I Calculations to prove the non-Euclidean nature of 3-D space

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a problem from Anthony French's "Newtonian Mechanics" that explores the non-Euclidean nature of 3-D space using a scenario involving walking on Earth's surface. Participants analyze whether points K and R, reached through different paths, are the same and discuss the calculations needed to determine their distance apart. There is clarification that points Q, K, and R are all on the same line of latitude, which corrects earlier confusion regarding their positions. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate representations in diagrams when dealing with geometric concepts. Ultimately, the thread highlights the complexities of navigating spherical coordinates and the implications of non-Euclidean geometry.
KedarMhaswade
Messages
35
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
This post asks about the precise conversion between the 3-d Cartesian and Spherical Polar coordinates. The problem is from Anthony French's book: Newtonian Mechanics.
In Anthony French's book, Newtonian Mechanics, while explaining the non-Euclidean nature of the 3-d space, he poses a problem (I have rephrased it slightly):
  1. Suppose you are on Earth's equator (r = 6,400 km) at the prime meridian (point I).
  2. You first walk along the equator 1000 miles east and reach another meridian at point J. You then walk 1000 miles north along that meridian and reach a point K (red arrows).
  3. You go back to point I and walk along the prime meridian 1000 north and reach a point Q on some small circle. You then walk 1000 miles east along that small circle and reach a point R (blue arrows).
Are K and R the same point? If not, what is the distance between those two points?

Here is the figure (zoomed in):
non-euclidean-space-zoomed.png


To simplify somewhat, we assume a sphere and therefore no geodesy is involved. I assume the physics convention of the Spherical Polar coordinates, i.e. the coordinates are: ##(r,\theta,\varphi)## where ##r## is the radius, ##\theta## is the polar angle, and ##\varphi## is the azimuthal angle.

My plan was to calculate Cartesian coordinates for K and R and determine the distance between the two. I guess I can make some progress on calculations, since the determination of ##r## (##6400 km##)and ##\theta_1## and ##\theta_2## appears straightforward. However, I am unsure how to calculate the ##\varphi## for the points K and R. For instance, in case of point K, ##\varphi## is different from the angle ##A_1## whose radian measure is ##\frac{1000\cdot 2\pi}{c}## where ##c## is Earth's circumference.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As a minor correction, the space defined by the surface of the [hypothetical ideally spherical] Earth is, two dimensional, not three dimensional. [Roughly speaking, the "dimension" of a space is the number of coordinates you need to specify a position within that space. Although you could use three coordinates (e.g. x, y and z), you only need two (e.g. latitude and longitude)].

Be that as it may, I have a concern with the drawing. As I understand it, both point Q and point R are 1000 miles north of the equator. Would that not put them on the same line of latitude?
 
jbriggs444 said:
Be that as it may, I have a concern with the drawing. As I understand it, both point Q and point R are 1000 miles north of the equator. Would that not put them on the same line of latitude?
Good point! I think you mean points K and R. I agree, they are at the same latitude. Will correct that.
 
For the record however, the book also shows a figure (pp. 60) where points K and R appear on different latitudes.
 
KedarMhaswade said:
Good point! I think you mean points K and R. I agree, they are at the same latitude. Will correct that.
Yes. It should be clear that Q, K and R are all on the same line of latitude. It is a lesson not to trust drawings too much.
 
I couldn't edit my post on this PF web interface :oops:. I redrew the figure. Hope it clarifies.
non-euclidean-space-zoomed-corrected.png
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top