Derivative of ##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r##

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vladimir_Kitanov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the equation ##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r##, where ##\vec s## represents the tangential velocity vector, ##\vec r## is the radius vector with constant magnitude, and ##\vec \theta## is the angular displacement in radians. Participants clarify that while deriving the time derivative, the assumption that ##\vec r## is constant leads to confusion regarding its direction and magnitude. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the correct expression for the velocity is ##\vec v = \vec \omega \times \vec r##, with the centripetal term ##\vec \theta \times \vec v## needing careful consideration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus and cross products
  • Familiarity with angular motion and tangential velocity concepts
  • Knowledge of rigid body dynamics
  • Ability to interpret and manipulate mathematical equations involving vectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of angular velocity and its relationship to tangential velocity
  • Learn about the implications of centripetal acceleration in circular motion
  • Explore the mathematical properties of cross products in vector analysis
  • Investigate the role of angular displacement in rigid body motion
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of rotational motion and vector calculus.

Vladimir_Kitanov
Messages
44
Reaction score
14
Homework Statement
Can we get ##\vec v = \vec \omega \times \vec r## by deriving ##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r## with respect to time?
Relevant Equations
Nothing
My try:

##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r##
##\frac {d}{dt} (\vec s) = \frac {d}{dt} (\vec \theta \times \vec r)##
##\vec v = \frac {d}{dt}(\vec \theta) \times \vec r + \vec \theta \times \frac {d}{dt}(\vec r)##
##\vec v = \vec \omega \times \vec r + \vec \theta \times \vec v##

And I realized while writing this that ##\vec \theta \times \frac {d}{dt}(\vec r) = 0## because ##\vec r## is constant.
And at the end we get just ##\vec v = \vec \omega \times \vec r##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, with ##\vec r## constant that works.
 
Vladimir_Kitanov said:
##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r##
What do ##\vec s##, ##\vec r## and ##\vec \theta## represent in this equation?
 
  • Like
Likes nasu, vanhees71 and Delta2
TSny said:
What do ##\vec s##, ##\vec r## and ##\vec \theta## represent in this equation?
Capture.PNG
 
TSny said:
What do ##\vec s##, ##\vec r## and ##\vec \theta## represent in this equation?
##\vec v## is tangencial speed, in direction of ##\vec s##.
 
Vladimir_Kitanov said:
Is the vector ##\vec r## rotating? If so, then ##\vec r## is not a constant vector. In the diagram, ##s## is an arc length. How is ##s## related to the vector ##\vec s##?
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
TSny said:
Is the vector ##\vec r## rotating? If so, then ##\vec r## is not a constant vector. In the diagram, ##s## is an arc length. How is ##s## related to the vector ##\vec s##?
##\vec r## have constant magnitude.
##\theta = \frac {s}{r}##
##\theta## is angle in radians
 
Vladimir_Kitanov said:
##\vec r## have constant magnitude.
But in your derivation in the first post, you assumed that the vector ##\vec r## is constant. This assumption would mean that the vector ##\vec r## has constant magnitude and also constant direction. But it looks to me like you are considering a scenario where the vector ##\vec r## is changing direction.

Vladimir_Kitanov said:
##\theta = \frac {s}{r}##
##\theta## is angle in radians
What is the direction of the vector ##\vec \theta## that you used in your derivation?
What would the vector ##\vec s## look like in your drawing? Can you include it in your drawing?
 
TSny said:
But in your derivation in the first post, you assumed that the vector ##\vec r## is constant. This assumption would mean that the vector ##\vec r## has constant magnitude and also constant direction. But it looks to me like you are considering a scenario where the vector ##\vec r## is changing direction.What is the direction of the vector ##\vec \theta## that you used in your derivation?
What would the vector ##\vec s## look like in your drawing? Can you include it in your drawing?
You are right.
##\vec r## need to have constant magnitude and constant direction.
I will continue this tomorrow.

Capture2.PNG
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #11
The derivation in the link doesn't look correct to me. I'm still uncertain about the vector ##\vec s##. You can define ##\vec s## as $$\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r $$ Then ##\vec s## is a vector that is tangent to the circle at the point located at the tip of ##\vec r##. The magnitude of ##\vec s## is the arc length traced out by the tip of ##\vec r## when ##\vec r## rotates by ##\theta##.

With this definition of ##\vec s##, we would have $$\frac{d \vec s}{dt} =\dot{\vec \theta} \times \vec r + \vec \theta \times \dot {\vec r}$$ The last term on the right is not zero. Note that ##\dot {\vec r}## is the velocity ##\vec v## of the particle moving on the circle! So the last term in the expression for ##\large \frac{d \vec s}{dt}## above is ##\vec \theta \times \vec v## and this is a vector that points toward the center of the circle (centripetal). The first term in the expression for ##\large \frac{d \vec s}{dt}## does in fact equal the velocity of the particle. So, $$\frac{d \vec s}{dt} =\vec v+\vec \theta \times \vec v$$ The last term is the odd centripetal term.

So, if ##\vec s## is defined to be ##\vec \theta \times \vec r##, then the time derivative of ##\vec s## does not equal the velocity of the particle due to the presence of the centripetal term.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what the textbook is saying.
 
  • #12
I found what might be an updated version of the textbook. See here.

Note that they have removed the "derivation" which involves taking the time derivative of ##\vec s##. Personally, I would like to see them remove any mention of the vector ##\vec s##. I don't see any use for it.
 
  • #13
I tried to get normal and tangential acceleration form ##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r##, but fail. XD
I think it is possible, I just made mistake somewhere.There is a lot to do, so i will not do it again.
##\vec \theta \times \frac {\vec r}{dt}## is definitely normal component of velocity.
 
  • #14
TSny said:
Note that they have removed the "derivation" which involves taking the time derivative of ##\vec s##. Personally, I would like to see them remove any mention of the vector ##\vec s##. I don't see any use for it.
I agree. The book defines the vector then never uses it again, so it's a little strange that they left it in at all.
 
  • #15
Vladimir_Kitanov said:
I tried to get normal and tangential acceleration form ##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r##, but fail. XD
I think it is possible, I just made mistake somewhere.There is a lot to do, so i will not do it again.
##\vec \theta \times \frac {\vec r}{dt}## is definitely normal component of velocity.
The problem is the whole approach. It's simpler and more straightforward to start with ##\vec r = r \,\hat r## and calculate its derivatives, using the fact that ##\dot{\hat r} = \dot\theta\,\hat\theta## and ##\dot{\hat \theta} = -\dot\theta\,\hat r## to derive the formulas.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #16
Vladimir_Kitanov said:
##\vec \theta \times \frac {\vec r}{dt}## is definitely normal component of velocity.

In general, the velocity of a particle is always tangent to the trajectory of the particle. So, if a particle moves in a circle the velocity of the particle is tangent to the circle. The normal component of velocity is always zero if "normal component" refers to a direction that is perpendicular to the tangential direction.

The vector ##\vec \theta \times \frac {d \vec r}{dt}## is the same as the vector ##\vec \theta \times \vec v## since ##\vec v = \frac {d \vec r}{dt}## by definition. As mentioned before, the vector ##\vec \theta \times \vec v## has a direction that is centripetal. But ##\vec \theta \times \vec v## is not a component of the velocity ##\vec v##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
903