Relativistic Uniform Circular Motion

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter renormalize
  • Start date Start date
renormalize
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
1,436
TL;DR
I evaluate the total energy of a relativistic rotating disk that consists of non-interacting dust particles, all of which undergo uniform circular motion, by including the centripetal potential energy that binds them to circles.
(This post is inspired by: KE of rotating disk.)
A Single Particle in Uniform Circular Motion
In an inertial frame, I begin by examining a single dust particle of mass ##m## moving in a plane with instantaneous position vector ##\vec{r}\equiv r\hat{r}\left(t\right)##. Time-differentiating yields the velocity vector ##\vec{v}\equiv d\vec{r}/dt\equiv\dot{\vec{r}}=\dot{r}\hat{r}+r\dot{\theta}\hat{\theta}##, so the Lorentz-factor for the moving particle is ##\gamma\equiv\left(1-\vec{v}\cdot\vec{v}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}=\left(1-\left(\dot{r}^{2}+r^{2}\dot{\theta}^{2}\right)/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}##. The relativistic dynamics of that particle as it moves in an external 4-scalar potential ##U## is governed by the general Lagrangian ##L=-\gamma^{-1}mc^{2}+U\left(\vec{r}\right)##, here restricted to planar motion in a centripetal, power-law potential:$$L=-mc^{2}\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\dot{r}^{2}+r^{2}\dot{\theta}^{2}}{c^{2}}\right)}+kr^{n}\tag{1}$$From this I obtain two Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations, as well as the Hamiltonian (energy):$$0=\frac{\partial L}{\partial\vec{r}}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\vec{v}}\right)\;,\quad H=\vec{v}\cdot\frac{\partial L}{\partial\vec{v}}-L\tag{2a,b}$$Rather than boring the reader by writing out eqs.(2a,b) for general ##r(t),\theta(t)##, I proceed directly to evaluating them for uniform circular motion by setting ##\dot{r}=0,\theta=\omega t##, which simplifies the Lorentz-factor to ##\gamma=\left(1-\omega^{2}r^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}##. For this simple motion, the ##\theta## EL equation degenerates to ##0=0##, while the ##r## EL equation becomes purely algebraic, resulting in the two equations that characterize the circling particle:$$0=\frac{mr\omega^{2}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}}}-knr^{n-1}\:,\quad H=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}}}+kr^{n}\tag{3a,b}$$The ##r## EL equation (3a) serves to determine the orbital radius ##r## in terms of the constants ##c,m,\omega,k,n##. By rewriting it as:$$kr^{n}=\frac{m\omega^{2}r^{2}}{n\sqrt{1-\omega^{2}r^{2}/c^{2}}}=\frac{mc^{2}}{n}\left(\gamma-\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)\tag{4}$$it's evident that as ##\gamma\rightarrow\infty## the radius ##r## either dilates or contracts, depending on the sign of the power ##n##:$$
\lim_{\gamma\rightarrow\infty}r=\begin{cases}
\infty & \left(n>0\right)\\
0 & \left(n<0\right)
\end{cases}
\tag{5}
$$In other words, in the ultrarelativistic limit the orbits of a single particle become either infinite or infinitesimal!
Now substituting eq.(4) into (3b), I arrive at the simple final form for the total relativistic energy of a particle in uniform circular motion:$$H=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}}}+\frac{mr^{2}\omega^{2}}{n\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{mc^{2}}{n}\left(\left(n+1\right)\gamma-\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)\tag{6}$$Observe that the centripetal potential energy can be either positive or negative based on the sign of ##n##.
The Low and High Speed Limits
