I Fuel paradox arising from Galilean transformation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a perceived paradox in the context of Galilean transformations, where two observers, O and O', measure different power outputs from the same engine due to their relative motion. Observer O calculates that the engine operates at a higher power than observer O', leading to the conclusion that fuel depletion rates differ between the two frames. However, the resolution lies in recognizing that momentum is not conserved in this scenario, as energy is lost to the exhaust stream and the reactive acceleration of the Earth. The participants clarify that the change in mechanical energy remains invariant under Galilean transformations, ensuring consistency across frames. Ultimately, the paradox is resolved by accounting for unconsidered energy losses in the system.
SeniorGara
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Does the fuel paradox arise when the same engine operates with different power in different frames of reference?
I have encountered a problem related to the Galilean Transformation. Let's consider two observers who will be referred to as ##O## and ##O^{'}##, with their corresponding coordinates ##(t,x,y,z)## and ##(t^{′},x^{′},y^{′},z^{'})## respectively. They are initially at the same location, at time zero. Furthermore, observer ##O^{'}## moves away from observer ##O## as shown in the picture.
geogebra-export.png


Any point ##P## that does not move in relation to ##O## will be described by ##O^{'}## with the following equations: $$x_{P}'=x_{P}-vt,\quad{y'_{P}=y_{P},}\quad{z'_{P}=z_{P},}\quad{t'=t}.$$ If an object (for example a car) moves in relation to ##O## according to the equation $$x(t)=vt+\frac{1}{2}at^2,$$ ##O'## will describe this movement in the following way: $$x'(t)=x(t)-vt=\frac{1}{2}at^2.$$ Assuming that no resistance force is present, the resultant force is equal to the force of engine thrust. Of course, ##F=F'=ma## because ##\ddot{x}(t)=\ddot{x'}(t)=a##. Observer ##O## claims that the work done by the force of engine thrust is equal to $$W(t)=F\cdot{x(t)}=ma\left(vt+\frac{1}{2}at^2\right)=mavt+\frac{1}{2}ma^2t^2\mathrm{,}$$ whereas ##O'## observes that the engine has performed work equal to $$W'(t)=F'\cdot{x'(t)}=ma\left(\frac{1}{2}at^2\right)=\frac{1}{2}ma^2t^2.$$ Thus, ##O## concludes that the engine is operating at power $$P(t)=\frac{dW}{dt}(t)=mav+ma^2t,$$ while ##O'## considers that the engine power is equal to $$P'(t)=\frac{dW'}{dt}(t)=ma^2t.$$ Here is my question: If the same engine works with different power in two frames of reference, wouldn't it lead to the "fuel paradox"? In other words, according to ##O##, the fuel will be depleted faster than according to ##O'##. Of course, it can't be true. So, where is the mistake?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SeniorGara said:
In other words, according to ##O##, the fuel will be depleted faster than according to ##O'##. Of course, it can't be true. So, where is the mistake?
What about the work being done on the exhaust stream? [Always the answer in this flavor of paradox]
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Ibix
Notice that momentum is not conserved in your example, so you don't have a closed system and energy is slipping out unaccounted for. Account for the reactive acceleration of the Earth and you will find your missing energy.

Edit: scooped by mere seconds!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes vanhees71 and jbriggs444
You don't need anything as elaborate as your calculations. If a ##2 \ kg## object increases its velocity from ##0## to ##1 \ m/s## in one frame, then it gains ##1J## of energy. But, in a frame where it changes from ##1## to ##2 \ m/s## it gains ##3J## of energy. This gives the same potential paradox when considerihg the energy supply.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, jbriggs444 and Ibix
PeroK said:
You don't need anything as elaborate as your calculations. If a ##2 \ kg## object increases its velocity from ##0## to ##1 \ m/s## in one frame, then it gains ##1J## of energy. But, in a frame where it changes from ##1## to ##2 \ m/s## it gains ##3J## of energy. This gives the same potential paradox when considerihg the energy supply.
To carry this scenario through, let us consider that this ##2 \text{ kg}## object gets its velocity increment by pushing off at ##1 \text{ m/s}## from an equally massive object. Our object moves off to the right at ##+1 \text{ m/s}## and the other object moves off to the left at ##-1 \text{ m/s}##.

In the original rest frame of the two objects, that is ##2J## of total energy increment, ##1J## for each.

In a frame where the two objects start at ##1 \text{m/s}##, that is ##-1J## for the left hand object and ##+3J## for the right hand object. The total is ##2J##. Same as before.

The change in mechanical energy is invariant under a Galilean transformation to a new inertial frame. Also under a Lorentz transform as it turns out, though the formula for mechanical energy needs to be corrected for that to work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71, berkeman, Ibix and 1 other person
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top