Can the Time Derivative of a Vector Change if its Magnitude or Angle Decreases?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the time derivative of a vector, specifically addressing whether the equations governing the derivative of a vector remain valid when the vector's magnitude or angle decreases. The context includes theoretical considerations from mechanics, particularly in polar coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the decomposition of a vector into components parallel and perpendicular to itself, referencing equations derived in a mechanics textbook.
  • It is proposed that the equations do not fail even if the magnitude of the vector decreases, with one participant noting that a singularity occurs when the magnitude approaches zero, leading to an abrupt change in angle.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of a negative time derivative of the magnitude, with participants clarifying that a negative derivative does not imply a negative magnitude for the vector.
  • There is a discussion about the direction of the derivative component parallel to the vector, with emphasis on the relationship between the sign of the derivative and the direction of the unit vector.
  • One participant questions the absence of absolute value bars in the original derivation, suggesting that this might be a point of confusion or oversight in the text.
  • Another participant introduces a clarification from the book, stating that the author considers cases where the magnitude of the vector is constant, leading to a perpendicular relationship between the vector and its derivative.
  • Further dialogue explores the geometric implications of the vector's behavior in circular motion, emphasizing the perpendicular relationship between the radius vector and the tangent vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of negative derivatives and the necessity of absolute value bars in equations. While some points are clarified, no consensus is reached regarding the treatment of the vector's magnitude and angle in the context of the equations discussed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential for misunderstanding regarding the treatment of negative derivatives and the conditions under which the equations apply, particularly in relation to the behavior of the vector as its magnitude approaches zero.

PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20
In chapter 1 of the book "Introduction to Mechanics" by Kleppner and Kolenkow, the derivative of a generic vector ##\vec{A}## is discussed in terms of decomposing an increment in ##\vec{A}##, ##Δ\vec{A}##, into two perpendicular vector vectors; one parallel to ##\vec{A}## and the other perpendicular to ##\vec{A}##
Two equations are then derived:
$$|\frac{d\vec{A}_{perp}}{dt}| = A\frac{dθ}{dt}$$
$$|\frac{d\vec{A}_{par}}{dt}| = \frac{dA}{dt}$$
Do these equations fail if ##θ## or ##A## decrease with time (since the magnitude of a vector is always positive or zero)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MohammedRady97 said:
Do these equations fail if θθ or AA decrease with time (since the magnitude of a vector is always positive or zero)?
No. A is allowed to decrease with time. When you use polar coordinates, you introduce a sort of singularity when A = 0. When A tries to go through 0, θ changes value abruptly (by π). A will keep on being positive.
 
Svein said:
No. A is allowed to decrease with time. When you use polar coordinates, you introduce a sort of singularity when A = 0. When A tries to go through 0, θ changes value abruptly (by π). A will keep on being positive.

If A decreases with time, then ##\frac{dA}{dt}## is negative, right? But it also happens to be the magnitude of the vector I described earlier.
 
Just because dA/dt is negative doesn't mean that A is negative.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
Just because dA/dt is negative doesn't mean that A is negative.

Chet

Of course. But the vector I was referring to wasn't ##\vec{A}##, I was talking about the derivative of the vector component of ##\vec{A}## parallel to ##\vec{A}## (left hand side).
 
MohammedRady97 said:
Of course. But the vector I was referring to wasn't ##\vec{A}##, I was talking about the derivative of the vector component of ##\vec{A}## parallel to ##\vec{A}## (left hand side).
The component of the derivative of ##\vec{A}## parallel to ##\vec{A}## also has a direction. That direction is either ##+\frac{\vec{A}}{|\vec{A}|}## or ##-\frac{\vec{A}}{|\vec{A}|}##, depending on the sign of dA/dt. The vector component of the derivative of the vector ##\vec{A}## with respect to time in the direction parallel to ##\vec{A}## is:

