Constant velocity in a central force field

In summary: Summary: A charged particle in a circular orbit is under a central force, causing it to gain an additional velocity dv perpendicular to its initial velocity v. However, this does not result in a change in speed due to the continuous nature of the velocity change. The velocity stays constant, resulting in a constant speed. This can be seen through the equation ##\vec{v}^2 = \text{const}## and the fact that the acceleration is always perpendicular to the velocity. This applies to both gravitational and magnetic fields.
  • #1
ilper
58
2
A body on a circular orbit in the field of a central force (satellites in gravity field of Earth; a charge in a magnetic field) is subjected to a force which is always perpendicular to its initial velocity v, hence in a time period dt it acquires an additional velocity dv, which is also perpendicular to v. Adding this two immediately gives a new velocity greater than the initial (a simple geometric property). As the velocity changes the body should radiate energy (surely for the charge in magnetic field). Does this energy release compensate exactly the increase in velocity so it stays constant?
If so, what radiates a body in gravitational field?
 
  • Wow
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
ilper said:
hence in a time period dt it acquires an additional velocity dv, which is also perpendicular to v. Adding this two immediately gives a new velocity greater than the initial (a simple geometric property).

No, it doesn't. The velocity doesn't change in discrete steps but continuously. That results in constant speed:

##\frac{{dv^2 }}{{dt}} = 2 \cdot v \cdot \dot v = 0##
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, hutchphd and Dale
  • #3
ilper said:
Summary:: As the acquired under the force velocity dv is perpendicular to initial velocity v - geometrically adding of v and dv gives a new vector >v. But v must be constant.

Adding this two immediately gives a new velocity greater than the initial (a simple geometric property).
This is not correct. Remember that dv is not a finite length added at a discrete time. It is an infinitesimal length and as it is continuously added the direction of both v and dv change.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
DrStupid said:
No, it doesn't. The velocity doesn't change in discrete steps but continuously. That results in constant speed:

##\frac{{dv^2 }}{{dt}} = 2 \cdot v \cdot \dot v = 0##
1. I don't agree that the velocity changes continuously. B.e. in an interaction with another charge a charge gains a photon from the source (the center of the force). So it gains Energy in finite steps - hence its velocity would also jump to a new value. Similarly it must be for gravity - exchange of gravitons.

2. Even if (adhering to classical physics) the velocity changes continuously it doesn't brake the law of adding two velocities as two vectors. E.g. an infinitesimal dv also will make 90 degrees to the initial velocity thus enhancing it. In order to change only the direction of the initial velocity even in infinitesimal dt, angle between v and dv will be infinitely close to 90 but not 90.

3. Even if one admits that in the limit as you say the reason why v does not change is that v increases continuously than by the same reasoning if the initial velocity is small (the body falls the to ground) than its velocity should also stay constant which is not the case indeed.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #5
ilper said:
I don't agree that the velocity changes continuously. B.e. in an interaction with another charge a charge gains a photon from the source (the center of the force). So it gains Energy in finite steps
This is incorrect for a central force field, and @DrStupid is correct. First, this forum is classical, not quantum, but even in QM a central field doesn't work as you describe. In QM for a static central force field you are talking about virtual photons which do not behave at all like you described.

ilper said:
an infinitesimal dv also will make 90 degrees to the initial velocity thus enhancing it. In order to change only the direction of the initial velocity even in infinitesimal dt, angle between v and dv will be infinitely close to 90 but not 90.
This is simply incorrect. @DrStupid already posted the exceptionally simple math showing that it is incorrect. What part of his math did you not understand? Look at his equation. The conclusion is inescapable.

ilper said:
Even if one admits that in the limit as you say the reason why v does not change is that v increases continuously than by the same reasoning if the initial velocity is small (the body falls the to ground) than its velocity should also stay constant which is not the case indeed.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Can you write it mathematically?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #6
ilper said:
In order to change only the direction of the initial velocity even in infinitesimal dt, angle between v and dv will be infinitely close to 90 but not 90.
It's very simple:
- If the angle is more than 90°, the speed decreases.
- If the angle is less than 90°, the speed increases.
- If the angle is exactly 90°, the speed remains unchanged.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #7
It's very simple. If the speed stays constant that implies that its square is constant, i.e., you have
$$\vec{v}^2=\text{const}.$$
Now take the time derivative. With the product rule you find
$$\vec{v} \dot{\vec{v}}=0,$$
which means that the acceleration, ##\vec{a}=\dot{\vec{v}}## is always perpendicular to the velocity.

The most simple example for a force, where this is the case, is the motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field. There you have
$$m \dot{\vec{v}}=\frac{\vec{v}}{c} \times \vec{B} \; \Rightarrow \; \vec{v} \cdot \dot{\vec{v}}=0.$$
So a magnetic field doesn't change the speed but the direction of the particle's velocity.

