Coordinate transformation for isotropy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical analysis of coordinate transformations to detect isotropy in gravitational motion. The participants explore the equations of motion for a ball dropped in a gravitational field, specifically comparing the original coordinate system (x, y) with a rotated system (x', y'). The key conclusion is that while the equations appear to suggest isotropy, the transformation must account for the non-zero acceleration in both frames, leading to the correct expression of motion as ##\ddot y' = -g \cos \theta##. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly applying transformations to both coordinates and derivatives.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with coordinate transformations and rotation matrices
  • Knowledge of gravitational potential energy concepts
  • Basic calculus, particularly differentiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of coordinate transformations in physics, focusing on rotation matrices
  • Learn about gravitational potential energy and its implications in different coordinate systems
  • Explore the concept of isotropy in physics and its mathematical representations
  • Investigate the application of second-order differential equations in motion analysis
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying mechanics, particularly those interested in the implications of coordinate transformations in gravitational systems.

gionole
Messages
281
Reaction score
24
The following question struck me by accident.

Would appreciate to let me know the flaw in my logic, no need to deviate from this approach.

We know that on small-scale, experiment such as dropping ball from some height to the earth tells us that space is non-isotropic, because of preferred direction. I was trying to mathematically detect non-isotropy of such case. Here is how.

Experiment 1:

in ##x, y## frame, we have: ##m\ddot y = -\frac{d}{dy}(mgy)## by which we get: ##\ddot y = -g##.

Experiment 2:

We rotate our own coordinate system, while everything stays in place. Some call this passive transformation. The rotation matrix is given by:

##y = x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta##
##x = x'cos\theta - y'sin\theta##

Since ##y = x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta## and earth stays the same place, potential energy of the ball doesn't really change, so we can replace ##y## by ##x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta## in the ##m\ddot y = -\frac{d}{dy}(mgy)## to get equation of motion in ##x', y'## frame.

##m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta) = -\frac{d}{dy'}(mg(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta))##

##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -gcos\theta##

##\ddot x'sin\theta = 0## since acceleration is non-present in that direction.

We're left with:

##\ddot y'= -g##.

It seems equation of motions of the ball is exactly the same in x,y and x',y' frame and this kind of suggests that space is isotropic, while we know that it's not isotropic. Where am I making a mistake ? I'm using general transformation matrix, so I shouldn't be needing to use specific ##\theta## insertions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gionole said:
##\ddot x'sin\theta = 0## since acceleration is non-present in that direction.
This is wrong because ##\ddot x'## is a linear combination of both ##\ddot x##, ##\ddot y## and ##\ddot y \neq 0##.
 
  • Like
  • Care
Likes   Reactions: gionole and Dale
renormalize said:
This is wrong because ##\ddot x'## is a linear combination of both ##\ddot x##, ##\ddot y## and ##\ddot y \neq 0##.
Ah, true, thank you. so we got:

##m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta) = -\frac{d}{dy'}(mg(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta))##

##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -gcos\theta##

how do I continue from this to get to the equation that only contains ##\ddot y'##
 
gionole said:
Ah, true, thank you. so we got:

##m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta) = -\frac{d}{dy'}(mg(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta))##

##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -gcos\theta##

how do I continue from this to get to the equation that only contains ##\ddot y'##
Remember that in the unprimed-frame you also have the second equation-of-motion (EOM) ##m\ddot x=0##. You should transform this equation as well so you end up with two EOMs to solve in the primed-frame.
 
  • Care
Likes   Reactions: gionole
In x,y frame, system of equations:

##\ddot x = 0## (1)
##\ddot y = -\frac{d}{dy}(gy)## (2)

we know that:

##x = x'cos\theta - y'sin\theta## (3)
##y = x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta## (4)

so, plugging (3) into (1), we get:

##\ddot x' cos\theta - \ddot y' sin\theta = 0##
##\ddot x' = \frac{\ddot y' sin\theta}{cos\theta}##

plugging (4) into (2),

##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -\frac{d}{dy}(g(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta)##

My first question is: should I now do ##\frac{d}{dy}## or ##\frac{d}{dy'}## ? We only changed ##y## by ##x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta##, so I guess, I can't change ##\frac{d}{dy}## by ##\frac{d}{dy'}##, right ? If so, what's ##-\frac{d}{dy}(x'sin\theta)## ? I would need to substitute ##x'## by another transformation that I can get from (3) ?
 
gionole said:
In x,y frame, system of equations:

##\ddot x = 0## (1)
##\ddot y = -\frac{d}{dy}(gy)## (2)
You can always apply a rotation-of-coordinates to the partial derivatives. But in this case it's easier to just perform the ##y##-differentiation in eq.(2) to get ##\ddot y = -g## so that you only have to rotate ##x## and ##y##.
 
  • Care
Likes   Reactions: gionole
renormalize said:
You can always apply a rotation-of-coordinates to the partial derivatives. But in this case it's easier to just perform the ##y##-differentiation in eq.(2) to get ##\ddot y = -g## so that you only have to rotate ##x## and ##y##.
Yes, I know that, I asked the question in #5 for learning purposes. So, basically, this is how I do it: If you don't got time to go through, here is my 2 short questions:

--Short Version--

Q1: I end up with ##\ddot y' = -gcos\theta##, would you say this is correct ?

Q2: When we have ##\ddot y = -\frac{d}{dy}(gy)##, and when I replace ##y## by ##x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta##, I still don't change wrt derivative (I leave ##dy## and not change it to ##dy'##). Correct ?

-- Long Version--

##\ddot x = 0## (1)
##\ddot y = -\frac{d}{dy}(gy)## (2)

##\ddot x'cos\theta - \ddot y'sin\theta = 0##
##\ddot x' = \frac{\ddot y'sin\theta}{cos\theta}##

##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -g\frac{d}{dy}(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta)## (Note that I still leave ##\frac{d}{dy}## here) (3)

Now, we know that ##x'## contains ##y## inside, so we can't really say that ##\frac{d}{dy}(x'sin\theta) = 0##, so we need to get what ##x'## and ##y'## are.

After some math, I end up with:

##x' = xcos\theta + ysin\theta##
##y' = -xsin\theta + ycos\theta##

we put them inside (3).

##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -g\frac{d}{dy}(x'sin\theta + y'cos\theta)##
##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -g\frac{d}{dy}((xcos\theta + ysin\theta)sin\theta + (-xsin\theta + ycos\theta)cos\theta)##

##\ddot x'sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = = -g(sin^2\theta + cos^2\theta)##
##\frac{\ddot y'sin\theta}{cos\theta}sin\theta + \ddot y'cos\theta = -g##
##\frac{\ddot y'sin^2\theta}{cos\theta} + \ddot y'cos\theta = -g##
##\frac{\ddot y'sin^2\theta + \ddot y'cos^2\theta}{cos\theta} = -g##
##\ddot y' = -gcos\theta##

Would you say this is all correct ? @renormalize
 
gionole said:
##\ddot y' = -gcos\theta##

Would you say this is all correct ? @renormalize
Yes, you have the right expression for ##\ddot y'##, but don't forget to similarly display the second EOM giving ##\ddot x'## in terms of ##g## and ##\theta##.
 
  • Care
Likes   Reactions: gionole

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K