To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Covariant Formulation For Hooke's Law
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Trout
I am working on covariant formulation of the different physics laws. The formulation requires finding a covariant form for different laws. Electromagnetic forces were not that bad (but not easy either), when I ventured into Hooke's law, things got messy very quickly, see this writeup. I need some ideas, preferably backed by solid math. Thank you.
Trout
QUOTE (Trout+Jul 30 2009, 04:51 AM)
I am working on covariant formulation of the different physics laws. The formulation requires finding a covariant form for different laws. Electromagnetic forces were not that bad (but not easy either), when I ventured into Hooke's law, things got messy very quickly, see this writeup. I need some ideas, preferably backed by solid math. Thank you.

I spent a lot of time looking at the stress tensor and at Hooke law but nothing got me any closer to a covariant formulation of Hooke's law. I found one very old (and very bad) paper on the subject. Any suggestions?
rpenner
In 1-d, Hooke's law expresses a simple conservative force with a quadratic well.

Well, let's see. We could write in terms of forces, but what a bore that would be.
So let's write in terms of a 1-dimensional Hamiltonian.

H = kx²/2 + mc²/√(1 - v²/c²)
Then differentiate with respect to time.
H' = kxx' + m (1 - v²/c²)^(-3/2)vv'
Remember that v = x' and v' = x'' and factor
H' = kx'(1 - v²/c²)^(-3/2)[x(1 - (x')²/c²)^(3/2) + (m/k)x'']
Now since for a solution, H' = 0 means energy is conserved, we have the equation of motion as
H' = 0 => x(1 - (x')²/c²)^(3/2) + (m/k)x'' = 0

Which is almost as far as we can take it, but remember a large part of the weird part of relativity is the largeness of c in ordinary units. Let's use units so that c = 1 and such that m/k = 1. Then we have:
t -> √(m/k) T
x -> c√(m/k)X
x' -> c X'
x'' ->c√(k/m) X''
and we have
c√(m/k)X (1 - (X')²)^(3/2) + c√(m/k)X'' = 0
or just
X (1 - (X')²)^(3/2) + X'' = 0 which has a bunch of periodic solutions for X(0) = 0 and |X'(0)| < 1 but they do not have the same period, nor are they (for finite X') simple harmonic motion. The period for very small excitations is about T = 2 π or t = 2 π √(m/k) . For larger excitations, the period is larger.

(Wolfram's Alpha can tell you little about the above equation, but it can be coaxed into giving a little more.)

What it says is that a spring system stretched from it's natural position by a distance more than on the order of c√(m/k) is going to exhibit highly relativistic behavior.

So instead of trying to figure how the forces transform, you know how x and t and H transform, so you might have a better chance starting here.
Trout
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 31 2009, 04:13 AM)
In 1-d, Hooke's law expresses a simple conservative force with a quadratic well.

Well, let's see. We could write in terms of forces, but what a bore that would be.
So let's write in terms of a 1-dimensional Hamiltonian.

H = kx²/2 + mc²/√(1 - v²/c²)
Then differentiate with respect to time.
H' = kxx' + m (1 - v²/c²)^(-3/2)vv'
Remember that v = x' and v' = x'' and factor
H' = kx'(1 - v²/c²)^(-3/2)[x(1 - (x')²/c²)^(3/2) + (m/k)x'']
Now since for a solution, H' = 0 means energy is conserved, we have the equation of motion as
H' = 0 => x(1 - (x')²/c²)^(3/2) + (m/k)x'' = 0

Which is almost as far as we can take it, but remember a large part of the weird part of relativity is the largeness of c in ordinary units. Let's use units so that c = 1 and such that m/k = 1. Then we have:
t -> √(m/k) T
x -> c√(m/k)X
x' -> c X'
x'' ->c√(k/m) X''
and we have
c√(m/k)X (1 - (X')²)^(3/2) + c√(m/k)X'' = 0
or just
X (1 - (X')²)^(3/2) + X'' = 0 which has a bunch of periodic solutions for X(0) = 0 and |X'(0)| < 1 but they do not have the same period, nor are they (for finite X') simple harmonic motion. The period for very small excitations is about T = 2 π or t = 2 π √(m/k) .  For larger excitations, the period is larger.

