Kinetic energy depends on ##\theta## but this argument says otherwise

In summary: Without this condition your statement is not true.Yes, if the frames are at rest with respect to each other, then the kinetic energy formula will be the same. However, if you change one of the coordinates, then you must do a proper substitution in the formula to get the correct result.
  • #1
Kashmir
468
74
1634397862724.png


A free particle with coordinates as shown has kinetic energy ##T = \frac{1}{2}m\left(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2\theta\dot\phi^2\right)##
So we see ##T## depends on ##\theta##.

Now suppose we rotate our coordinate system such that only one coordinate ##\theta## changes from ##\theta## to
##\theta'## and fix it there as is shown in figure below. In this coordinate system the kinetic energy should be the same as before since the kinetic energy should be same in all inertial frames.

However if we substitue values of ##r, \theta',\phi## in the formula for ##T## we will get a different value of ##T## hence a contradiction.

Can anyone please tell me what is wrong. Thank you.
IMG_20211016_210710-min.JPG
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I do not understand what your specific change of coordinates is. Can you give a formula?

Of course, the Hamilton principle is covariant under arbitrary changes of coordinates (diffeomorphisms). So no matter how you choose your coordinates you always describe the same physical system.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban
  • #3
Kashmir said:
However if we substitue values of ##r, \theta',\phi## in the formula for ##T## we will get a different value of ##T## hence a contradiction.

Can anyone please tell me what is wrong. Thank you.
You didn't actually do any calculations to back up your claim! Let's see the coordinate transformation you have in mind.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Kashmir
  • #4
vanhees71 said:
I do not understand what your specific change of coordinates is. Can you give a formula?

Of course, the Hamilton principle is covariant under arbitrary changes of coordinates (diffeomorphisms). So no matter how you choose your coordinates you always describe the same physical system.
I don't have a formula. I'm just imagining that we rotate our coordinate system by a finite rotation with the origin fixed where it was initially in such a manner that all other variables except ##\theta## remain the same.

I hope I'm clear?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
PeroK said:
You didn't actually do any calculations to back up your claim! Let's see the coordinate transformation you have in mind.
I am not able to write them in mathematics.
 
  • #6
Kashmir said:
I don't have a formula. I'm just imagining that we rotate our coordinate system by a finite rotation with the origin fixed where it was initially in such a manner that all other variables except ##\theta## remain the same.

I hope I'm clear?
When you rotate the coordinate system, keeping angle theta the same, the projection on x-y plane changes; therefore, at least one of the two other parameters must change.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #7
Kashmir said:
I am not able to write them in mathematics.
If you let ##\theta = \theta' + \alpha##, then the formula for kinetic energy becomes: $$T = \frac 1 2 m(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta'^2 + r^2\sin^2(\theta' + \alpha)\dot\phi^2)$$ You can't change ##\theta## and keep the same formula as before, if that's what you are thinking.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #8
PeroK said:
If you let ##\theta = \theta' + \alpha##, then the formula for kinetic energy becomes: $$T = \frac 1 2 m(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2(\theta' + \alpha)\dot\phi^2)$$ You can't change ##\theta## and keep the same formula as before, if that's what you are thinking.

PeroK said:
If you let ##\theta = \theta' + \alpha##, then the formula for kinetic energy becomes: $$T = \frac 1 2 m(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2(\theta' + \alpha)\dot\phi^2)$$ You can't change ##\theta## and keep the same formula as before, if that's what you are thinking.
Do you mean the correct formula is ##T = \frac 1 2 m(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2(\theta' + \alpha)\dot\phi^2)## ?
 
  • #9
Kashmir said:
since the kinetic energy should be same in all inertial frames.

... frames that are at rest with respect to each other. Without this condition your statement is not true.
 