E.g., it's easy to show that in a homogeneous magnetic field the particle moves with constant angular velocity (and thus with constant speed) around a circle. The speed doesn't change with time but the direction of the velocity does.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Dale and Delta2
  • #8
Dale said:
This is incorrect for a central force field, and @DrStupid is correct. First, this forum is classical, not quantum, but even in QM a central field doesn't work as you describe. In QM for a static central force field you are talking about virtual photons which do not behave at all like you described.
I thought that the problem is classical that's why I post it here. I expected that the problem is solved by emitted energy from the body due to the Abraham Lorentz force.
Nevertheless the photons are virtual their energy is quantized. How are you conceiving the mechanism of transferring a force? What can influence a body without transfer of energy? Can it be a not finite amount but infinitely small and in the same time not zero? In order for velocity to change direction the body must receive influence and it is always going thought energy exchange in small but finite amounts.
Dale said:
This is simply incorrect. @DrStupid already posted the exceptionally simple math showing that it is incorrect. What part of his math did you not understand? Look at his equation. The conclusion is inescapable.
DrStupid with his simple math proves what he believes. He takes v=const silently, then the kinetic Energy is constant and it follows that velocity does not change.
Dale said:
I am not sure what you are saying here. Can you write it mathematically?
What has proven DrStupid mathematically? He says v changes continuously and that's why it can stay constant in value but change direction.
What I say is that according to classical physics v always changes continuously (not need to prove - in fact its a belief of classical physics(CP) - I don't deny it in the realm of CP). Nevertheless there are numerous problems where v changes value (in elementary textbooks).
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #9
A.T. said:
It's very simple:
- If the angle is more than 90°, the speed decreases.
- If the angle is less than 90°, the speed increases.
- If the angle is exactly 90°, the speed remains unchanged.
? Have do you drawn this geometrically?
In order v to stay constant dv must be less than 90. It can only stay unchanged if the angle is 90 when you add nothing.
 
  • #10
ilper said:
? Have do you drawn this geometrically?
In order v to stay constant dv must be less than 90. It can only stay unchanged if the angle is 90 when you add nothing.
Not if you are adding infinitesimal perpendicular vectors (and if you are drawing it, you are drawing a finite vector). As @DrStupid showed, if you require constant velocity then ##\dot{\vec v}## must be perpendicular to ##\vec v##.
 
  • #11
ilper said:
? Have do you drawn this geometrically?
Drawing finite vectors is just an approximation. You have to take the limit.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #12
ilper said:
... force which is always perpendicular to its initial velocity v, hence in a time period dt it acquires an additional velocity dv, which is also perpendicular to v. Adding this two immediately gives a new velocity greater than the initial (a simple geometric property).
Apply time reversal symmetry to this construction, and you will get the opposite result, that the speed must be decreasing. This demonstrates that it's a flawed approach.

A better geometrical construction uses the vectors at two time points:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshe...hree_Dimensions/4.05:_Uniform_Circular_Motion
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444 and hutchphd
  • #13
ilper said:
He takes v=const silently, then the kinetic Energy is constant and it follows that velocity does not change.
That is not at all what he did.

The speed is ##\sqrt{v^2}=\sqrt{\vec v \cdot \vec v}##. If ##\frac{d}{dt}\sqrt{v^2}=0## then ##\frac{d}{dt}v^2=0## and @DrStupid showed the condition for that to happen, namely that ##v \cdot \dot v = 0## or in other words if the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity then the speed is constant. In direct contradiction to your multiple erroneous claims.
 
  • #14
ilper said:
? Have do you drawn this geometrically?
In order v to stay constant dv must be less than 90. It can only stay unchanged if the angle is 90 when you add nothing.

Drawing the vector addition of a finite ##v## and an infinitesimal ##dv## is pretty much adding nothing. In order to draw something visible you need a finite ##\Delta v## and the angle between ##v## and ##\Delta v## actually is less than 90°. Just write the velocity as a taylor series

##v\left( {t + \Delta t} \right) = v\left( t \right) + \dot v\left( t \right) \cdot \Delta t + {\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\ddot v\left( t \right) \cdot \Delta t^2 + \cdots##

include the derivates of v for uniform circular motion, solve for the additional velocity

##\Delta v = v\left( {t + \Delta t} \right) - v\left( t \right) = \left[ { - \omega ^2 \cdot r\left( t \right) - {\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\omega ^3 \cdot v\left( t \right) \cdot \Delta t + \cdots } \right] \cdot \Delta t##

and you see a tangential second order term that is directed agains ##v##. The compensation for the supposed increase in speed is included in the tangential higher order terms. There is no physics involved. It's just math.