(Wolfram's Alpha can tell you little about the above equation, but it can be coaxed into giving a little more.)

What it says is that a spring system stretched from it's natural position by a distance more than on the order of c√(m/k) is going to exhibit highly relativistic behavior.

So instead of trying to figure how the forces transform, you know how x and t and H transform, so you might have a better chance starting here.

Thank you, I will think about it . For the time being , I do not see how it fits with the definition of the covariant law of motion.I do not see x(1 - (x')²/c²)^(3/2) + (m/k)x'' = 0 being covariant. This may be a problem.
I continued looking through the Tolman book and it seems that the treatment has to go through the stress tensor, it isn't trivial. Do you have the book? It is nice having a true science thread for a change, it is becoming increasingly rare in this forum.
rpenner
I doubt it's a fundamental problem, since Hooke's Law is only approximately true for materials. Likewise a body in SHM, when subjected to a Lorentz boost may not be in in SHM about a center-of-mass straight-line motion. It's not when there is a component of the motion in the direction of SHM.

If the particle's motion in the center-of-mass is
(t,x)=(t, L sin(wt+p))
Then in the v-boosted frame, the same motion is
t'=(t - (v/c²) L sin(wt + p)) / √(1-v²/c²)
x'=(L sin(wt + p) -vt) / √(1-v²/c²)

But plotting x' in terms of t' is not SHM when 0 < |v| < c because the inverse function t = f(t') is so very ugly.
Euler
If this is a serious project, then one should be considering a general constitutional relation for a solid body. Standard solid mechanics is treated, with varying levels of mathematical rigor, as a dynamical problem on the tangent bundle of a smooth 3 dimensional manifold.

If my version of "make covariant" is as you want, then you should then elevate the base manifold of the aforementioned tangent bundle to the base manifold of some principle G-bundle. The standard formulation of solid mechanics already gives you dynamical equations on a manifold, so elevating these equations to take into account a "gauge freedom" can be done without too much hassle by modifying the relevant equations of motion.
Trout
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 8 2009, 05:16 PM)
I doubt it's a fundamental problem, since Hooke's Law is only approximately true for materials. Likewise a body in SHM, when subjected to a Lorentz boost may not be in in SHM about a center-of-mass straight-line motion. It's not when there is a component of the motion in the direction of SHM.

If the particle's motion in the center-of-mass is
(t,x)=(t, L sin(wt+p))
Then in the v-boosted frame, the same motion is
t'=(t - (v/c²) L sin(wt + p)) / √(1-v²/c²)
x'=(L sin(wt + p) -vt) / √(1-v²/c²)

But plotting x' in terms of t' is not SHM when 0 < |v| < c because the inverse function t = f(t') is so very ugly.


Thank you, rpenner

But the motion is not oscillating. Think about it, you start with F=dp/dt where p=\gamma*m0*v on one hand and F=-kx (or a variation of thereof) on the other hand.
It is obvious that the equation

m0 d/dt(v/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)=-kx is not covariant under the Lorentz transformations. I have been looking at the stress energy tensor, it looks like the more promising avenue.

This is a rare opportunity to have a sane thread.
Trout
QUOTE (Euler+Aug 8 2009, 07:34 PM)
If this is a serious project, then one should be considering a general constitutional relation for a solid body. Standard solid mechanics is treated, with varying levels of mathematical rigor, as a dynamical problem on the tangent bundle of a smooth 3 dimensional manifold.

If my version of "make covariant" is as you want, then you should then elevate the base manifold of the aforementioned tangent bundle to the base manifold of some principle G-bundle. The standard formulation of solid mechanics already gives you dynamical equations on a manifold, so elevating these equations to take into account a "gauge freedom" can be done without too much hassle by modifying the relevant equations of motion.