  • #10
weirdoguy said:
... frames that are at rest with respect to each other. Without this condition your statement is not true.
Yes the two are at rest
 
  • #11
Kashmir said:
Do you mean the correct formula is ##T = \frac 1 2 m(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2(\theta' + \alpha)\dot\phi^2)## ?
Yes, if you change one of your coordinates, you must do a proper substitution in the formula. Note that with the original ##\theta## we have: $$x = r\sin \theta \cos \phi, \ y = r \sin \theta \sin \phi, \ z = r \cos \theta$$ And plugging those into $$T = \frac 1 2 m(\dot x^2 + \dot y^2 + \dot z^2)$$ gives you the formula for ##T## in terms of ##r, \theta, \phi##. That's where that formula comes from. If you choose your angles ##\theta## and/or ##\phi## differently, then you get a different formula for ##T## in terms of your new coordinates.
 
  • #12
PeroK said:
Yes, if you change one of your coordinates, you must do a proper substitution in the formula. Note that with the original ##\theta## we have: $$x = r\sin \theta \cos \phi, \ y = r \sin \theta \sin \phi, \ z = r \cos \theta$$ And plugging those into $$T = \frac 1 2 m(\dot x^2 + \dot y^2 + \dot z^2)$$ gives you the formula for ##T## in terms of ##r, \theta, \phi##. That's where that formula comes from. If you choose your angles ##\theta## and/or ##\phi## differently, then you get a different formula for ##T## in terms of your new coordinates.
Suppose I'm in the new system.
I'll still write $$x = r\sin \theta' \cos \phi, \ y = r \sin \theta' \sin \phi, \ z = r \cos \theta'$$ leading to
$$T = \frac{1}{2}m\left(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta'^2 + r^2\sin^2\theta'\dot\phi^2\right)$$

 
  • #13
Kashmir said:
Suppose I'm in the new system.
I'll still write $$x = r\sin \theta' \cos \phi, \ y = r \sin \theta' \sin \phi, \ z = r \cos \theta'$$ leading to
$$T = \frac{1}{2}m\left(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta'^2 + r^2\sin^2\theta'\dot\phi^2\right)$$

Okay, but then ##\theta' = \theta##. That's just regular spherical coordinates.
 
  • #14
PeroK said:
Okay, but then ##\theta' = \theta##. That's just regular spherical coordinates.
I'll add a figure, maybe I'm not clear. Please bear with me. Thank you.
 
  • #15
Kashmir said:
Suppose I'm in the new system.
I'll still write $$x = r\sin \theta' \cos \phi, \ y = r \sin \theta' \sin \phi, \ z = r \cos \theta'$$

The only way those three equations can hold is if you have the usual spherical coordinates, with ##\theta## measured from the positive x-axis. If you do anything different, you can't demand the same equations.
 
  • #16
PeroK said:
The only way those three equations can hold is if you have the usual spherical coordinates, with ##\theta## measured from the positive x-axis. If you do anything different, you can't demand the same equations.
Suppose I've rotated my coordinate system such that only ##\theta## changed to ##\theta'##. This will look like the figure shown
IMG_20211016_221711.JPG

Isn't it correct till now?
 
  • #17
Kashmir said:
Suppose I've rotated my coordinate system such that only ##\theta## changed to ##\theta'##. This will look like the figure shown View attachment 290785
Isn't it correct till now?
I don't see any rotation there. I just see spherical coordinates.
 
  • #18
PeroK said:
I don't see any rotation there. I just see spherical coordinates.
I've just placed it upright,
 
  • #19
PeroK said:
I don't see any rotation there. I just see spherical coordinates.
IMG_20211016_222838.JPG
 
  • #21
PeroK said:
So, you have a new ##z## axis?
Yes ,even x, y will be different. I've shown the two systems in this figure below. S2 is the rotated one
IMG_20211016_210710-min.JPG
 
  • #22
Perhaps this might help. What you can always write is $$T = \frac{1}{2}m\left(\dot r^2 + r^2\dot\theta^2 + \rho^2\dot\phi^2\right)$$where ##\rho## is the projection of ##r## on the ##xy##-plane. In this form, you can see the "decomposition" of the kinetic energy into the sum of three terms, radial, meridional (if that's what it's called), and azimuthal.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban and PeroK
  • #23
With your new ##z## axis, you no longer have $$T = \frac 1 2 m (\dot x^2 + \dot y^2 + \dot z^2)$$That is only valid for mutually orthogonal Cartesian axes. You can't change something like the z-axis without changing the formulas that involve the z-coordinate.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban
  • #24
PeroK said:
With your new ##z## axis, you no longer have $$T = \frac 1 2 m (\dot x^2 + \dot y^2 + \dot z^2)$$That is only valid for mutually orthogonal Cartesian axes. You can't change something like the z-axis without changing the formulas that involve the z-coordinate.
I've rotated the whole set of three axis, keeping them orthogonal during the rotation. The rotation is such that only theta changes. The mutually perpendicular axis are shown here with the only change in the coordinates of the particle being in ##\theta##
1634404400948.png
 