The nonrelativistic limit of ##H## is completely sensible:$$H^{NR}\equiv\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty}H=mc^{2}+\frac{1}{2}mr^{2}\omega^{2}+\frac{1}{n}mr^{2}\omega^{2}\tag{7}$$because it exhibits the well-known combination of classical kinetic and potential energies. For example, if the centripetal force obeys Hooke's Law, then ##n=2## and the total energy is positive and evenly divided between kinetic and potential, just like the time-averaged energies of a harmonic oscillator. Or if ##n=-1##, the particle is bound by an inverse-square force (like a satellite in circular orbit) and the sum of the two energies is precisely the negative of the kinetic energy, so assigning less total energy to the orbiting mass than to the stationary mass. Similarly, as expected for the ultrarelativistic limit, the total energy diverges for almost every form of centripetal force as the particle approaches light-speed:$$
H^{UR}\equiv\lim_{\gamma\rightarrow\infty}H=\begin{cases}
\infty & \left(n\neq-1\right)\\
0 & \left(n=-1\right)
\end{cases}
\tag{8}$$The sole exception is the inverse-square force ##n=-1##: in that case, by eq.(6) the total energy of the particle vanishes as it approaches the speed of light. And what a bizarre system it is at that limit: a particle with finite mass traveling at the speed of light around a circle of zero radius (per eq.(5)) and carrying zero total energy!
The Rotating Disk
I next construct a rotating disk by uniformly distributing identical particles in a plane, all of them circling around a common center, such that the resulting disk has radius ##R##, total mass ##M## and uniform mass density ##\rho\equiv M/\pi R^{2}##. In the continuum limit, an infinitesimal piece of the disk has an energy ##dH_{disk}## found by substituting ##m\rightarrow dm## into eq.(6) to get:$$dH_{disk}=\frac{c^{2}\left(n+\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}\right)}{n\,\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}}}dm\tag{9}$$where ##dm\equiv\rho dA=\left(M/\pi R^{2}\right)rdrd\theta##. Integrating this over the area of the disk, I obtain the total relativistic energy in a rotating disk of non-interacting dust:\begin{align}
H_{disk} & =\left(\frac{Mc^{2}}{\pi R^{2}}\right)\intop_{0}^{2\pi}d\theta\intop_{0}^{R}rdr\left(\frac{n+\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}}{n\,\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega^{2}r^{2}}{c^{2}}}}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{2}{3}Mc^{2}\left(\frac{c^{2}\left(3n+2\right)-\left(c^{2}\left(3n+2\right)+\omega^{2}R^{2}\right)\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega^{2}R^{2}}{c^{2}}}}{n\omega^{2}R^{2}}\right) \nonumber\tag{10}
\end{align}The nonrelativistic limit of eq.(10) is clearly satisfactory:$$H_{disk}^{NR}\equiv\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty}H_{disk}=Mc^{2}+\frac{1}{4}M\omega^{2}R^{2}+\frac{1}{2n}M\omega^{2}R^{2}=Mc^{2}+\frac{1}{2}I\omega^{2}+\frac{1}{2n}M\omega^{2}R^{2}\tag{11}$$since ##I\equiv\frac{1}{2}MR^{2}## is indeed the classical moment-of-inertia for a disk of uniform density. At the other extreme is the ultrarelativistic limit, wherein the disk edge moves at the speed-of-light:$$H_{disk}^{UR}\equiv\lim_{\omega R\rightarrow c}H_{disk}=\frac{2}{3}Mc^{2}\left(\frac{3n+2}{n}\right)\tag{12}$$ In this limit, the total energy of a rotating dust-disk of finite radius ##R## is clearly non-zero finite for any choice of ##n\neq 0## and hence it's better behaved in that regard than an isolated dust particle traveling in a circle near light-speed. But the disk energy can still be made to take arbitrarily large positive or negative values by picking centripetal potentials having ##n## near enough to zero.
Of course, this is all merely a theoretical exercise, as I know of no physics that permits the sculpting of centripetal potentials or that can implement experiments with relativistically rotating dust. Nonetheless, I think the results are still quite interesting.

