| New Reply |
newton's third law in terms of inertial position vectors for n-body system |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Dec23-12, 03:43 AM | #1 |
|
|
newton's third law in terms of inertial position vectors for n-body system
Assuming
$$\vec{r_{a}}$$ and $$\vec{r_{b}}$$ is calculated from an inertial frame of reference. then for any two objects (named a and b) in a system of more than two objects, Is this the newton's third law, $$\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}m_{a}\vec{r_{a}}=-\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}m_{b}\vec{r_{b}}$$ i think this cant be right because then this implies $$\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}m_{i}\vec{r_{i}}=0$$ for every object in that system. so i think i have misunderstood the law, so my question is can anyone state the law in terms of above variables for n-body system ? Edit 1 (fix) fixed a embarrassing mistake d/dt -> d^2/dt^2 thank you |
| PhysOrg.com |
physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Promising doped zirconia >> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease >> Bringing life into focus |
| Dec23-12, 04:01 AM | #2 |
|
|
see if this helps
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...dUaHm8yd0n31kg |
| Dec24-12, 05:00 AM | #3 |
|
|
No it does not :(
i think the problem i am facing is which frame of reference to use, for example 1. if i use a frame of reference such as its origin and the center of mass of the object from which the position vector is to be calculated, coinsides .so $$\vec{R_{AB}}$$ is position vector of object A from a frame of reference such as its origin and center of mass of object B coinsides. and $$\vec{R_{BA}}$$ is position vector of object B from a frame of reference such as its origin and center of mass of object A coinsides. and the law would be $$\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}m_{A}\vec{R_{AB}}=-\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}m_{B}\vec{R_{BA}}$$ but the problem what $$\theta_{AB},\theta_{BA}$$ to choose, certainly the above equation is not true for arbitrary $$\theta_{AB},\theta_{BA}$$ . 2. may be a inertial frame of reference is that frame and following eqaution is the law, $$\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}m_{A}(\vec{r_{A}}-\vec{r_{B}})=-\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}m_{B}(\vec{r_{B}}-\vec{r_{A}})$$ hence $$\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\left(m_{A}-m_{B}\right)\left(\vec{r_{A}}-\vec{r_{B}}\right)=0$$ where $$\vec{r_{A}},\vec{r_{B}}$$ is calculated from an inertial frame of reference . please tell me which one is correct ? if both not correct please state the law too in terms of $$\vec{r_{A}},\vec{r_{B}}$$ ? thank you |
| Dec24-12, 06:19 AM | #4 |
|
|
newton's third law in terms of inertial position vectors for n-body system
it just says
F12=-F21,where F12=m2 dv2/dt(acting on second one).similarly for F21.Don't count others position vector into first one or so. |
| Dec24-12, 06:20 AM | #5 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
Newton's 3rd law simply says:
[tex]\vec{F}_{ab} = - \vec{F}_{ba}[/tex] When you drag in the acceleration you are really talking about Newton's 2nd law, which involves the net force. No reason to think that the net force on particle a will be equal and opposite to the net force on particle b if other particles exist. |
| Dec24-12, 06:28 AM | #6 |
|
|
ok but since $$\vec{F}_{AB}$$ is a vector what is the frame of reference ?
can $$\vec{F}_{AB}$$ be expressed in terms of any positional vectors or any other variables ? |
| Dec24-12, 06:32 AM | #7 |
|
|
ANY inertial reference frame will work.
|
| Dec24-12, 08:54 AM | #8 |
|
|
i think i got it.
$$\vec{F}_{AB}=\left|\vec{F}_{AB}\right|\hat{F}_{AB}$$ where $$\left|\vec{F}_{AB}\right|$$ is all those forces like gravitational etc . i did not know how to express $$\vec{F}_{AB}$$ . i thought it was same force as defined in 2nd law. thanks andrien, Doc Al . |
| Dec24-12, 10:20 AM | #9 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
When I wrote Newton's 2nd law as [tex]\vec{F}_{ab} = - \vec{F}_{ba}[/tex] [itex]\vec{F}_{ab}[/itex] stood for the force on a exerted by b and [itex]\vec{F}_{ba}[/itex] stood for the force on b exerted by a. |
| Dec24-12, 11:28 AM | #10 |
|
|
what i mean is that before tackling the third law, it is necessary that the notion $$\vec{F}_{ab}$$ be understood, means how to calculate or express it , which i did not. the point is $$\vec{F}_{ab}$$ is completely different than $$\vec{F}_{a}$$ defined in 2nd law. actually its confusing that both are referred as force.
i think the law is saying that when defining (or at least for all defined) inter-body forces (like gravitational,electric or magnetic), you only need (to define) $$\vec{F}_{ab-interbody-force}$$ the third law would automatically define, $$\vec{F}_{ba-interbody-force}$$ my guess would be for two forces gravitational and electric, $$\left(\vec{F}_{ab-gravitational}+\vec{F}_{ab-electrical}\right)=-\left(\vec{F}_{ba-gravitational}+\vec{F}_{ba-electrical}\right)$$ but then i think newton's laws would be insufficient to imply this $$\vec{F}_{ab-gravitational}=-\vec{F}_{ba-gravitational}$$ and $$\vec{F}_{ab-electrical}=-\vec{F}_{ba-electrical}$$ please tell me if i am wrong . thanks |
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: newton's third law in terms of inertial position vectors for n-body system
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Expressing cartesian unit vectors in terms of spherical unit vectors | General Math | 9 | ||
| Vectors, velocity in terms of unit vectors | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 3 | ||
| acceleration in terms of position | Introductory Physics Homework | 4 | ||
| Position Vectors, Velocity Vectors, and Acceleration Vectors | Introductory Physics Homework | 3 | ||
| Relativity: position/acceleration 4-vectors to newton's laws | Advanced Physics Homework | 0 | ||