Thank you, Euler

How do you put the above in the form of some equations?
Euler
You take your equations on your TM (tangent bundle of the specific 3 manifold), then elevate the derivatives to include a contribution from the Lie algebra of the structure group.

The equations will depend on your constitutive relation (body dependent). The additional term in your derivatives will depend on the gauge theory you want to study. Relate this to QED: it can be viewed as a boring field theory with some A_v terms, OR an Abelian gauge theory if you incorporate the the potential into the derivative and consider connections on a U(1) bundle.
Trout
QUOTE (Euler+Aug 8 2009, 10:51 PM)
You take your equations on your TM (tangent bundle of the specific 3 manifold), then elevate the derivatives to include a contribution from the Lie algebra of the structure group.

The equations will depend on your constitutive relation (body dependent). The additional term in your derivatives will depend on the gauge theory you want to study. Relate this to QED: it can be viewed as a boring field theory with some A_v terms, OR an Abelian gauge theory if you incorporate the the potential into the derivative and consider connections on a U(1) bundle.

Can you write down in equation form what you are saying with words?
Euler
I'm not about to start doing your work for you.

You have a constitutional relation for your material (this is an equation). You have the equations of motion for your solid (i.e. Div \sigma + \rho g = \rho( v_t + (v\dot \nabla) v ), in Eulerian frame, from linear momentum balance). Now specify some gauge invariance (i.e. specify the principle G-bundle you want to work on), and modify the derivatives accordingly. Or work entirely from a variational formulation.
Euler
Apologies - I wasn't in the best of moods, ignore the "I'm not doing your work for you".

If my posts haven't made any sense, then doing the problem from a geometrical standpoint isn't your best bet.
Trout
QUOTE (Euler+Aug 9 2009, 10:59 AM)
Apologies - I wasn't in the best of moods, ignore the "I'm not doing your work for you".

If my posts haven't made any sense, then doing the problem from a geometrical standpoint isn't your best bet.

This turns out to be a quite formidable problem, judging by its solution. I had no idea when I started investigating....
Euler
QUOTE (Trout+Aug 12 2009, 04:46 AM)
This turns out to be a quite formidable problem, judging by its solution. I had no idea when I started investigating....

This contains a lot of chuff that is irrelevant to your needs [although I think it's a great thesis]. Ignore the first section - these are essentially standard results or applications of standard results in analysis of PDE.

Jump straight to S3.1.2, where they approach the problem from a variational formulation. Assuming you're familiar with the language of differential geometry, you should be fine from there on.

They are also doing nonlinear continuum mechanics, so assuming you're only interested in linear theory, most of the undesirable terms drop out. Finally, your life will be much easier if you assume the background spacetime is flat.
Trout
QUOTE (Euler+Aug 12 2009, 07:34 AM)
This contains a lot of chuff that is irrelevant to your needs [although I think it's a great thesis]. Ignore the first section - these are essentially standard results or applications of standard results in analysis of PDE.

Jump straight to S3.1.2, where they approach the problem from a variational formulation. Assuming you're familiar with the language of differential geometry, you should be fine from there on.

They are also doing nonlinear continuum mechanics, so assuming you're only interested in linear theory, most of the undesirable terms drop out. Finally, your life will be much easier if you assume the background spacetime is flat.

Thank you. Yes, my problem is stated for Minkowski space.
daloka
QUOTE (Trout+Jul 30 2009, 06:42 PM)
I spent a lot of time looking at the stress tensor and at Hooke law but nothing got me any closer to a covariant formulation of Hooke's law. I found one very old (and very bad) paper on the subject. Any suggestions?

It’s old but not bad at all.

Of course Lorentz contraction cannot give a stress. Strain in Hooke’s law must be properly defined in order to be Lorent’s invariant.
CE1
Hooke's Law: F = -kx for a spring with spring constant k and displacement x.
x is a spatial displacement so this is not relativistic. We want to describe a spring in a Minkowski spacetime.