1774911054030.webp
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a simpler way to force the particles to move along a circle, just put the particle into a non-moving gutter (or tube) of a circular shape. This can be described formally by adding a constraint to the Lagrangian. A physically more realistic version of a "gutter" is the synchrotron, like the one in CERN.
 
renormalize said:
In this limit, the total energy of a rotating dust-disk of finite radius ##R## is clearly non-zero finite over a wide range of choices for ##n## and hence its better behaved in that regard than an isolated dust particle traveling in a circle near light-speed.
The energy of the single isolated particle approaching c can also be made finite, by making its rest mass tend to zero. Which is exactly what you do in the disc case, when you take the limit from a finite collection of massive particles towards a continuum.

renormalize said:
But the disk energy can still be made to take arbitrarily large positive or negative values by picking centripetal potentials having ##n## near enough to zero.
I think that is a separate issue. The energy of a massive particle going in circles in an particle accelerator can, in principle, be made arbitrary large when it approaches c, without including centripetal potentials. A "disc" made of many such particles won't have less energy.

It's only when you decide to model them as a continuum, and let their rest masses go to zero, while increasing their number, that the energy becomes finite. But you can take that rest mass to zero limit with a single particle as well, to achieve the same result: finite energy when approaching c.

The finite energy is an artifact of the continuum assumption, which might not be appropriate for a relativistic disc made of discrete massive particles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
A.T. said:
The finite energy is an artifact of the continuum assumption, which might not be appropriate for a relativistic disc made of discrete massive particles.
But doesn't that same continuum assumption underlie the relativistic fluids used to model stellar collapse or the evolution of the early universe?
 
renormalize said:
doesn't that same continuum assumption underlie the relativistic fluids used to model stellar collapse or the evolution of the early universe?
Yes, it does.
 
Also, as soon as you give a particle a finite size rather treating as a mass point, there is fundamental difference between circular motion vs. linear motion. The finite size particle with circular motion has finite maximum energy for a given radius of motion; with linear, there is no upper bound. This was explored in my next to last post in that other thread where I introduce a measure of linearity. I would argue that a point particle is certainly no more realistic than continuum.
 
Last edited:
I am away for the weekend. If I don’t forget in a few days, I can post a really simple continuum disc model in terms of the simplest SET I could find that includes the centripetal force and is divergence free. It simply has sculpted radial tension added to the SET that satisfies all constraints. It ends up changing nothing about the main findings of that other thread.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: renormalize
PAllen said:
The finite size particle with circular motion has finite maximum energy for a given radius of motion
What would this imply for the real world? That massive particles in circular accelerators can reach c with finite energy?
 
A.T. said:
What would this imply for the real world? That massive particles in circular accelerators can reach c with finite energy?
No, it implies that there is an upper limit to energy in circular accelerator that is way beyond what has ever been achieved on practice. The implied limit on energy in mass terms would be sqrt of the ratio of ring radius over proton radius times proton mass. This is so far beyond any other engineering limit we will never be able to probe it. So for the LHC this would be well over a million TEV.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
PAllen said:
Also, as soon as you give a particle a finite size rather treating as a mass point, there is fundamental difference between circular motion vs. linear motion. The finite size particle with circular motion has finite maximum energy for a given radius of motion; with linear, there is no upper bound. This was explored in my next to last post in that other thread where I introduce a measure of linearity. I would argue that a point particle is certainly no more realistic than continuum.
Can you clarify this claim? I can see how it might apply to protons since they have a nonzero measured radius, but how could it work with electrons? Sure, there is the "classical electron radius", but actual "measurements" (high-energy scattering experiments) are consistent with the electron truly being a point particle.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
renormalize said:
Can you clarify this claim? I can see how it might apply to protons since they have a measured nonzero radius, but how could it work with electrons?
You don't give a finite size to the electron.

renormalize said:
Sure, there is the "classical electron radius", but actual "measurements" (high-energy scattering experiments) are consistent with the electron truly being a point particle.
Last I checked the upper limit on the size was about ##10^{-18}## m.
 
  • #12
PAllen said:
it implies that there is an upper limit to energy in circular accelerator
And how fast would electrons or protons be moving at that limiting energy? Would their center move below c because you take the limit of their outer edge approaching c?
 
  • #13
A.T. said:
And how fast would electrons or protons be moving at that limiting energy? Would their center move below c because you take the limit of their outer edge approaching c?
Yes.
 
  • #14
renormalize said:
Can you clarify this claim? I can see how it might apply to protons since they have a nonzero measured radius, but how could it work with electrons? Sure, there is the "classical electron radius", but actual "measurements" (high-energy scattering experiments) are consistent with the electron truly being a point particle.
For a true point particle, there would be no limit, of this kind at least. Note the post begins: as soon as you give a particle finite size.
 
  • #15
A.T. said:
And how fast would electrons or protons be moving at that limiting energy? Would their center move below c because you take the limit of their outer edge approaching c?
PAllen said:
Yes.
So even as the mass-increment at the outermost edge of the circulating proton approaches ##c## and its energy diverges, the total energy of the proton as a whole still remains finite. Doesn't that claim settle the issue raised in the other thread I cited that inspired this thread? Namely, the energy of a rotating disk can therefore similarly remain finite even as the outer-edge approaches the speed of light.
 
  • #16
renormalize said:
So even as the mass-increment at the outermost edge of the circulating proton approaches ##c## and its energy diverges, the total energy of the proton as a whole still remains finite. Doesn't that claim settle the issue raised in the other thread I cited that inspired this thread? Namely, the energy of a rotating disk can therefore similarly remain finite even as the outer-edge approaches the speed of light.
It does for me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: renormalize

Similar threads

  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K