Can Area Remain Constant While Dimensions Expand? A Paradox in Geometry

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the paradox of whether the area of a box can remain constant while its dimensions expand, particularly focusing on the mathematical implications of this scenario. Participants explore the relationships between the dimensions of the box, the area of a cavity within it, and the effects of differentiating these quantities over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a mathematical model showing that if the area of the box and the cavity must remain constant, differentiating the area leads to a contradiction regarding the second derivative of the cavity area.
  • Another participant challenges the initial approach, suggesting that comparing second derivatives with linear approximations is not valid and recommends including second-order terms in the area calculations.
  • A third participant points out a potential error in the notation used for the terms in the expansion and questions whether the initial conditions were correctly applied.
  • Further, a participant introduces a simpler analogy using functions to illustrate the paradox, comparing coefficients of powers in their expansions to derive conclusions about the behavior of the area.
  • Another participant suggests that expanding the functions to second order could resolve the discrepancies noted in previous posts, indicating that additional terms may cancel out problematic results.
  • A later reply acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the order of expansion and expresses a shift in perspective based on the feedback received.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the initial mathematical approach and whether higher-order terms are necessary for a correct analysis. The discussion remains unresolved as participants explore various models and corrections without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding the expansion of dimensions and the treatment of derivatives, which may affect the conclusions drawn. The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationships involved and the need for careful mathematical treatment.

Chain
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
Imagine an box with initial dimension [itex]x_0[/itex] and [itex]y_0[/itex] with a cavity in the centre with area [itex]R^2[/itex]. Let's say the box gets stretched in the y-direction but that it's area and the area of the cavity must stay constant.

[itex]A=x_0y_0-R^2=x(t)y(t)-R^2[/itex] Differentiating with respect to time gives [itex]0=\dot{x}y+x\dot{y} \Rightarrow \dot{y}=-\dot{x}\frac{y}{x}[/itex]

Now let's consider what happens some infinitesimal time [itex]dt[/itex] after the initial setup:

[itex]x=x_0+\dot{x}(t=0)dt=x_0+\dot{x}_0dt \qquad y=y_0+\dot{y}(t=0)dt=y_0+\dot{y}_0dt[/itex]

[itex]R^2(t=dt)=xy-A=(x_0+\dot{x}_0dt)(y_0+\dot{y}_0dt)-A=(x_0y_0-A)+(\dot{x_0}y_0+x_0\dot{y_0})+\dot{x_0}\dot{y_0}dt^2 = R^2(t=0)+0-\dot{x_0}^2\frac{y_0}{x_0}[/itex]

Comparing this with the Taylor series for [itex]R^2[/itex]:

[itex]R^2(t=dt)=R^2(t=0)+\dot{R^2}(t=0)dt+\frac{\ddot{R^2}(t=0)}{2!}dt^2+ \cdots[/itex]

We can see from the coefficients of [itex]dt^2[/itex]:

[itex]\ddot{R^2}(t=0)=-2\dot{x_0}^2\frac{y_0}{x_0}[/itex]

In fact since the starting time is arbitrary and this formula will hold for all [itex]t[/itex] and this clearly contradicts the starting assumption that the area of the cavity stays constant! You could argue that maybe I should include higher order terms in the expansion of [itex]x[/itex] and [itex]y[/itex] before evaluating [itex]R^2[/itex] and that this may lead to terms that cancel the [itex]dt^2[/itex] term however doing this would only introduce new terms of order [itex]dt^3[/itex] or higher.

Any help would be much appreciated :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot compare second derivatives in R with linear approximations for the area, that does not give a meaningful result. Include the second order in R^2, and the result should be fine.
 
Chain said:
[itex]R^2(t=dt)=xy-A=(x_0+\dot{x}_0dt)(y_0+\dot{y}_0dt)-A=(x_0y_0-A)+(\dot{x_0}y_0+x_0\dot{y_0})+\dot{x_0}\dot{y_0}dt^2 <br /> [/itex]
[itex] <br /> [itex](\dot{x_0}y_0+x_0\dot{y_0})[/itex] should be [itex](\dot{x_0}y_0+x_0\dot{y_0}) dt[/itex] (not that it changes the fact the term is zero).<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> = R^2(t=0)+0-\dot{x_0}^2\frac{y_0}{x_0} </div> </div> </blockquote>[/itex]
Are you claiming [itex]R(t=0) = R(t = dt)[/itex] without setting [itex]dt = 0[/itex]?


Is this a simpler version of the paradox:

[itex]f(x) = x^2[/itex]
[itex]g(x) = \frac{1}{x^2}[/itex]
[itex]H(x) = f(x)g(x) = 1[/itex]

[itex]x = x_0 + dx[/itex]

[itex]H(x) \approx (f(x_0) + f'(x_0)dx)\ (g(x_0) + g'(x_0) dx)[/itex]
[itex]= (x_0^2 + 2x_0dx)(\frac{1}{x_0^2} + \frac{-2}{x_0^3}dx )[/itex]
[itex]= 1 - \frac{2}{x_0} dx + \frac{2}{x_0}dx - \frac{4}{x_0^2} dx^2[/itex]
[itex]= 1 - \frac{4}{x_0^2} dx^2[/itex] [eq. 1]

[itex]H(x) \approx H(x_0) + H'(x_0) dx + \frac{1}{2!} H"(x_0) dx^2 + ...[/itex]
[itex]= 1 + H'(x_0) dx + \frac{1}{2} H"(x_0) dx^2 + ...[/itex] [eq. 2]

Comparing eq. 1 & 2 and equating coeficients of powers of [itex]dx[/itex] gives:

[itex]H'(x_0) = 0[/itex]
[itex]H"(x_0) = - \frac{8}{x_0^2}[/itex] which is not constant.
 
@Stephen Tashi: I think that should be H(dx).

We can resolve the issue if we expand f and g up to second order: we get additional ##f(x_0)g''(x_0) dx^2 + f''(x_0)g(x_0) dx^2 = \frac{6}{x^2}dx + \frac{2}{x^2}dx = \frac{8}{x^2}dx##, which cancels the ##\frac{8}{x^2}## calculated in post 3. In a similar way, the missing second derivatives will cancel the term in post 1.
 
Ah okay so my mistake was to simply expand x and y only to first order then, for some reason I thought expanding to higher order would only produce terms of higher order but don't worry I'm convinced otherwise now.

Thank you for the replies!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K