If we imagine a spring that is several light years long then we can wiggle one end of the spring and it will be quite a while before the other end can possibly observe an effect. There is relevant information in the spring, not just in the position of the end points. There are compression waves and transverse waves. With appropriate choice of coordinate system we can address both waves at the same time.

To describe a compression wave on a spring we can take a spring that is at rest with uniform tension and then mark off constant intervals (e.g. centimeters). Likewise, for a flat elastic medium at rest with uniform tension we can mark off a coordinate grid. Then compression waves are visible as compression of the coordinates. What we are doing is designating a coordinate chart on the elastic medium. Naturally, the coordinate chart should also include the time axis. We will use y_B to for the coordinates on the elastic medium. The index B is a capital letter, to distinguish these coordinates. Write the coordinates of the Minkowski spacetime as x_a. Note that we will have tensors that use both the coordinate system y_B and the coordinate system x_a. Capital indices indicate the coordinate chart on the spring, y_B. Lower case indices indicate the coordinate system in the Minkowski space, x_a.

We will use the function F_a(y_B) to describe the position of the elastic medium in spacetime. For a position and time on the spring at rest, designated y_B, the function F_a(y_B) gives the position and time of that point in the Minkowski space. We are embedding a manifold, the elastic medium, into a flat space of higher dimension.

We suggest the Lagrangian L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} as a starting point.

When we integrate the Lagrangian, we are integrating over the elastic manifold, using its coordinate system.

∫ (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} d^n y_B

This is important to maintain the appropriate density of the spring.

If the spring has 0 spacelike dimensions (it is a point) and one timelike dimension, then we are mapping a line into a Minkowski space and the Lagrangian should be familiar. In this case the Lagrangian is

L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} with B= 0 and this is
L = (v_a v^a)^{1/2} for v_a = F_{a,0}
and v_a is the 4-velocity as parametrized by the B coordinate. So we have an extra degree of freedom. This is the same problem as stretching a spring around corners. The optimal solution is for the spring to have uniform tension and to follow the path of shortest length. In the case of (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} the optimal solution is for the parametrization to be uniform with respect to arc length and for the path to optimize the proper time. The Lagrangian assures the parametrization is uniform. This makes F_{a,0}F^{a,0}=1 for the particle, the parametrization matches the proper time. To convert to Minkowski space coordinates we set v_0 = 1 (equivalently, F_{0,B}F^{0,B}=1) and then

L = 1/γ which is the Lagrangian for a pointlike particle.

Looking at L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} we see that this does not have all the information we need. There is no way to designate the density of the elastic medium or its spring constant. To fix that we change to

L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,C} S^B_C)^{1/2}

Integrating over the elastic manifold we have the Lagrangian
∫ (F_{a,B} F^{a,C} S^B_C)^{1/2} d^n y_B

for some tensor S^B_C. If we assume an isotropic elastic medium with uniform elasticity and density d then we can assign S^0_0 = d^2 and S^N_N = -k for N non-zero.

For a one-dimensional spring of unit length that is stretched by a factor of r we get

L = (F_{a,0}F^{a,0} d^2 + F_{a,1} F^{a,1}(- k))^{1/2}
the term F_{a,0}F^{a,0} d^2 = d^2 but in Minkowski space coordinates it is (d/γ)^2. This term is much larger so we have approximately

L = ((d/γ)^2)^(1/2) = d/γ
Integrating this over the length gives m/γ so that's good. (We are integrating over y_B so the length is still 1 even though the spring is stretched in Minkowski space). We can expand (F_{a,0} F^{a,0} d^2 + F_{a,1} F^{a,1}(-k))^{1/2} as a Taylor series. We assumed a uniform expansion by a factor of r, so (-k)F_{a,1}F^{a,1} = k r^2. The Taylor series adds a factor of (1/2). Therefore, integrating over the spring's unit length gives a potential energy contribution of (1/2)k r^2. So the weak and slow case matches Hooke's law.


