Can speed be a imaginary number validity of work energy theoram in 1D

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the validity of using imaginary numbers for speed in the context of the work-energy theorem in one-dimensional motion. It begins with a derivation involving two masses and their position vectors, ultimately leading to the expression for escape velocity. A key point raised is the confusion regarding the nature of speed, suggesting that if speed is not treated as an imaginary number, it leads to contradictions in the relationship between initial and final positions. Participants also debate the correct formulation of gravitational force, emphasizing that it should be attractive rather than repulsive. The conversation concludes with a consensus on the importance of correctly defining variables and assumptions in the calculations.
ManishR
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Consider mass m_{1}and m_{2}with position vector (from an inertial frame) \overrightarrow{x_{1}} and \overrightarrow{x_{2}} respectively and distance between them be x_{0}.

m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\overrightarrow{x_{1}}=\overrightarrow{F}

\Rightarrow m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}(\overrightarrow{x_{2}}-\overrightarrow{x_{0}})=\overrightarrow{F} because its assumed that \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}=\overrightarrow{x_{0}}

\Rightarrow-\overrightarrow{F}\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}}+m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\overrightarrow{x_{0}}=\overrightarrow{F} because m_{2}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\overrightarrow{x_{2}}=-\overrightarrow{F}

\Rightarrow m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\overrightarrow{x_{0}}=\overrightarrow{F}(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}})

\Rightarrow\left(m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}x_{0}\right)\hat{x_{0}}=\overrightarrow{F}(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}}) because its assumed that \frac{d\hat{x_{0}}}{dt}=0

\Rightarrow m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}x_{0}=F(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}}) because \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}=\overrightarrow{x_{0}}\Leftrightarrow\hat{x_{0}}=\hat{F}, F = Gravitational Force

\Rightarrow m_{1}\int_{x_{i}}^{x_{f}}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}x_{0}dx_{0}=(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}})\int_{x_{i}}^{x_{f}}Fdx_{0} because normally we have F as F(x_{0}).

\Rightarrow\left.\frac{1}{2}m_{1}v^{2}\right|_{v=v_{i}}^{v=v_{f}}=(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}})\int_{x_{i}}^{x_{f}}Fdx_{0} because \overrightarrow{v_{0}}=\overrightarrow{v},\left|\overrightarrow{v_{0}}\right|^{2}=(\frac{dx_{0}}{dt})^{2}

in Earth and an object case, let m_{1}=m, m_{2}=m_{e},x_{i}=x_{e} and F=G\frac{mm_{e}}{x_{0}^{2}}.

\Rightarrow\left.\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}\right|_{v=v_{i}}^{v=v_{f}}=\left.-G\frac{m(m+m_{e})}{x_{0}}\right|_{x_{0}=x_{i}}^{x_{0}=x_{f}}

Escape Velocity = v_{i} when v_{f}=0 and x_{f}\rightarrow\infty.

\Rightarrow-\frac{1}{2}mv_{i}^{2}=G\frac{m(m+m_{e})}{x_{e}}

\Rightarrow\frac{1}{2}mv_{i}^{2}=-G\frac{m(m+m_{e})}{x_{e}}

\Rightarrow v_{initial}=i\left(G\frac{m+m_{e}}{x_{e}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}

\RightarrowI don't understand how much speed is this.

Its not just escape velocity, if we don't include imaginery number domian in speed then it implies that if v(x_{f})>v(x_{i}) then x_{f}>x_{i} which is also incorrect.

so question is, can speed be a imaginary number ? How do i give imaginary escape speed to an object?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A speed can't be imaginary, you must have done something wrong in your calculations (a minus sign missing somewhere or something like this). However, I would suggest that you add some comments so we can understand what is happening in your calculations. As it is now, I don't really understand what you're trying to calculate.
 
i am deriving work energy theoram in 1d and proving that speed can be imaginary.
F,x_{1},x_{2},x_{0},v,>0 as these are modulous part of vector quantities.

