Is Special Relativity the Key to Understanding Shrinking Circles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yourdadonapogostick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Length
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of special relativity on a spinning circle, where the radius remains constant while the distance between points on the circumference appears to decrease due to gravitational effects and acceleration. The author questions the constancy of π in this scenario, suggesting that as the circle spins, it may not maintain its traditional geometric properties. They note that the equivalence principle does not apply in this case, leading to a paradox reminiscent of the historical context that influenced Einstein's exploration of non-Euclidean geometries. This inquiry highlights the complexities of applying special relativity to geometric shapes in motion. The conversation underscores the intriguing relationship between physics and geometry.
yourdadonapogostick
Messages
270
Reaction score
1
am i missing something here?
we have a circle: (x-h)^2+(y-k)^2=r^2 where (h,k) is the center and r is the radius. we now spin the circle about an axis that is perpendicular to the plane on which the circle lies and it runs through the center of said circle. gravity contracts length (and my the equivelance principle, so does acceleration), so as the 1-sphere spins about the axis, the distance between any two points on it decreases while the radius stays the same. since \pi=\frac{c}{2r}, where c is circumference and r is radius, \pi no longer is a constant. the circle shrinks, but the radius stays the same. what is going on? does the circle turn into a cone?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
i just found out that the equivelence princliple doesn't apply here.
 
You have stumbled upon a fanatastic paradox of special relativity

As it appears in the history books, this is the very same case that lead Einstein to consider non-euclidean geometries in the physical universe.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top