To put masses on the end of the spring we can set the values of S^B_C(y_B) so that there is mass on the ends. This introduces the possibility that S^B_C changes as a function of location on the spring. We can include that in the derivation of the equation of motion.

Deriving the equation of motion for L = (F^{a,B} F_{a,C} S_B^C)^{1/2}:

taking the derivatives w.r.t. F_{a,C}

(1/2)(F^{a,B}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S^C_B}) (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}

(and changing a pair of C indices to D at the end so that things will look cleaner later)

taking the derivative with respect to y_C (and removing the 1/2 factor)

[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_B^C_{,C} +
F^{a,B}_{,C}S^C_B + F^{a,B}S^C_{B,C}] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-
(1/2)(F^{a,B}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S^C_B)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D + F^{a,B}F_{a,D,C}S_B^D +
F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_B^D_{,C}] = 0


which, frankly, is a little complicated. I prefer the Lagrangian.

There are several interesting features here. One is that you parametrize the path in spacetime, even for a particle. That same effect relates to the relative time dilation experienced on different parts of the spring. The time coordinate in F^{a,B} is a=0 and it follows its own approximation of the wave equation on the spring. Another interesting feature is the two different coordinate systems that are used together. The coordinate systems can be considered a description of the elastic medium geometry in spacetime but it is also convenient to think of the Minkowski space coordinates as a field on the manifold of the elastic medium.

Trout
QUOTE (CE1+Sep 25 2009, 02:49 AM)
Hooke's Law: F = -kx for a spring with spring constant k and displacement x.
x is a spatial displacement so this is not relativistic. We want to describe a spring in a Minkowski spacetime.

If we imagine a spring that is several light years long then we can wiggle one end of the spring and it will be quite a while before the other end can possibly observe an effect. There is relevant information in the spring, not just in the position of the end points. There are compression waves and transverse waves. With appropriate choice of coordinate system we can address both waves at the same time.

To describe a compression wave on a spring we can take a spring that is at rest with uniform tension and then mark off constant intervals (e.g. centimeters). Likewise, for a flat elastic medium at rest with uniform tension we can mark off a coordinate grid. Then compression waves are visible as compression of the coordinates. What we are doing is designating a coordinate chart on the elastic medium. Naturally, the coordinate chart should also include the time axis. We will use y_B to for the coordinates on the elastic medium. The index B is a capital letter, to distinguish these coordinates. Write the coordinates of the Minkowski spacetime as x_a. Note that we will have tensors that use both the coordinate system y_B and the coordinate system x_a. Capital indices indicate the coordinate chart on the spring, y_B. Lower case indices indicate the coordinate system in the Minkowski space, x_a.

We will use the function F_a(y_B) to describe the position of the elastic medium in spacetime. For a position and time on the spring at rest, designated y_B, the function F_a(y_B) gives the position and time of that point in the Minkowski space. We are embedding a manifold, the elastic medium, into a flat space of higher dimension.

We suggest the Lagrangian L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} as a starting point.

When we integrate the Lagrangian, we are integrating over the elastic manifold, using its coordinate system.

∫ (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} d^n y_B

This is important to maintain the appropriate density of the spring.

If the spring has 0 spacelike dimensions (it is a point) and one timelike dimension, then we are mapping a line into a Minkowski space and the Lagrangian should be familiar. In this case the Lagrangian is

L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} with B= 0 and this is
L = (v_a v^a)^{1/2} for v_a = F_{a,0}
and v_a is the 4-velocity as parametrized by the B coordinate. So we have an extra degree of freedom. This is the same problem as stretching a spring around corners. The optimal solution is for the spring to have uniform tension and to follow the path of shortest length. In the case of (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} the optimal solution is for the parametrization to be uniform with respect to arc length and for the path to optimize the proper time. The Lagrangian assures the parametrization is uniform. This makes F_{a,0}F^{a,0}=1 for the particle, the parametrization matches the proper time. To convert to Minkowski space coordinates we set v_0 = 1 (equivalently, F_{0,B}F^{0,B}=1) and then

L = 1/γ which is the Lagrangian for a pointlike particle.