Consider mass m_{1}and m_{2}with position vector (from an inertial frame) \overrightarrow{x_{1}} and \overrightarrow{x_{2}} respectively and distance between them be x_{0}.
variable definations
m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\overrightarrow{x_{1}}=\overrightarrow{F}
this is Newton's law.
\Rightarrow m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}(\overrightarrow{x_{2}}-\overrightarrow{x_{0}})=\overrightarrow{F} because its assumed that \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}=\overrightarrow{x_{0}}

either \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}=\overrightarrow{x_{0}}
or \overrightarrow{x_{2}}-\overrightarrow{x_{1}}=\overrightarrow{x_{0}}
is true. i chose first. however it does not make any difference in
the results.

\Rightarrow\left(m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}x_{0}\right)\hat{x_{0}}=\overrightarrow{F}(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}}) because its assumed that \frac{d\hat{x_{0}}}{dt}=0
It has to be assumed that system is not rotating as it is nesscery condition for work energy theoram.

Its not just escape velocity, if we don't include imaginery number domian in speed then it implies that if v(x_{f})>v(x_{i}) then x_{f}>x_{i} which is also incorrect.

Let x_{f}>x_{i}.

Since \left.\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}\right|_{v=v_{i}}^{v=v_{f}}=\left.-G\frac{m(m+m_{e})}{x_{0}}\right|_{x_{0}=x_{i}}^{x_{0}=x_{f}}

\Rightarrow v_{f}^{2}>v_{i}^{2}

\Rightarrow v_{f}>v_{i}
 
ManishR said:
m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\overrightarrow{x_{1}}=\overrightarrow{F}

\Rightarrow m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}(\overrightarrow{x_{2}}-\overrightarrow{x_{0}})=\overrightarrow{F} because its assumed that \overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}=\overrightarrow{x_{0}}

I am too lazy to check whether that matters for your calculations and whether you used the different definition all the time, but if you assume \vec{x}_1 -\vec{x}_2=\vec{x}_0
then you have to replace \vec{x}_1 by \vec{x}_2 +\vec{x}_0 instead of \vec{x}_2 -\vec{x}_0.

Also, I am puzzled what force F=G\frac{mm_{e}}{x_{0}^{2}} is supposed to be. This is a force which has the magnitude of gravity, but is repulsive instead of attractive. Gravitational force would be given by F=-G\frac{mm_{e}}{x_{0}^{2}}.

Alternatively, it would be more sensible to assume \hat{x_{0}}=-\hat{F}.
\vec{x}_0 is always the vector starting at \vec{x}_2 and pointing towards \vec{x}_1. The gravitational force on \vec{x}_1 also pointing away from \vec{x}_2 does not make much sense.
 
Last edited:
\overrightarrow{x_{1}}-\overrightarrow{x_{2}}=\overrightarrow{x_{0}} is wrong assumption.

the correct assumption is \overrightarrow{x_{2}}-\overrightarrow{x_{1}}=x_{0}\hat{F}

\Rightarrow-m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}(x_{0}\hat{F})=\overrightarrow{F}(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}})

\Rightarrow m_{1}\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}x_{0}=-F(1+\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}}) ..[1]

\Rightarrow\left.\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}\right|_{v=v_{i}}^{v=v_{f}}=\left.G\frac{m(m+m_{e})}{x_{0}}\right|_{x_{0}=x_{i}}^{x_{0}=x_{f}}

\Rightarrow v_{esacpe}=\left(G\frac{m+m_{e}}{x_{e}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}

ok everything is alright thanks everyone

Cthugha said:
Also, I am puzzled what force F=G\frac{mm_{e}}{x_{0}^{2}} is supposed to be. This is a force which has the magnitude of gravity, but is repulsive instead of attractive. Gravitational force would be given by F=-G\frac{mm_{e}}{x_{0}^{2}}.

F is magnitude of force vector and its always positive whether its attractive or repulsive.
 
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