it to reach the desired temperature. b) You first add 1 dl of water and wait for it to reach the desired temperature, then you add another dl and wait again for the desired temperature, and so on five times, until you have the 5 dl in the pot at the desired temperature. Is one of these methods faster, or are they equally fast?
Tub
Joined: 6/25/2005
Posts: 1377
Generally, you want to maximize the temperature gradient between stove and water, and minimize the temperature gradient between water and environment. Cold water is good in both cases. Strategy a) results in a lower water temperature in the pot, which is good. Keeping some water outside the pot at room temperature would prevent that part of water from losing heat, but if you do that, the water inside the pot will be a lot hotter - since it'll still have the same surface area, it'll radiate a lot more heat. There are a lot of other factors that come into play. A microwave oven doesn't depend on classic heat transfer. A higher temperature gradient will also cool your stove, which could hamper or kill a campfire. It'd also cause a regular stove to drain more electricity to keep its temperature if it's self-regulating. If it isn't, the stove's temperature is another factor. Since you mentioned boiling, that's another problem: as soon as your water gets hot enough to evaporate, you'll be losing a lot of heat (even with a lid), which is another reason to stick with a). For your standard stove-and-a-pot example, I'm pretty sure a) is preferable. You could construct an example where strategy b) is better, but that wouldn't be a very common one.
m00
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I think Tub is right, but there is one factor that might give a slight edge to B, though probably not enough to actually make that strategy the better one. The issue is circulation. Because temperature gradient is important, stirring would make it heat up a little faster, by preventing the water near the bottom from being any hotter than the average for the pot. This is why convection ovens have a fan to circulate the air within the oven. That said, the act of pouring more water in would circulate things an appreciable amount, but I still think that A is faster.
Has never colored a dinosaur.
Skilled player (1637)
Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy
Can anyone explain this in easy to understand language? In the decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[16] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[17][18] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[16] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory,[19] or more currently M-theory, and, on the other hand, it may be a background independent theory such as loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I can't answer your question, but I thought that the major hurdle in developing a theory of quantum gravity was that gravity is not renormalizable. Anyways, I have always wondered why scientists seem to assume that there is a unified theory of quantum gravity. Couldn't it be at least conceivable that gravity is a completely separate and independent phenomenon, and that there simply is no connection between it and QM? In other words, there is no unified theory to be found.
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4017
Warp wrote:
Anyways, I have always wondered why scientists seem to assume that there is a unified theory of quantum gravity. Couldn't it be at least conceivable that gravity is a completely separate and independent phenomenon, and that there simply is no connection between it and QM? In other words, there is no unified theory to be found.
If there are no rules that describe how a system evolves under quantum and relativistic/gravitic effects, how then does the universe decide?
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Patashu wrote:
If there are no rules that describe how a system evolves under quantum and relativistic/gravitic effects, how then does the universe decide?
I didn't understand that question at all.
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4017
Warp wrote:
Patashu wrote:
If there are no rules that describe how a system evolves under quantum and relativistic/gravitic effects, how then does the universe decide?
I didn't understand that question at all.
Quantum mechanics are very good at describing very small things. Relativity is very good at describing large things. No theory incorporates the principles of both, e.g. describing both small and large effects simultaneously in the same system. Yet the universe can describe both small and large effects simultaneously in the same system (otherwise it would desync with itself) so it must be possible to come up with one. (otherwise this statement would be impossible)
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Patashu wrote:
Yet the universe can describe both small and large effects simultaneously in the same system (otherwise it would desync with itself) so it must be possible to come up with one. (otherwise this statement would be impossible)
What do you mean "the universe can describe"? The universe is not a sentient being. And what do you mean by "desync"? What kind of "desync"? Water and glass have basically nothing to do with each other, yet it's perfectly possible to have a glass containing water. They are completely separate and independent, and the existence of one does not depend on the existence of the other, yet they can form a stable whole. The glass can have an effect on the water (eg. it determines its shape) but that doesn't mean that one is dependent on the other. Quantum mechanics describes the nature of energy (in its different forms, such as radiation and matter). Gravity is caused by the geometry of spacetime. Spacetime could be the "glass" container, energy could be the "water". They can co-exist while still being completely independent and separate, and one can affect the other (eg. energy can affect the geometry of spacetime).
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (749)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
@Patashu: you are confusing what we know with what there is; we don't know (yet) how to describe gravity and quantum mechanics correctly at the same time; we have only knowledge of gravity on the large scale, and quantum knowledge on the small scale. That we can't integrate them both does not mean it is impossible, or that it doesn't exist, only that our knowledge of the universe is still incomplete. @DarkKobold: GR is totally and completely deterministic; spacetime geometry is determined by the contents (energy/matter/momentum/stress/pressure) of the universe, which in turn determines how matter moves. Spacetime is an integral part of dynamics, and you can't separate the motion of matter from it. Finally, GR is ultra-deterministic: all of the history of spacetime exists and is completely defined from the outset. In fact, GR is even more deterministic than either Newtonian physics or special relativity -- since it allows (in theory, at least) time travel ("closed timelike curves") under some special circumstances, it results in a history consistent with time travel in any spacetime that allows it. In QM, the position and momentum of matter/energy are "undefined" until you measure (the most "orthodox" interpretations are probabilistic theories); spacetime is the "backdrop" against which QM happens. QM is inherently probabilistic, and you can only predict the statistics of any system -- you are powerless to predict the outcome of a single run of an experiment. Since you can't define the locations and motion of matter in QM, you can't compute the spacetime geometry, and in turn you can't define how matter moves. There is more to it, but this is one of the most important points.
Marzo Junior
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4017
marzojr wrote:
@Patashu: you are confusing what we know with what there is; we don't know (yet) how to describe gravity and quantum mechanics correctly at the same time; we have only knowledge of gravity on the large scale, and quantum knowledge on the small scale. That we can't integrate them both does not mean it is impossible, or that it doesn't exist, only that our knowledge of the universe is still incomplete.
I wasn't arguing that o.O I was arguing that since the universe can evolve systems under both quantum and relativistic/gravitic effects correctly and consistently, we can come up with theories that evolve them in the same way since nothing the universe does is uncomputable.
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
arflech
He/Him
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Patashu wrote:
nothing the universe does is uncomputable
not true, goddidit :-P
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4017
arflech wrote:
Patashu wrote:
nothing the universe does is uncomputable
not true, goddidit :-P
Can god determine if a turing machine halts or not? Can god build the part of himself that determines if a turing machine halts or not, and then determine if that halts or not?
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Patashu wrote:
nothing the universe does is uncomputable.
So we can easily write algorithms that are uncomputable (in a finite time) as computer programs, but nevertheless "nothing the universe does is uncomputable"? Doesn't sound right. I think there's a lot of confusion on concepts and terms here.
Patashu
He/Him
Joined: 10/2/2005
Posts: 4017
Warp wrote:
Patashu wrote:
nothing the universe does is uncomputable.
So we can easily write algorithms that are uncomputable (in a finite time) as computer programs,
By definition, if an algorithm is uncomputable you can't write it as a computer program. XD
My Chiptune music, made in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu My twitch. I stream mostly shmups & rhythm games http://twitch.tv/patashu My youtube, again shmups and rhythm games and misc stuff: http://youtube.com/user/patashu
1 2
7 8 9 30 31