Can you merge these equations and get acceleration

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of merging equations related to Newton's laws and Coulomb's force to derive acceleration for a charged body. It encompasses theoretical considerations and the implications of varying forces on acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equation m*a=k*Q1*Q2/r, suggesting it can be used to derive acceleration by equalizing Newton's first law with Coulomb's force.
  • Another participant agrees that solving for acceleration involves rearranging the equation but notes a missing square on the factor 'r'.
  • A different participant raises a concern that since force changes with distance, acceleration would not be constant, questioning the validity of the formula.
  • One participant mentions that they derived a numerical solution and references a second-order differential equation related to the problem.
  • Another participant asks whether a 1D, 2D, or 3D solution is being sought and provides a link to a related previous thread for additional context.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about merging the equations, stating that the nature of the forces involved is different.
  • A later reply acknowledges that while the initial acceleration of the charges can be calculated, the validity of Coulomb's force law diminishes once the charges begin to accelerate.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of merging the equations and the implications of variable forces on acceleration. There is no consensus on whether the proposed formula is valid or how to approach the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions of constant acceleration and the applicability of Coulomb's force law under changing conditions. The discussion involves unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of the equations.

locika
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
m*a=k*Q1*Q2/r
equalizing Newton's first law and coulomb's force to get acceleration of the specific charged body.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I see one equation. And yes, solving for acceleration is as simple as dividing one factor to the other side (note: you are missing the square on your factor 'r').
 
brainpushups said:
I see one equation. And yes, solving for acceleration is as simple as dividing one factor to the other side (note: you are missing the square on your factor 'r').
Thanks, and because force changes across distance then acceleration wouldn't be constant so is this a valid formula
 
locika said:
m*a=k*Q1*Q2/r
equalizing Newton's first law and coulomb's force to get acceleration of the specific charged body.
I trield very hard to solve this equation, i came up with numerical solution, but the exact solution is a bessel x'' = kQq/(x^2 + y^2), a second order differential equation, good luck !
 
locika said:
m*a=k*Q1*Q2/r
equalizing Newton's first law and coulomb's force to get acceleration of the specific charged body.
For sure there are more competent members here to answer this but I don't think it is possible to merge these two equations since ther nature of the two forces involved is different.
 
locika said:
Thanks, and because force changes across distance then acceleration wouldn't be constant so is this a valid formula

Answer: kind of.

The acceleration is valid for the 'initial' acceleration of the charges. The problem is not that the acceleration varies with position (of course, what you have is a differential equation), the problem is that, once the charges are accelerating, Coulomb's force law is no longer valid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hackYou

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 117 ·
4
Replies
117
Views
10K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K