Rotating Disk Physics: SR Reconciles Fast-moving Points?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the physics of a rotating disk, particularly how special relativity (SR) reconciles the behavior of points on the disk that move at relativistic speeds. Participants explore theoretical implications, internal stresses, and the concept of rigidity in the context of relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a spinning disk's edge could theoretically reach relativistic speeds, but this raises questions about the feasibility of achieving such speeds without infinite work.
  • Others argue that the concept of a "rigid object" is inconsistent with relativity, suggesting that no rigid objects can exist in a relativistic framework.
  • A participant describes a scenario involving length contraction, using a rubber rod as an analogy to illustrate how internal strains might allow a rotating disk to maintain its dimensions until a certain speed is reached.
  • Some participants mention the Ehrenfest Paradox, noting that it complicates the understanding of rotating disks in relativity.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of a rotating disk's geometry, with some asserting that it is non-Euclidean due to relativistic effects, while others question the definition of the disk's geometry in this context.
  • One participant calculates the extreme accelerations that would occur at the rim of a disk rotating at relativistic speeds, emphasizing that material limits would be reached before relativistic effects become significant.
  • Another participant suggests that a flat spacetime cannot accommodate a rigid, rapidly spinning disk, as it would require the circumference to be less than 2πr, which is impossible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the impossibility of achieving a rigid, relativistically spinning disk, but multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of this and the nature of the disk's geometry.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved mathematical steps regarding the behavior of the disk at relativistic speeds and the dependence on definitions of rigidity and geometry in a relativistic context.

  • #61
yuiop said:
I would now like to propose a method to measure the geometry of the disc that is indisputably independent of simultaneity issues.

I should also comment that this method is basically equivalent to "radar distance", as defined in the Wikipedia page on Born coordinates that I linked to earlier. A key fact about it is that it is not symmetric for the case of observers at different radii from the center of the disk. (The fact that the observer at the center of the disk measures a different radius than the observer riding on the rim is just one special case of this.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
As far as the conventionality of simultaneity goes, let me make one quick remark. I suspect that some 90% of the readers of the thread don't know any physics other than the high school version of Newton's laws. And if you are going to use Newton's laws (F=ma and all that), even in the low speed limit, following the Einstein clock synchronization convention is a "required option". I.e. it's optional whether or not you use it, you'll just get the wrong answers if you don't.

The errors may not be terribly large if your synchronization is "close" to Einstein's, but they'll be there. You'll see issues like two equal masses colliding at equal but oppositely directed velocities (as measured by your chosen synchronization scheme) not coming to rest.

If you are using a formulation of physics that allows for generalized coordinates (for instance a Lagrangian formulation), these remarks do not directly apply - though as I recall it turns out to be a bit trickier than it looks to find the correct Lagrangian when you change your definition of simultaneity.

I think a lot of readers mistakenly assume that simultaneity being "conventional" means that Newton's laws work with the different possible choices, and this isn't the case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
747
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K