Looking at L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,B})^{1/2} we see that this does not have all the information we need. There is no way to designate the density of the elastic medium or its spring constant. To fix that we change to

L = (F_{a,B} F^{a,C} S^B_C)^{1/2}

Integrating over the elastic manifold we have the Lagrangian
∫ (F_{a,B} F^{a,C} S^B_C)^{1/2} d^n y_B

for some tensor S^B_C. If we assume an isotropic elastic medium with uniform elasticity and density d then we can assign S^0_0 = d^2 and S^N_N = -k for N non-zero.

For a one-dimensional spring of unit length that is stretched by a factor of r we get

L = (F_{a,0}F^{a,0} d^2 + F_{a,1} F^{a,1}(- k))^{1/2}
the term F_{a,0}F^{a,0} d^2 = d^2 but in Minkowski space coordinates it is (d/γ)^2. This term is much larger so we have approximately

L = ((d/γ)^2)^(1/2) = d/γ
Integrating this over the length gives m/γ so that's good. (We are integrating over y_B so the length is still 1 even though the spring is stretched in Minkowski space). We can expand (F_{a,0} F^{a,0} d^2 + F_{a,1} F^{a,1}(-k))^{1/2} as a Taylor series. We assumed a uniform expansion by a factor of r, so (-k)F_{a,1}F^{a,1} = k r^2. The Taylor series adds a factor of (1/2). Therefore, integrating over the spring's unit length gives a potential energy contribution of (1/2)k r^2. So the weak and slow case matches Hooke's law.


To put masses on the end of the spring we can set the values of S^B_C(y_B) so that there is mass on the ends. This introduces the possibility that S^B_C changes as a function of location on the spring. We can include that in the derivation of the equation of motion.

Deriving the equation of motion for L = (F^{a,B} F_{a,C} S_B^C)^{1/2}:

taking the derivatives w.r.t. F_{a,C}

(1/2)(F^{a,B}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S^C_B}) (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}

(and changing a pair of C indices to D at the end so that things will look cleaner later)

taking the derivative with respect to y_C (and removing the 1/2 factor)

[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_B^C_{,C} +
F^{a,B}_{,C}S^C_B + F^{a,B}S^C_{B,C}] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-
(1/2)(F^{a,B}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S^C_B)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D + F^{a,B}F_{a,D,C}S_B^D +
F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_B^D_{,C}] = 0


which, frankly, is a little complicated. I prefer the Lagrangian.

There are several interesting features here. One is that you parametrize the path in spacetime, even for a particle. That same effect relates to the relative time dilation experienced on different parts of the spring. The time coordinate in F^{a,B} is a=0 and it follows its own approximation of the wave equation on the spring. Another interesting feature is the two different coordinate systems that are used together. The coordinate systems can be considered a description of the elastic medium geometry in spacetime but it is also convenient to think of the Minkowski space coordinates as a field on the manifold of the elastic medium.

Thank you, this is very impressive. How would you get the expression for the force in the unidimensional case? That is, what is the covariant equivalent of F=-k*x ?
daloka
Hi Trout
welcome back

Very impressive for you

the same style of your (??!!)

many difficult words for easy ...

CE1
To make the previous equations appropriate for a 1-dimensional spring, the short answer is that the capital indices can take the values 0 (timelike) and 1 (spacelike). But it's possible to simplify further. I should point out that some of the notation I've used is a little casual. An expression like (F^a F_a)F^a means that the tensors on the inside of the parentheses are contracted on "a" and then multiplied by F^a. It is equivalent to (F^b F_b)F^a.

To simplify, first it seems reasonable to assume that S^B_C is symmetric. Then we can also assume that the density is constant everywhere except the ends that have masses m(0) at the 0 end and m(1) at the 1 end. The spring constant is constant everywhere. Then

(this will be easier to understand if you plug it into LaTex.)

