Cant understand Centripital acc

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vuser88
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding centripetal acceleration, particularly how to explain it conceptually without relying heavily on mathematical derivations. Participants explore various ways to articulate the nature of acceleration in circular motion, touching on intuitive and conceptual explanations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses frustration with traditional teaching methods that focus on mathematical derivations rather than conceptual understanding.
  • Another participant argues that acceleration is fundamentally a mathematical concept tied to trajectory and coordinate systems, suggesting that a non-mathematical explanation may not be feasible.
  • A different viewpoint proposes an "arm-waving" explanation using the velocity vector, emphasizing that constant speed in circular motion implies a need for inward acceleration to maintain the circular path.
  • Another participant references Newton's 2nd law, suggesting that a force perpendicular to velocity changes only the direction of motion, which could be used to explain centripetal acceleration intuitively.
  • One participant challenges the explanation of the velocity vector's behavior in polar coordinates, indicating that it complicates non-mathematical explanations.
  • Another perspective suggests focusing on the distinction between accelerations that change speed versus those that change direction, proposing that constant perpendicular acceleration leads to curved paths while maintaining speed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to explain centripetal acceleration without mathematics. There are competing views on the feasibility of non-mathematical explanations and the role of velocity in circular motion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding due to reliance on mathematical formulations and the challenges of conveying concepts without them. Various assumptions about the nature of acceleration and motion are present but not fully resolved.

vuser88
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hello! I am a 3rd year physics student and i hate the way i have been tought physics all my life. Its always mindless mathematics.. It turns out that i have a hard time understand basic concepts b/c my professors would rather go through derivations covering 4 blackboards then explain what's really happening. So i took it upon myself to go back and re-learn stuff that i should have already mastered.

I was reading a book on nuclear science and eng, mainly fusion ( i don't understand how it works but that's what sparked my question)

When a particle is undergoing a motion in a circular fashion, i know how to show that the accelarion will always be inward, i can do the derivation and show that at any instant the components of the acceleration always point to the origin of the rotation.. but how does one explain this without the mathematics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't. Acceleration is a purely mathematical concept based on trajectory and coordinate system choice.
 
You can give an "arm-waving" explanation by thinking about the velocity vector.

Supppose you are going round a circle at constant speed. The velocity vector is along the tangent to the circle so there is zero velocity towards the center.

If there was an acceleration in the direction of the tangent, your speed would change, so the tangential acceleration is zero.

If there was no acceleration towards the center, you would just keep moving in a strainght line. The size of the centripetal acceleration (relative to your speed) makes you go round a circle of bigger or smaller radius.

But if you can't (or don't want to ) understand something like this from the math, then you are unlikely to make much real progress in science.
 
From Newton's 2nd law we can see that a force changes the velocity . It can change the direction or the magnitude of velocity or both.

An intuitive understanding is that a force that it is always perpendicular to velocity will change only the direction of velocity , while a force that has always the same direction with velocity will change only the magnitude of velocity. Try to prove the first from Newton's 2nd law and the fact that the force is always normal to v, that is \mathbf{F}\cdot\mathbf{v}=0
 
You still resort to saying that velocity vector is increasing towards the center, which is absolutely no different than saying \frac{dv}{dt} = - a\hat{r}

And it gets worse if you are working in polar coordinates. Velocity vector is a constant vector in direction of θ. Have fun explaining that one without using \frac{d\hat{\theta}}{dt}
 
Rather than focus on the term centripetal, perhaps it would be easier to consider acclerations in the direction of travel versus perpendicular to the direction of travel at a moment in time. The acclerations in the direction of travel change the speed, while accelerations perpendicular to the direction of travel only change the direction.

If the acceleration is adjusted so that it's always perpendicular to the direction of travel, and restricted to operate on a plane, you get a curved path that remains on the plane while speed remains constant. In a more general case, if the perpendicular component is allowed to change it's direction and not restricted to a plane, you can end up with all sorts of three dimensional paths where the only constant is the speed, sort of like a "course correction" for a spaceship that doesn't affect it's speed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
854
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K