Why Do My Classical Mechanics Equations Not Align?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the discrepancies between two classical mechanics equations presented in the textbook "Symon." The user attempts to reconcile the equations involving the torque exerted on a system of particles, specifically the transition from the equation involving individual particle positions to one centered around the center of mass. The key issue identified is the incorrect inclusion of the term related to an arbitrary point, \(\mathbf{r}_Q\), in the second equation. The correct derivation requires recognizing that the position vector should be measured from the center of mass, \(\mathbf{R}\), rather than from \(\mathbf{r}_Q\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics principles, particularly torque and center of mass.
  • Familiarity with vector calculus, including cross products.
  • Knowledge of the equations of motion for a system of particles.
  • Ability to manipulate summations and apply mass distribution concepts.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the center of mass in classical mechanics.
  • Learn about the properties of cross products in vector calculus.
  • Explore the relationship between torque and angular momentum in multi-particle systems.
  • Review the principles of deriving equations of motion from fundamental forces.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying classical mechanics, educators teaching mechanics concepts, and researchers analyzing multi-body systems in physics.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
My classical mechanics textbook (Symon) gives two equations. So I try to do the calculations that lead from one to the other but there's something that doesn't work. Tell me what I'm doing wrong please.

We start from

[tex]\sum_{k=1}^N (\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{F}^i_k - m_k(\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/tex]

and want to get to

[tex]\sum_{k=1}^N (\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{F}^i_k - M(\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/tex]

given

[tex]M\mathbf{R} = \sum_{k=1}^N m_k \mathbf{r}_k[/tex]

I'm not sure if the [itex]-M(\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/itex] term is included in the sum or not but in either case, it doesn't make sense to me.

Here are the steps I made:

[tex]=\sum_{k=1}^N (\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{F}^i_k -\sum_{k=1}^N m_k(\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/tex]

Now let's work on the second sum; we should get [itex]M(\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/tex] (either with or without the sum sign before)<br /> <br /> [tex]\sum_{k=1}^N m_k(\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k <br /> = \sum_{k=1}^N m_k\mathbf{r}_k \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k -\mathbf{r}_Q \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k <br /> = \sum_{k=1}^N m_k\mathbf{r}_k \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k -\sum_{k=1}^N \mathbf{r}_Q \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k<br /> =\left[ \sum_{k=1}^N m_k\mathbf{r}_k - \sum_{k=1}^N \mathbf{r}_Q\right] \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/tex]<br /> [tex]= M\left[ \mathbf{R} - \sum_{k=1}^N \mathbf{r}_Q \right] \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/tex]<br /> <br /> And this is when it doesn't make sense because [itex]\sum_{k=1}^N \mathbf{r}_Q = N \mathbf{r}_Q[/itex] and there is no N in the final equation from the book. This is if the second term is NOT included in the sum. If it IS, then it doesn't make more sense because it would mean the second term is <br /> <br /> [tex]\sum_{k=1}^N M( \mathbf{R} - \mathbf{r}_Q ) \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k <br /> = M\left[ \sum_{k=1}^N\mathbf{R} - \sum_{k=1}^N \mathbf{r}_Q \right] \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k[/tex]<br /> <br /> which isn't what we have either![/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where am I wrong? It looks like I'm missing something very simple but I can't figure it out. Is there a rule I'm not aware of about sums and cross products? The answer is that you are forgetting to use the given information about the total mass M. In the first equation, the second term should be written as: \sum_{k=1}^N m_k(\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k = M(\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{r}_Q)\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k since M\mathbf{R} = \sum_{k=1}^N m_k \mathbf{r}_k
 


Based on the equations you provided, it looks like you are trying to derive the equations of motion for a system of particles, where \mathbf{r}_k is the position vector of the kth particle, \mathbf{F}^i_k is the sum of the external forces acting on the kth particle, and \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k is the acceleration of the kth particle. The first equation you provided is the sum of the torque exerted on the system by the external forces, while the second equation is the sum of the torque exerted on the system by the particles themselves.

The issue with your derivation is that you are not taking into account the fact that the position vector \mathbf{r}_k is measured from the center of mass of the system, \mathbf{R}, and not from some arbitrary point \mathbf{r}_Q. This is why there is a difference between the two equations and why the \mathbf{r}_Q term should not be included in the second sum.

To properly derive the second equation, you can use the fact that the center of mass is defined as \mathbf{R} = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=1}^N m_k \mathbf{r}_k, where M is the total mass of the system. Plugging this into the second sum, we get:

\sum_{k=1}^N m_k(\mathbf{r}_k-\mathbf{R})\times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k
= \sum_{k=1}^N m_k\mathbf{r}_k \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k -\sum_{k=1}^N m_k\mathbf{R} \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k
= \sum_{k=1}^N m_k\mathbf{r}_k \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k - M\mathbf{R} \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k
= \sum_{k=1}^N m_k\mathbf{r}_k \times \mathbf{\ddot{r}}_k - M\left(\frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=1}^N m
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K