$[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C +
F^{a,B}_{,C}S^C_B + F^{a,B}S^C_{B,C}] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-
(1/2)(F^{a,B}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S^C_B)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D + F^{a,B}F_{a,D,C}S_B^D +
F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D] = 0$

Assume $S_B^C$ symmetric

$[2F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C +2 F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-
(1/2)(2F^{a,B}S_B^C)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D] = 0$

then rearranging terms

$2[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D] = 0$

and

$\frac{2[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D]}{(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}}=0$

assuming $F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D$ is non-zero

$2[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D]=0$

separating out the derivatives of $S_B^C$

$2(F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C) (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D]=
(F^{a,B}S_B^C)(F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D)-2F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)$

Let delta(x) be the dirac delta at x. Then for a 1-dimensional spring of length 1 with masses m(0) at 0 and m(1) at 1 and uniform density elsewhere $S_{B,C}^D = m(0)delta(0)+m(1)delta(1)$ for B=D=0 and C=1 and $S_{B,C}^D$ is zero otherwise. (We swapped some indices so $S_B^C$ becomes $S^0_0$.) Then the right side simplifies and


$2(F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C) (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-2(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D] = (F^{a,0}S_0^0)(F^{a,0}F_{a,0})(m(0)delta(0) + m(1)delta(1))$


There are two terms on the left. The second term describes the rate of change of the tension as a function of time and position. The first term describes the way that a point on the spring moves in response to the derivative of the tension. On the right side is a boundary condition corresponding to the masses on the ends of the spring.

This is still nowhere near as intuitive as F = -kx.




Trout
QUOTE (CE1+Oct 1 2009, 05:41 AM)
To make the previous equations appropriate for a 1-dimensional spring, the short answer is that the capital indices can take the values 0 (timelike) and 1 (spacelike).  But it's possible to simplify further.  I should point out that some of the notation I've used is a little casual.  An expression like (F^a F_a)F^a  means that the tensors on the inside of the parentheses are contracted on "a" and then multiplied by F^a.  It is equivalent to (F^b F_b)F^a.

To simplify, first it seems reasonable to assume that S^B_C is symmetric.  Then we can also assume that the density is constant everywhere except the ends that have masses m(0) at the 0 end and m(1) at the 1 end.  The spring constant is constant everywhere.  Then

(this will be easier to understand if you plug it into LaTex.)

$[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C +
F^{a,B}_{,C}S^C_B + F^{a,B}S^C_{B,C}] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-
(1/2)(F^{a,B}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S^C_B)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D + F^{a,B}F_{a,D,C}S_B^D +
F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D] = 0$

Assume $S_B^C$ symmetric

$[2F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C +2 F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-
(1/2)(2F^{a,B}S_B^C)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D] = 0$

then rearranging terms

$2[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-1/2}
-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}
[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D] = 0$

and

$\frac{2[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D]}{(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)^{-3/2}}=0$

assuming $F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D$ is non-zero 

$2[F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C + F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C] (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D +F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D]=0$

separating out the derivatives of $S_B^C$

$2(F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C) (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[2F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D]=
(F^{a,B}S_B^C)(F^{a,B}F_{a,D}S_{B,C}^D)-2F^{a,B}S_{B,C}^C(F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)$

Let delta(x) be the dirac delta at x.  Then for a 1-dimensional spring of length 1 with masses m(0) at 0 and m(1) at 1 and uniform density elsewhere $S_{B,C}^D = m(0)delta(0)+m(1)delta(1)$ for B=D=0 and C=1 and $S_{B,C}^D$ is zero otherwise.  (We swapped some indices so $S_B^C$ becomes $S^0_0$.)  Then the right side simplifies and


$2(F^{a,B}_{,C}S_B^C) (F^{a,B} F_{a,D} S_B^D)-2(F^{a,B}S_B^C)[F^{a,B}_{,C}F_{a,D}S_B^D] = (F^{a,0}S_0^0)(F^{a,0}F_{a,0})(m(0)delta(0) + m(1)delta(1))$


There are two terms on the left.  The second term describes the rate of change of the tension as a function of time and position.  The first term describes the way that a point on the spring moves in response to the derivative of the tension.  On the right side is a boundary condition corresponding to the masses on the ends of the spring.