$$\frac{dA}{dt}\frac{\vec{A}}{|\vec{A}|}$$

Even if dA/dt is negative, the magnitude of this vector component is |dA/dt| (positive). The unit vector describing the direction of this component is equal to this vector divided by |dA/dt|. So the negative sign is associated with the unit vector and not the magnitude.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
The component of the derivative of ##\vec{A}## parallel to ##\vec{A}## also has a direction. That direction is either ##+\frac{\vec{A}}{|\vec{A}|}## or ##-\frac{\vec{A}}{|\vec{A}|}##, depending on the sign of dA/dt. The vector component of the derivative of the vector ##\vec{A}## with respect to time in the direction parallel to ##\vec{A}## is:

$$\frac{dA}{dt}\frac{\vec{A}}{|\vec{A}|}$$

Even if dA/dt is negative, the magnitude of this vector component is |dA/dt| (positive). The unit vector describing the direction of this component is equal to this vector divided by |dA/dt|. So the negative sign is associated with the unit vector and not the magnitude.

Chet

So if we want to be more technical, we should put absolute value bars on the right hand side of the equation, right?
What about ##A\frac{d\theta}{dt}##? Does the same argument hold?
 
MohammedRady97 said:
So if we want to be more technical, we should put absolute value bars on the right hand side of the equation, right?
What about ##A\frac{d\theta}{dt}##? Does the same argument hold?
Yes.
 
Thanks! I am very curious as to where (and why) the author left out the absolute value bars in the derivation. I have attached two screenshots to this post.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    23.4 KB · Views: 461
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    30.4 KB · Views: 489
  • #10
MohammedRady97 said:
Thanks! I am very curious as to where (and why) the author left out the absolute value bars in the derivation. I have attached two screenshots to this post.
He probably didn't think of it in the way that you have thought about it.

Chet
 
  • #11
Ok, you forgot to tell us the all-clarifying point given in the book. The author considers a function ##\vec{A}:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow V## with ##|\vec{A}|=\text{const}##. This implies that
$$|\vec{A}|^2=\vec{A} \cdot \vec{A}=\text{const} \; \Rightarrow \; \dot{\vec{A}} \cdot \vec{A}=0,$$
i.e., that ##\vec{A} \perp \dot{\vec{A}}##.

In more physical terms: If you take ##\vec{A}## as the position vector of a particle, ##|\vec{A}|=\text{const}## means that the particle is moving along a circle (or spherical shell). Then it's velocity is always perpendicular to the position, i.e., the radius vector of the circle/shell. Or more geometrically: The tangent vector to a circle or spherical shell is always perpendicular to the radius vector of this circle/shell. This is also well known from elementary Euclidean geometry!
 
  • #12
vanhees71 said:
Ok, you forgot to tell us the all-clarifying point given in the book. The author considers a function ##\vec{A}:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow V## with ##|\vec{A}|=\text{const}##. This implies that
$$|\vec{A}|^2=\vec{A} \cdot \vec{A}=\text{const} \; \Rightarrow \; \dot{\vec{A}} \cdot \vec{A}=0,$$
i.e., that ##\vec{A} \perp \dot{\vec{A}}##.

In more physical terms: If you take ##\vec{A}## as the position vector of a particle, ##|\vec{A}|=\text{const}## means that the particle is moving along a circle (or spherical shell). Then it's velocity is always perpendicular to the position, i.e., the radius vector of the circle/shell. Or more geometrically: The tangent vector to a circle or spherical shell is always perpendicular to the radius vector of this circle/shell. This is also well known from elementary Euclidean geometry!

I agree. But how does this change anything?
 
  • #13
Change what? It's just the short and elegant analytical-geometry proof of the fact that the radius vector of a circle or a spherical shell is always perpendicular to all tangent vectors on this curve/surface.
 
  • #14
vanhees71 said:
Change what? It's just the short and elegant analytical-geometry proof of the fact that the radius vector of a circle or a spherical shell is always perpendicular to all tangent vectors on this curve/surface.

My bad, I misunderstood your post; I thought you were hinting at some relationship between what you were saying and what I was discussing earlier regarding absolute values.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K