Sum of the forces and torques = 0

In summary: No, equilibrium still does not hold in the rest frame of the observer.Now we want to do the same in an inertial frame. An observer is at the center of mass at time t'. At this time, there is...In summary, the Lorentz contraction does not hold in the rest frame of the observer.
  • #1
aranoff
59
0
An object is at equilibrium at a certain time t if the sum of the forces and torques = 0. Look at the object from a moving frame, and apply the equations of special relativity. We find that Lorentz contraction means that in the moving frame (x',t'), there is no time t' such that the object is at equilibrium.

Is the Lorentz contraction valid, or what? Doesn't equilibrium mean that in the moving system we look at the sum of the forces and torques at a certain time t'?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


aranoff said:
Look at the object from a moving frame, and apply the equations of special relativity. We find that Lorentz contraction means that in the moving frame (x',t'), there is no time t' such that the object is at equilibrium.

If that were true, you could not transform between inertial frames without an acceleration term cropping up (in which case, they would not be inertial frames to begin with).

It would be helpful if you would show how you applied "the equations of special relativity" to come to this conclusion.

Regards,

Bill
 
  • #3


Evaluate the torques about the origin. T=x0F2-y0F1 = 0.
In the moving system, y’=y, x’=(1/gamma)x.
Similar equations for forces.
Apply this, and at time t’ in the moving system, T’ is not 0.
 
  • #4


aranoff said:
Evaluate the torques about the origin. T=x0F2-y0F1 = 0.
In the moving system, y’=y, x’=(1/gamma)x.
Similar equations for forces.
Apply this, and at time t’ in the moving system, T’ is not 0.

Maybe its not in equilibrium even in the frame in which the torque is zero at a certain instant. The torque applied at one end of the beam doesn't 'know' about the torque applied at the other end of the beam immediately, because the torque applied at one end at must 'travel' to the other end of the beam with some finite speed less than or equal to the speed of light.
 
  • #6


atyy said:
Maybe its not in equilibrium even in the frame in which the torque is zero at a certain instant. The torque applied at one end of the beam doesn't 'know' about the torque applied at the other end of the beam immediately, because the torque applied at one end at must 'travel' to the other end of the beam with some finite speed less than or equal to the speed of light.

Let us apply the principles of physics as they are taught. Equilibrium means that at a time t, the sum of torques = 0 and sum of forces = 0.

You still have not clarified the difficulty. Again: Equilibrium in the rest system. At no time t' is another intertial frame do we have equilibrium.
 
  • #7


Reply given in a previous thread.
 
  • #8


aranoff said:
Let us apply the principles of physics as they are taught. Equilibrium means that at a time t, the sum of torques = 0 and sum of forces = 0.

You still have not clarified the difficulty. Again: Equilibrium in the rest system. At no time t' is another intertial frame do we have equilibrium.

Imagine a long lever with a fulcrum at its centre. Twosuitable weights are placed simultaneously (in the rest frame of the fulcrum) at either end, so that the lever does not rotate before or after the weights are placed on it. (The lever may bend a bit).

In a different reference frame another observer see the lever system as moving from left to right and he sees the weight applied to the left hand side of the lever before the other weight is applied to the right hand side. It seems that in his reference frame there is a period when the there is a weight on one end of the lever but not on the other and the system should be out of equilibrium. The lever should be rotating anticlockwise and the free end of the lever on the right should be moving upwards.

It turns out that due to the finite time it takes for the impulse to travel from the left end of the lever to the right end, the weight on the right hand side is applied just in time before the free end can start moving. In this way equilibrium is maintained in all inertial reference frames if there is equilibrium in the rest frame, due the relativity of simultaneity and the finite time for forces to be transmitted.
 
  • #9


The observer is at the center of mass.
 
  • #10


aranoff said:
The observer is at the center of mass.

Yes, if we restrict to only making measurements and observations in the rest frame of the object under consideration, it brings about a considerable simplification of relativity.
 
  • #11


kev said:
Yes, if we restrict to only making measurements and observations in the rest frame of the object under consideration, it brings about a considerable simplification of relativity.

Now we want to do the same in an inertial frame. An observer is at the center of mass at time t'. At this time, there is no equilibrium.
 
  • #12


aranoff said:
Evaluate the torques about the origin. T=x0F2-y0F1 = 0.
In the moving system, y’=y, x’=(1/gamma)x.
Similar equations for forces.
Apply this, and at time t’ in the moving system, T’ is not 0.

Although it's not quite clear to me what your equilibrium tourque equation describes, I'll assume (for sake of argument) that F1 and F2 are orthogonal, and act at points tangential to a disc (i.e. F2 is in the the y direction acting at (x0,0), and F1 is in the x direction acting at (0,y0) - such that the corresponding torques cancel when x0 and y0 are the same sign). In the case I present, you will note that the net force on the disc is not zero - and the disc will accelerate into the first quadrant due to the net force.

