TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Robotic motion in curved space defies standard laws of physics

41 点作者 thedday将近 3 年前

10 条评论

rcthompson将近 3 年前
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?<p>Unless I&#x27;m missing something, it&#x27;s fairly easy to understand why it works. The horizontal weights use Newton&#x27;s 3rd law to rotate the bar in the opposite direction from their own motion. The vertical weights are used to alter the robot&#x27;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&#x27;t work with a cylinder: because when the vertical weights are constrained to a cylindrical space, moving them doesn&#x27;t change the robot&#x27;s moment of inertia.<p>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 &quot;swimming&quot; just by moving its parts in the right way in space without pushing on anything, essentially &quot;pushing&quot; against the curvature of the space itself.<p>Now that I think about it, there&#x27;s a conceptually simpler way to demonstrate the same thing. Imagine a &quot;robot&quot; made of two parts: a &quot;gun&quot; and a &quot;bullet&quot;. The gun starts on the &quot;equator&quot; of a spherical space and fires the bullet due west. By Newton&#x27;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.
评论 #32456710 未加载
评论 #32457063 未加载
评论 #32456413 未加载
pontifier将近 3 年前
This seems to be using a kind of &quot;reactionless drive&quot; I.E. Movement without apparent exterior force. This kind of drive can&#x27;t produce a net velocity, but can create repeated small translations.<p>To imagine how one would work in a space ship, imagine a very long ship that acts like a particle accelerator. Take an atom from the front end, accelerate backward to near the speed of light so that it&#x27;s mass increases say 1000 times. While that atom is flying backward, your ship that pushed on it moves in the opposite direction. Catch it again in the rear, and the ship must return to zero speed because of conservation of momentum, however the ship is now in a slightly different spot.<p>Move that atom back to the front of the ship, but slowly so it&#x27;s mass stays low. Your ship moves backward, but not quite as far as it moved before. Do this again and again to translate the ship. The net velocity of the ship will always be zero though.
评论 #32457627 未加载
评论 #32458099 未加载
aabajian将近 3 年前
Edit: Here&#x27;s the pre-print: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2112.09740.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2112.09740.pdf</a><p>I&#x27;m not sure others have read deeply into the article. While there&#x27;s always some subtle ways friction can sneak its way, the authors account for the obvious.<p>The article has a lot of definitions, which makes the crux difficult to pinpoint. They use the word &quot;shape&quot; many times to describe the configuration of the four motors. I think this adds confusion. Let me try to summarize as I understand it without using the word &quot;shape.&quot;<p>The authors are measuring the net position of the arm holding the two motor tracks. The arm can only rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise in the <i>horizontal</i> plane, so it suffices to measure the arm position using an angle - phi, with initial position being phi = 0.<p>The two motor tracks are oriented perpendicular to one another. A key point is that the motors <i>do not</i> travel up, down, left, or right. That&#x27;s Cartesian thinking. Rather, they travel clockwise or counter-clockwise along their respective tracks. One track is vertical, the other is horizontal.<p>With this picture, the authors claim that the net horizontal position angle (phi) of the arm changes depending on how the motors move along their tracks.<p>None of this is particularly impressive (e.g. the motion of the motors may cause the arm to &quot;wobble&quot; one way due to issues with synchronization, weight differences, and numerous other causes).<p>The <i>interesting</i> part is this: If the vertically-oriented motors are made to move up-down on linear straight paths instead of curved paths, the net movement of the arm is not observed. Think about that for a moment...why should the path that the <i>vertically</i>-oriented motors take affect the <i>horizontal</i> rotation of the arm?<p>In Newtonian physics, acceleration&#x2F;force in one direction cannot affect acceleration&#x2F;force in a perpendicular direction. At any given moment, the vertically-oriented motors are perpendicular to the arm&#x27;s rotation direction, so their motion should not affect its horizontal rotation in space. In particular, both the curved-vertical and linear-vertical paths are perpendicular to the horizontal at all times. Newton would predict that changing the path of the vertical motors from linear to curved would not affect the horizontal rotation...but it does.
评论 #32456174 未加载
评论 #32456127 未加载
colanderman将近 3 年前
No physics are being violated here -- the authors themselves point out:<p>&gt; Notably, the robot’s ability to move does not violate the usual rule against movement without forces in three-dimensional space because the full three- dimensional dynamics in fact include normal forces on the robot supplied by the boom arm that confines it to the sphere.<p>(And I&#x27;m sure they would agree that you can even eliminate forces from the table itself from the equation, if you attach an identical robot on an opposite arm to supply that normal force from within the system.)<p>What I don&#x27;t understand is -- <i>given that the Euclidean physics are known</i>, why was an <i>experimental</i> setup involved in this paper, as opposed to simply mathematical proof? Or is the experimental demonstration the purpose in and of itself?
fanick将近 3 年前
I suspect friction in the bearings is the culprit and allows for this &quot;defiance of laws of physics&quot;.
评论 #32455931 未加载
评论 #32455623 未加载
keyle将近 3 年前
Do article like these get peered review before publishing or is it a publish first, deny later type of approach?
评论 #32455816 未加载
tbrownaw将近 3 年前
You can do something similar yourself with an office chair and a pair of weights.<p>1. Hold both weights out in front of you 2. Swing one to the side. 3. Swing the other one straight up over your head (or just pull it in next to your body) 4. Swing the first one (off to the side) back in front of you. 5. Swing the second one back down (or push it away from yourself) 6. You are now back at (1), but the chair you&#x27;re in has turned slightly.
评论 #32456308 未加载
jstanley将近 3 年前
The video is very unconvincing, unless I misunderstand what they&#x27;re trying to achieve. Even <i>with</i> all the friction and air resistance in the environment, they didn&#x27;t manage to rotate even a quarter of a turn. Even when it looked like it was working, the direction would sometimes invert for no apparent reason. You can do better than that just by shuffling around on an office chair.
chaps将近 3 年前
Between the gulf of how the article&#x27;s written (PR fluff?) and the paper&#x27;s&#x2F;video&#x27;s kind of bland approach, I&#x27;m having a hard time understanding what&#x27;s going on here or what the significance of this is.. or even if there is one. Are they suggesting a novel way to move forward in space without exerting anything in the opposite direction?
评论 #32455975 未加载
8bitsrule将近 3 年前
Hmmmm ... time to look at the &#x27;anomalies&#x27; again? (And then there&#x27;s Oumuamua ...)<p>[<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pioneer_anomaly" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pioneer_anomaly</a>]<p>[<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Flyby_anomaly" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Flyby_anomaly</a>]