Why is a negative sign included in Equation (6) for central-force motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the inclusion of a negative sign in Equation (6) of the central-force motion problem from Thornton and Marion's textbook. The negative sign indicates that as the distance between two particles decreases, the time until collision increases, reflecting the nature of their motion. One participant suggests that the negative sign should have been in Equation (5) instead, arguing that the negative square root in Equation (4) is necessary since the velocity is negative. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the physical implications of mathematical signs in dynamics. Overall, the negative sign serves to convey the relationship between distance and time in the context of particle collision.
sams
Gold Member
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
In Chapter 8: Central-Force Motion, in the Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems book by Thornton and Marion, Fifth Edition, page 323, Problem 8-5, we are asked to show that the two particles will collide after a time ##\tau/4√2##.

I don't have any problems with the derivations and with the integrations, but I want to know please why the authors put a negative sign in Equation (6) and what do they mean that the negative sign was included due to the fact that the time increases as the distance decreases?

Thanks a lot for your help...
Central-Force Problem.PNG
 

Attachments

  • Central-Force Problem.PNG
    Central-Force Problem.PNG
    19.7 KB · Views: 1,489
Physics news on Phys.org
In my opinion the negative sign should have appeared in equation (5). Equation (4) for ##\dot{x}^2## has two solutions. In this case, the negative square root is required as ##\dot{x}## is negative, for the physical reason given
 
  • Like
Likes sams
Thank you so much @PeroK for your continuous support...
 
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