Acceleration as a function of time and position

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding an equation for the acceleration of a particle as a function of space coordinates and time. The initial one-dimensional equation a = v*(dv/dx) is proposed to be generalized to three dimensions, leading to a = |V|*((∂V/∂x)i + (∂V/∂y)j + (∂V/∂z)k). The conversation also touches on the material derivative of acceleration, suggesting it may be relevant in this context, similar to fluid mechanics. There is uncertainty about whether a general equation exists or if the derived forms are sufficient. Overall, the exploration highlights the complexity of defining acceleration in multi-dimensional space and the potential applicability of different mathematical approaches.
AliAhmed
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I'm quite curious as to whether there is an equation (whether it be in scalar, vector, or tensor form) that defines the acceleration of a particle as a function of the three space coordinates and time.

My curiosity arose when I was thinking of the one dimensional equation:
a = v*(dv/dx); where the acceleration and velocity are only defined in the x-direction.

I thought the generalization to three dimensions would be:
a = vx*(dvx/dx)i + vy*(dvy/dy)j + vz*(dvz/dz)k

To include the time variable I thought it might just be the material derivative of acceleration (like in fluid mechanics).

These assumptions are just based on my gut feeling (I have done no derivation whatsoever). Is there an actual equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well I don't know if there is a general equation (which there probably is), but in one dimension you are just looking for the second derivative of the equation of motion of the body.

In more than one dimension you can just split it up into an arbitrary amount of simultaneous parametric equations, and once again its the second derivative of each individual equation.

Once again there might be a general rule, but what I just said above will definitely work.
 
Ali said:
I thought the generalization to three dimensions would be:
a = vx*(dvx/dx)i + vy*(dvy/dy)j + vz*(dvz/dz)k

In one dimension we can say dV/dt=(dx/dt)(dV/dx)=Vx(dV/dx) (but the sub x notation isn't needed because there is only one velocity, and its in x)

but for 3 dimensions, instead of x we use R

so dV/dt=(dR/dt)(dV/dR)=V*(dV/dR)

and

dV/dR = ( \partial V/ \partial x )i +( \partial V/ \partial y )j +( \partial V/ \partial z )k

so

a = |V|*\left[( \partial V/ \partial x )i +( \partial V/ \partial y )j +( \partial V/ \partial z )k \right]

I believe you have to use the magnitude of V, rather than dotting V into dV/dR, for some reason. I can't explain/remember why, but I think this is how it is supposed to be. Could be wrong, idk. but that's my 2 cents, hope it helps
 
elegysix said:
a = |V|*\left[( \partial V/ \partial x )i +( \partial V/ \partial y )j +( \partial V/ \partial z )k \right]

- The equation seems right, but then again why wouldn't the material derivative of acceleration apply (as in fluid mechanics). Is there an assumption I am missing that doesn't apply to ordinary particles? The equation is:

\vec{a} = \frac{D\vec{v}}{Dt} = \vec{v}\cdot(\vec{\nabla}\vec{v}) + \frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t}
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top