4 ms·
The title seems like a weird way to describe the phenomenon, given that the robot exists within our real space, which is essentially flat at the scales and velo
by rcthompson 4y ago
The title seems like a weird way to describe the phenomenon, given that the robot exists within our real space, which is essentially flat at the scales and velocities involved (specifically, non-relativistic ones). Is constraining motion to take place within a spherical slice of Euclidean 3-D space really equivalent to motion in an actually spherical space?
Unless I'm missing something, it's fairly easy to understand why it works. The horizontal weights use Newton's 3rd law to rotate the bar in the opposite direction from their own motion. The vertical weights are used to alter the robot's moment of inertia relative to the constrained axis of rotation. (You could replace these weights with a single weight that slides along the radial bar toward and away from the center axis.) The moment of inertia determines how much the robot as a whole moves then the horizontal weights move, so if you move the weights one way, then change the moment of inertia and move the weights back the other way, you get a net change in position. This is why it doesn't work with a cylinder: because when the vertical weights are constrained to a cylindrical space, moving them doesn't change the robot's moment of inertia.
I guess the point is that in a true spherical (or otherwise non-flat) space, any robot with the appropriate moving parts can do this "swimming" just by moving its parts in the right way in space without pushing on anything, essentially "pushing" against the curvature of the space itself.
Now that I think about it, there's a conceptually simpler way to demonstrate the same thing. Imagine a "robot" made of two parts: a "gun" and a "bullet". The gun starts on the "equator" of a spherical space and fires the bullet due west. By Newton's 3rd law, the gun begins moving east. After some time, the bullet flies all the way around the equator and impacts the gun from the east. The gun catches it and its velocity once again becomes zero, but in the time between firing the bullet and catching it, the gun has progressed some distance to the east, and now the combined gun and bullet system that we started with has changed its position. The gun can reload and fire the bullet west again, repeating the process as many times as necessary to continue progressing around the equator.
- oreally 4y agoIt's clickbait I guess. IIRC einstein had to dip into math for imaginary numbers and non-euclidean spaces for his theory on general relativity, but imaginary numbers aren't the most intuitive in the physical world and one at first conception one wouldn't think it should be in there. Yet imaginary numbers do help in many computations - for example, 3d rotations use quaternions that use imaginary numbers.
- jacobolus 4y agoComplex numbers "are" (i.e. are isomorphic to, and can be conveniently thought of as) ratios of vectors in the Euclidean plane. http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf Any kind of physics involving >1 dimensional Euclidean space inherently involves complex numbers.
- colanderman 4y ago> You could replace these weights with a single weight that slides along the radial bar toward and away from the center axis. I don't think this is the same as what's in the paper, as the axial position of the vertical motors appears to be symmetric relative to the angular position of the horizontal motors. EDIT: Scratch that, just watched the video -- I misunderstood how the vertical motors were moving. They are indeed changing the moment of inertia. You're right -- I don't understand why the authors need to resort to Coulomb forces to explain this behavior. (Aside -- you can use the above phenomenon to rotate in a swivel chair without relying on external forces. Start with legs and arms outstretched. Then: arms left, legs in, arms right, legs out, repeat.)
- Geee 4y agoThanks for the exercise!
- IshKebab 4y ago> Is [it] actually equivalent to motion in an actually spherical space? Yes. A 2D curved space. I think that's the point this is trying to demonstrate. Not that you can do some motions to rotate the position of the arm. You can obviously do that - that's how momentum/reaction wheels work to turn satellites without "pushing off anything". But their demonstration does it with all the motion restricted to happen in the curved 2D space.