Derivative of momentum with respect to time

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the relationship between the derivative of the unit vector of momentum (dPhat/dt) and the formula v/R, where v is tangential velocity and R is the radius of a circular path. Participants clarify that dPhat is dimensionless, and that as an object moves in a circular orbit, its direction changes while speed remains constant, leading to the need to express this change in terms of velocity and radius. The derivation involves breaking down momentum into magnitude and direction, with the rate of change of direction being proportional to velocity divided by radius. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of grasping the underlying concepts rather than merely memorizing formulas.
MAC5494
Messages
39
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi, I don't really have a particular problem that needs to be solved, I'm just interested in why dPhat/dt = v/R. It's explained very poorly in my physics book, or I'm just not smart enough to understand it the way they explained it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dp/dt = F, where F is force.

So there's no way it could equal v/R if v is speed and R is a distance, the units don't work out. What are v and R?
 
Sorry, I explained that poorly. I don't mean the derivative dPhat/dt = v/R, i want to know why dPhat/dt is equal to v/R

pvector = pmag*phat

so by using the product rule you get:

dpvector/dt = (dpmag/dt)*phat + pmag * (dphat/dt)(dpmag/dt)*phat is the rate of change of the magnitude of momentum, or the force parallel.

pmag * (dphat/dt) is the rate of change of the direction of the momentum, or the force perpendicular.It says in my book that, lim Δt approaches 0, magnitude(Δphat/Δt) = magnitude(dphat/dt) = vmag/R

So I want to know why that is?
 
Ah, yes, dphat is dimensionless, I see. I think you can imagine v is tangential velocity of an object rotating around some circle with radius R with your coordinate system at the center of the circle. So if you have a huge circle, R is going to be very big and your tangential force will be smaller since the object turns at a slower rate with a bigger circle (given a constant tangential velocity, v).
 
Okay, I get some of that, but I'm still having a hard time conceptualizing how those 2 quantities are equal. I get that the velocity will be pointing in the direction of the Phat, but I don't understand how one derives velocity/radius from dPhat/dt.

I'm basically trying to understand it, because it makes more sense to truly understand rather than memorize that dPhat/dt = v/R
 
Well, you can derive it from p=mv using the definition of the unit vector.
 
you would also have to consider that:

\vec{p} = m\vec{v}

and that

\vec{v} = x\hat{x} + y\hat{y}
 
How do you derive it? I've been messing around with it for a little while and I can't seem to figure it out.

Phat = p/pmag = m*vvector/m*vmag = vvector/vmag

dt = dp/Fnet (vvector/vmag)*Fnet/dp

Am I doing this right? I'm kind of lost at that point.

I'm not sure I've seen that bottom equation before.
 
Last edited:
hrm. I'm not getting there with my approach either. I'll have to rethink it. can you define v and R for me and tell me the general physical set up?
 
  • #10
Well v is just velocity, and R is the radius of a kissing circle.

For instance, if an asteroid had a circular orbit around a planet, then the speed would be constant. Only the direction would be changing, so you'd want to find the rate of change of the direction of momentum, which is |p|*(dpvector/dt) which = |p|*(|v|/R) = (m*|v^2|)/R
 
  • #11
So the derivation is lots of algebra so I didn't carry it through.

However, if you have a vector and you break it into magnitude and direction, then \frac{d \hat{p}}{dt} is just "change in direction of vector per time".

So if you imagine a particle orbiting around in a circle, it's going to turn faster as it's tangential velocity is higher (it's going faster around the circle so it's turning faster) and, given a fixed v, it's going to turn faster on a smaller circle. So v/r seems to fit qualitatively, no?
 
Back
Top