Can we write icap-jcap=pi/2 ? why or why not?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AakashPandita
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expression "icap - jcap = pi/2" and whether it can be validly written or interpreted in different contexts, including vector mathematics and programming. Participants explore the implications of this expression in relation to unit vectors, circular motion, and acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that "icap - jcap" represents a new vector pointing at -45 degrees, thus questioning the validity of equating it to a scalar like pi/2.
  • Others interpret the expression in a programming context, suggesting that it may be syntactically invalid in certain programming languages.
  • A participant attempts to relate the expression to radial acceleration in circular motion, proposing that if "icap - jcap = pi/2," it could lead to a specific form of acceleration.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of vectors and scalars, with some asserting that subtracting vectors cannot yield a scalar result.
  • There is a discussion about approximating instantaneous acceleration from average acceleration over a circular path, with references to limits and angular changes.
  • Participants engage in deriving expressions for change in velocity and acceleration, with some questioning the signs and terms used in the equations.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the direction of unit vectors and the implications of angular motion on vector differentiation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the expression "icap - jcap = pi/2," with no consensus reached. The discussion includes multiple competing interpretations and approaches to the underlying concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in their understanding of programming constructs, while others highlight the need for careful consideration of vector properties and angular motion in their mathematical derivations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying vector mathematics, circular motion, and the application of mathematical concepts in programming contexts.

AakashPandita
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Can we write icap-jcap=pi/2 ? why or why not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can write whatever you want, but nobody will understand you if you don't explain what icap and jcap are!
 
I think the OP is asking about the difference between the unit vectors in the i and j directions being 90 degrees.

Using that interpretation the answer is no; this difference (i - j) is a new vector that points along the line -45 degrees.
 
Interesting I took it to mean a programming statement in some language like Java:

Code:
icap-jcap = pi/2;      // is an invalid construct 
                            // as you can have an expression icap-jcap
                            // on the left of an assignment

but

Code:
if ((icap-jcap)==(pi/2)) { System.out.println("icap-jcap == pi/2 is TRUE");
 
UltrafastPED is right.
I was trying to prove that radial acceleration of a body moving in circle is v^2/r.

For uniform speed i came up with this 2v^2(icap-jcap)/rpi as radial acceleration

If icap-jcap=pi/2, acc=v^2/r

Also i do not understand computer programs.
 
No, you can't do that. i and j are vectors, adding or subtracting them couldn't possibly give you a scalar.
 
Show your work ...
 
AakashPandita said:
UltrafastPED is right.
I was trying to prove that radial acceleration of a body moving in circle is v^2/r.

For uniform speed i came up with this 2v^2(icap-jcap)/rpi as radial acceleration

If icap-jcap=pi/2, acc=v^2/r

Also i do not understand computer programs.

There is also the problem that [tex]\hat{i}-\hat{j}[/tex] is a constant vector whereas the centripetal acceleration is a rotating vector. So your formula cannot be right.
 
  • #10
I see what you are trying to do. You are assuming that the particle is traveling in a circle in the clockwise direction, and at the top of the circle, the velocity is pointing in the i direction, while, earlier, at the left end of the circle, the velocity is pointing in the j direction. The time interval between these two locations is rπ/2 divided by v. You can't get the instantaneous acceleration this way because angular increment is too large. The best you can get is an approximation to the average acceleration over the interval. According to UltrafastPED's post #3, you get the correct direction for the average acceleration (at the half-way point), but not the correct magnitude. You get a coefficient of 2/π, and it should be unity (if you were trying to get the instantaneous magnitude at the half-way point). Still, considering the crudeness of the approximation, it's not too bad. You need to do the analysis in the limit as the angular change approaches zero.
 
  • #11
okay okay now i think i understand.
 
  • #12
thank you very much!
 
  • #13
[tex]/frac{2v^2(î-{/jhat}}{rpi}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #14
2v^2(icap-jcap) / rπ

is the average acc. for 90 degree of circular motion.

is there a way i could obtain instantaneous acceleration from this expression?
how?

also how do i write it in latex?
 
Last edited:
  • #15
AakashPandita said:
2v^2(icap-jcap) / rπ

is the average acc. for 90 degree of circular motion.

is there a way i could obtain instantaneous acceleration from this expression?
how?

also how do i write it in latex?

You would have to use an angle less that π/4, say Δθ, and, you could make use of the relationship for how the unit vector in the θ direction changes with θ:

[tex]\frac{d\vec{i_θ}}{dθ}=-\vec{i_r}[/tex]

You would express the velocity vector as [itex]\vec{V}=v\vec{i_θ}[/itex], and then determine the rate of change of this vector with time.
 
  • #16
yes i know that method. is there a proof ...like maybe we could find average acceleration for time tending to zero...?
 
  • #17
AakashPandita said:
yes i know that method. is there a proof ...like maybe we could find average acceleration for time tending to zero...?

Sure. Take Δθ larger, determine the vectorial velocity change over the angle Δθ, and then take the limit as Δθ approaches zero.
 
  • #18
I get change in velocity:

[tex]\frac{( sinθ \hat{i} + ( cosθ - 1 ) \hat{j} ) v^2}{θr}[/tex]

where θ is change in velocity and in radian and less than pi/2, speed is constant and body starts moving from
[tex]v\hat{j}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #19
AakashPandita said:
I get change in velocity:

[tex]\frac{( sinθ \hat{i} + ( cosθ - 1 ) \hat{j} ) v^2}{θr}[/tex]

where θ is change in velocity and in radian and less than pi/2, speed is constant and body starts moving from
[tex]v\hat{j}[/tex]

Excellent. Now take the limit as θ approaches zero.

Chet
 
  • #20
Am I going to get [tex]\frac{v^2}{r}[/tex] ?
because i am not getting it. I am getting something very messy.
 
  • #21
this is a vector . how do we differentiate a vector?
 
  • #22
AakashPandita said:
I get change in velocity:

[tex]\frac{( sinθ \hat{i} + ( cosθ - 1 ) \hat{j} ) v^2}{θr}[/tex]

where θ is change in velocity and in radian and less than pi/2, speed is constant and body starts moving from
[tex]v\hat{j}[/tex]

Your sign looks wrong on the sine term, and you should really have Δθ instead of θ. But, otherwise it's OK. So you should have:
[tex]\vec{a}=\frac{( -sinΔθ \hat{i} + ( cosΔθ - 1 ) \hat{j} ) v^2}{Δθr}[/tex]

You basically did the vector differentiation correctly. Now, take the limit as Δθ approaches zero.

Lim(sin(Δθ)/Δθ) as Δθ approaches zero is 1
Lim((cos(Δθ)-1)/Δθ) as Δθ approaches zero is 0

So:
[tex]\vec{a}=- \hat{i}\frac{v^2}{r}[/tex]

This is the acceleration vector, and it's pointing toward the origin (as it should).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #23
i don't understand how sinΔθ icap is negative.
 
  • #24
if the angle is less than 90 degrees shouldn't sintheta and costheta both be positive?
 
  • #25
Draw a diagram, and you'll see why.

chet
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #26
clearly sinθ is positive?
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    4 KB · Views: 361
  • #27
AakashPandita said:
clearly sinθ is positive?
I'm sorry. I was thinking of it going counter clockwise starting at (r,0). The way you have it drawn is consistent with your equation. And, as your result indicates, it should be a +i unit vector (which points at the origin).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #28
Thanks a lot!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 171 ·
6
Replies
171
Views
12K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K