As an accelerating frame, the rest frame of this disk is not an inertial frame (unless F1=F2=0). Thus, the condition of equilibrium torque is insufficient to identify an inertial frame.

Lorentz transformation into a non-inertial (accelerating) frame is invalid.

Regards,

Bill
 
  • #13


The rest frame is an inertial frame, with the forces and torques zero. I wrote all this up in a paper in 1972. It is available on my web site.
 
  • #14


aranoff said:
The rest frame is an inertial frame, with the forces and torques zero.

Unless I'm mistaken, the rest frame you refer to is only an inertial frame relative to frames accelerating at the same rate, and in the same direction.

Regards,

Bill
 
  • #15


To aranoff,

A mechanical system that is in mechanical equilibrium in one inertial reference frame must be in mechanical equilibrium in any other inertial reference frame. From your analysis, you conclude this will not be the case if one uses the Lorentz Transformation to switch reference frames.

Most of the responses you have received so far in this thread are an embarrassment to this forum. May I suggest you post an example that you believe supports you conclusion. Please provide a drwaing and numbers. I'll post a solution in a few days.
 
  • #17


I took a look at your paper. That's exactly why I asked for a single example. I have no interest in plodding through all that.
 
  • #18


My point is that if an object is at equilibrium at a time t in the inertial frame, it will also be at equilibrium in any other moving frame. The definition of equilibrium must take into account Lorentz covariance. This means that in the moving frame, we evaluate the forces at different times based upon the Lorentz transformation. The property of equilibrium is invariant; the times when we evaluate forces and torques are dependent upon Lorentz covariance.
 
  • #19


aranoff said:
I have given drawings and numbers in a published paper in 1972.

I looked at figures 1 and 2 (and some of the discussion that follows), but it is not clear to me that F3 does not contribute to the torque in the transformed case. Would you care to comment on that?

Regards,

Bill
 
  • #20


To aranoff,

I took a closer look at your paper. You are using the standard transfromation for forces and that does imply a problem. I would have used a nonstandard transformation, but since this is a forum for standard SR, your method trumps mine.

So now that I started reading your paper, its pretty interesting. I'll give you more feedback when I finish it.
 
  • #21


Antenna Guy said:
I looked at figures 1 and 2 (and some of the discussion that follows), but it is not clear to me that F3 does not contribute to the torque in the transformed case. Would you care to comment on that?

Regards,

Bill

When we evaluate torques, we must pick an arbitrary point about which to evaluate the torques. The point I chose had the torque due to F3 zero.
 

What is the principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0"?

The principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" is also known as the principle of equilibrium. It states that when an object is in a state of rest or moving at a constant velocity, the sum of the forces acting on it must be equal to zero. This means that all the forces acting on the object must be balanced and there is no net force causing it to accelerate or decelerate.

What is the significance of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" in physics?

The principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" is a fundamental concept in physics and is essential for understanding the motion of objects. It allows us to analyze and predict the behavior of objects in different situations, such as when they are at rest, moving at a constant speed, or accelerating. This principle is also used in engineering and design to ensure the stability and safety of structures and machines.

How is "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" related to Newton's Laws of Motion?

The principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" is closely related to Newton's Laws of Motion. Newton's First Law, also known as the law of inertia, states that an object will remain at rest or in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. The principle of equilibrium is a direct result of this law. Additionally, Newton's Second Law, which describes the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, is used to calculate the forces acting on an object in equilibrium.

Can the principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" be applied to non-static situations?

Yes, the principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" can also be applied to situations where an object is not at rest or moving at a constant velocity. In these cases, the principle is used to determine the net force and torque acting on the object, which can then be used to calculate its acceleration or rotational motion.

What happens if the principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" is not satisfied?

If the principle of "Sum of the forces and torques = 0" is not satisfied, it means that the forces acting on the object are not balanced, and there is a net force causing it to accelerate or rotate. This can result in changes in the object's motion, such as speeding up, slowing down, or changing direction. In engineering and design, failure to satisfy this principle can lead to unstable structures or malfunctioning machines.

Similar threads

I Question about full Lorentz transformation
    • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
3K
I Is There Experimental Evidence That Contradicts Time Contraction Predictions?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
B Does shortness from length contraction have a real physical effect?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
797
I Can we choose different functional forms for Lorentz transformation?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
598
I ##x'=0## and ##t'=0## axes in railcar thought experiment
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
866
I The answer for the total mass of the Universe?
    • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
607
I Muon Decay Example from Morin's Book: Issues Explained
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
I Can I get a clarification on my misunderstanding of SR?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
I How many meter sticks are there in this length contraction reasoning?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
820
I I think the special theory of relativity self-contradicts
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top