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}
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top