In the limit for infinitesimal ##dv## all higher order terms go to zero and only the centripetal acceleration

##\dot v = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{{\Delta v}}{{\Delta t}} = - \omega ^2 \cdot r##

remains. The problem you are talking about does not exist.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #15
Dale said:
That is not at all what he did.

The speed is ##\sqrt{v^2}=\sqrt{\vec v \cdot \vec v}##. If ##\frac{d}{dt}\sqrt{v^2}=0## then ##\frac{d}{dt}v^2=0## and @DrStupid showed the condition for that to happen, namely that ##v \cdot \dot v = 0## or in other words if the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity then the speed is constant. In direct contradiction to your multiple erroneous claims.
Of course, note that
$$v^2=\vec{v} \cdot \vec{v} \; \Rightarrow \; v \dot{v}=\vec{v} \cdot \dot{\vec{v}}.$$
If ##\vec{v} \neq 0 \Leftrightarrow v \neq 0## this implies that ##\dot{\vec{v}} \perp \vec{v}## (or ##\dot{\vec{v}}=0##).
 
  • #16
DrStupid said:
Drawing the vector addition of a finite ##v## and an infinitesimal ##dv## is pretty much adding nothing. In order to draw something visible you need a finite ##\Delta v## and the angle between ##v## and ##\Delta v## actually is less than 90°. Just write the velocity as a taylor series

##v\left( {t + \Delta t} \right) = v\left( t \right) + \dot v\left( t \right) \cdot \Delta t + {\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\ddot v\left( t \right) \cdot \Delta t^2 + \cdots##

include the derivates of v for uniform circular motion, solve for the additional velocity

##\Delta v = v\left( {t + \Delta t} \right) - v\left( t \right) = \left[ { - \omega ^2 \cdot r\left( t \right) - {\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\omega ^3 \cdot v\left( t \right) \cdot \Delta t + \cdots } \right] \cdot \Delta t##

and you see a tangential second order term that is directed agains ##v##. The compensation for the supposed increase in speed is included in the tangential higher order terms. There is no physics involved. It's just math.

In the limit for infinitesimal ##dv## all higher order terms go to zero and only the centripetal acceleration

##\dot v = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{{\Delta v}}{{\Delta t}} = - \omega ^2 \cdot r##

remains. The problem you are talking about does not exist.
Does your considerations not hold true for every type of motion - even linear?
 
  • #17
ilper said:
Does your considerations not hold true for every type of motion - even linear?

Yes, it does. But in linear motion there is no centripetal acceleration.
 
  • #18
DrStupid said:
Yes, it does. But in linear motion there is no centripetal acceleration.
Then you prove that in the case of linear motion dv is second order of dt, even that is 0, as w is 0.
You accept that for finite Δv the angle is 90 (right?). Then making infinitesimal transition does not change this angle (even I think any other property of Δv).
As when Δv is unidirectional to v (0 grade) dv is also unidirectional to v (also 0 grade).
As when Δv is contra-directional to v (180 grade) dv is also contra-directional to v (also 180 grade).
Correct me if I am wrong.
 
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
  • #19
You have already been corrected plenty, to no avail. This thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy

Related to Constant velocity in a central force field

1. What is constant velocity in a central force field?

Constant velocity in a central force field refers to the motion of an object that is moving at a steady speed in a circular or elliptical path around a central point, while experiencing a force that always points towards that central point.

2. How does a central force field affect an object's velocity?

In a central force field, the force acting on an object is always directed towards the center of the field. This causes the object's velocity to remain constant in magnitude, while constantly changing direction to follow the circular or elliptical path around the center.

3. What is the relationship between constant velocity and centripetal force?

Constant velocity in a central force field is only possible when there is a balanced force acting on the object, known as the centripetal force. This force is responsible for keeping the object in its circular or elliptical path, allowing it to maintain a constant velocity.

4. Can an object have constant velocity in a central force field without a centripetal force?

No, an object cannot have constant velocity in a central force field without a centripetal force. Without this force, the object would continue in a straight line tangent to its circular or elliptical path, rather than following the curved path required for constant velocity.

5. What are some real-life examples of constant velocity in a central force field?

Some examples of constant velocity in a central force field include the motion of planets around the sun, satellites orbiting the Earth, and the motion of electrons around the nucleus of an atom. These objects experience a central force (gravity or electromagnetic force) that keeps them in a circular or elliptical path, resulting in constant velocity.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
11
Views
293
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
31
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
2
Views
937
Replies
1
Views
681
Replies
5
Views
916
  • Classical Physics
Replies
15
Views
709
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
29
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
777
Back
Top