This is still nowhere near as intuitive as F = -kx.

Thank you, my word_to_Latex converter couldn't handle the post, would it be possible for you to create a pdf and email it to me or upload it on a public server like savefile or photobucket so I could read it? Thank you for all your efforts.
Granouille
The Joint would be available if you weren't so damned intolerant and haughty. dry.gif
Trout
QUOTE (Granouille+Oct 1 2009, 10:11 PM)
The Joint would be available if you weren't so damned intolerant and haughty. dry.gif

Available for what? pretenders and crackpots making believe that they are talking science?
Granouille
Yes. As well as yourself and several others who know the difference.

Which brings the question: If admitting cranks and pretenders are the criteria you use for deciding which forum is suitable, why are you still here, for god's sakes?

And this: If you'd kept your rude mouth shut at the Joint, you'd still be there, contributing your inestimable knowledge to the cranks and pretenders. No doubt we would now all be better off.

Trout
QUOTE (Granouille+Oct 1 2009, 11:10 PM)
Yes. As well as yourself and several others who know the difference.

Which brings the question: If admitting cranks and pretenders are the criteria you use for deciding which forum is suitable, why are you still here, for god's sakes?


Because this place has a few people like rpenner, AN and now, CE1 that are worth conversing with.

QUOTE
And this: If you'd kept your rude mouth shut at the Joint, you'd still be there, contributing your inestimable knowledge to the cranks and pretenders. No doubt we would now all be better off.


You are so stupid that you took offense for something that I said on your joint. It wasn't directed at you but you demonstrated how stupid you really are and you jumped the gun. Now your joint is left populated with the pretenders that make you feel confortable and you come begging me to come back. Do you even have mr_homm left? Or is he gone as well?
Granouille
You are an assh0le. I haven't asked you back, nor would I.

The membership of the Joint isn't really your business anymore is it? You might bat your eyes at some of this place's members and ask them, if you want to know.

I truly don't care if your mathematics are sublime, or even correct. Your social graces and your wonderful personality more than make up for that.

Fck off.
Confused2
QUOTE (Trout+)
Because this place has a few people like rpenner, AN and now, CE1


Why so few? Why did the others leave?

Any guesses?

-C2.

Confused2
Here's a clue (feedback to CE1):-

Geoff Mollusc Posted: Sep 15 2009, 12:56 AM
Negative 27 nominations for Idiot Pretender 2009.
Trout Posted: Sep 11 2009, 12:16 AM
Negative -2
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Sep 6 2009, 08:14 AM
Negative CE1? ..... surely stands for Comedic Education - "1" most probably signifies a personal best IQ score, after ingesting 27kg's of mind-boosting pharmaceuticals.
Trout Posted: Sep 1 2009, 11:15 PM
Negative for this[..link..]. Pure bunk.

-C2.
Dr Fred A Wolf
You'd have the slightest hint of a valid case C2, if it were not for the merest trifling fact that CE1 is still here.

You can't blame Trout and Geoff for their initial suspicions - this forum is inundated with all manner of fraudulent idiotic psychotic types and real creepy, laughingly pretentious, politically inept brainfucks like yourself.


smile.gif
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for substituting personal bile and slurs for reasoned argument.]
Confused2
I guess I must'a missed the episode when Beavis and Butthead saved the world.
daloka
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 1 2009, 09:57 PM)
Thank you, my word_to_Latex converter couldn't handle the post, would it be possible for you to create a pdf and email it to me or upload it on a public server like savefile or photobucket so I could read it? Thank you for all your efforts.

Trout

don't be ridiculous

you and CE1 are the same person. Don't try to cheat

You and CE1 are saying nothing!!

What you say very bad is instead serious and clear http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald...jp_49_28_81.pdf



I'm busy for some days more than we will discuss about who is the dishonest in this topic

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25905
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.