  • #25
Kashmir said:
I've rotated the whole set of three axis, keeping them orthogonal during the rotation. The rotation is such that only theta changes. The mutually perpendicular axis are shown here with the only change in the coordinates of the particle being in ##\theta##View attachment 290790
That's still simply the usual spherical coordinates. Except you've chosen to use ##x, y, z, r, \phi## but used ##\theta'## instead of ##\theta##.

If you want to keep both coordinate systems (perhaps on the same diagram), then you need to use ##x', y', z', r, \phi', \theta'## as only ##r## is the same coordinate in both systems.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban
  • #26
Kashmir said:
only theta changesI've rotated the whole set of three axis, keeping them orthogonal during the rotation. The rotation is such that only theta changes. The mutually perpendicular axis are shown here with the only change in the coordinates of the particle being in ##\theta##
In that case, the value of the projection on each axis of r must change.
In case you have missed it, please see post #6 above.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Kashmir
  • #27
OP, what you may not realize is that when you make that coordinate rotation, although φ does not change, dφ/dt does.
Consider two objects on the surface of the Earth (assumed a perfect sphere), both on the Greenwich meridian (same r and φ) but one near the north pole and one near the equator. Suppose they both move at V m/s eastward along their respective lines of latitude. What is dφ/dt in each case?
So in your equation for KE, it's not just θ that changes, but also dφ/dt.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #28
mjc123 said:
OP, what you may not realize is that when you make that coordinate rotation, although φ does not change, dφ/dt does.
Consider two objects on the surface of the Earth (assumed a perfect sphere), both on the Greenwich meridian (same r and φ) but one near the north pole and one near the equator. Suppose they both move at V m/s eastward along their respective lines of latitude. What is dφ/dt in each case?
So in your equation for KE, it's not just θ that changes, but also dφ/dt.
dφ/dt is more near the pole.
 
  • #29
Lnewqban said:
In that case, the value of the projection on each axis of r must change.
In case you have missed it, please see post #6 above.
So we can't rotate in such a way that changes theta but keeps r and phi the same?
 
  • #30
Lnewqban said:
When you rotate the coordinate system, keeping angle theta the same, the projection on x-y plane changes; therefore, at least one of the two other parameters must change.
I am not keeping theta the same. I'm keeping the other two same and vary theta
 
  • #31
Kashmir said:
So we can't rotate in such a way that changes theta but keeps r and phi the same?
No. You can keep ##\phi## fixed on a single line of longitude, but ##\phi## will changes for points not on that line.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban
  • #32
Kashmir said:
I don't have a formula. I'm just imagining that we rotate our coordinate system by a finite rotation with the origin fixed where it was initially in such a manner that all other variables except remain the same.

I hope I'm clear?
Yes you are
but this is not a rotation of the space
##\varphi\mapsto \varphi+c## is a rotation
##\theta\mapsto\theta+c## is not
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and Kashmir
  • #33
wrobel said:
Yes you are
but this is not a rotation of the space
##\varphi\mapsto \varphi+c## is a rotation
##\theta\mapsto\theta+c## is not
That means a change of coordinate system such that only theta changes is not a rotation?
 
  • #34
Kashmir said:
That means a change of coordinate system such that only theta changes is not a rotation?
exactly, just take two different points and trace how they move as ##\theta## changes
 
  • #35
Kashmir said:
That means a change of coordinate system such that only theta changes is not a rotation?
It's a change to the z-axis only. It would leave the x and y axes unchanged. Note that ##\tan \phi = \frac y x##.
 
Back
Top