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

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 2K views
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!