Question about circular motion and acceleration

AI Thread Summary
In circular motion, the relationship between velocity and angular velocity is expressed as V = rw, with the velocity direction along the tangent. The acceleration can be broken down into tangential and radial components, where rα represents only the tangential acceleration, not the total acceleration. The total acceleration is derived from the vector sum of both components, indicating that rα alone does not capture the complete picture. Only the component of acceleration parallel to the velocity affects speed, while orthogonal acceleration changes direction without altering speed. This distinction clarifies why the magnitude of acceleration differs from that of velocity in circular motion.
parshyaa
Messages
307
Reaction score
19
In circular motion
1) V = rw and ##\vec V## = r ω##\vec e_{tan}##
2) a = rα and ##\vec a## = -##\frac{v^2}{r}####\vec e_{rad}## + rα##\vec e_{tan}##
Where ##\vec e_{tan}## is the unit vector along the tangent in increasing direction of θ
And ##\vec e_{rad}## is the unit vector along the radial outward.
From 1) we see that rω is the magnitude of velocity of particle executing circular motion and its direction is along tangent
But in 2) we see that magnitude of acceleration is rα but this is not the magnitude of total acceleration
How could you explain that rα is not the magnitude of total α
 
Physics news on Phys.org
parshyaa said:
But in 2) we see that magnitude of acceleration is rα
This is not correct. It only describes the tangential acceleration.
 
Orodruin said:
This is not correct. It only describes the tangemtial acceleration.
I know that, this is not the magnitude of acceleration, it will be root of the sum of the square of components in both tangential and radical direction, but in v=rω its the total magnitude of the velocity and in a= rα its not the magnitude of total acceleration, its just the magnitude along the tangent, this is what not satisfying me, in the previous case total magnitude is same as v= rw, but this is not the case with accelaration, why is this so
 
Take a general velocity ##\vec v##. Its magnitude, i.e., the speed, ##v## satisfies ##v^2 = \vec v^2## which means that the time derivative ##\dot v## of the speed is given by the time derivative of this expression as
$$
\frac{dv^2}{dt} = 2v\dot v = \frac{d\vec v^2}{dt} = 2\vec v \cdot \frac{d\vec v}{dt} = 2\vec v \cdot \vec a.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad
\dot v = \frac{\vec v \cdot \vec a}{v^2}.
$$
Hence, only the acceleration in the direction parallel to ##\vec v## matters for the change in the speed. Any acceleration orthogonal to the velocity will only change the direction, but not the speed.
 
  • Like
Likes parshyaa
Orodruin said:
Take a general velocity ##\vec v##. Its magnitude, i.e., the speed, ##v## satisfies ##v^2 = \vec v^2## which means that the time derivative ##\dot v## of the speed is given by the time derivative of this expression as
$$
\frac{dv^2}{dt} = 2v\dot v = \frac{d\vec v^2}{dt} = 2\vec v \cdot \frac{d\vec v}{dt} = 2\vec v \cdot \vec a.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad
\dot v = \frac{\vec v \cdot \vec a}{v^2}.
$$
Hence, only the acceleration in the direction parallel to ##\vec v## matters for the change in the speed. Any acceleration orthogonal to the velocity will only change the direction, but not the speed.
Wonderfull explanation, just replace v^2 by v
Thank you so much, for this explanation
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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