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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vladimir_Kitanov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation ##\vec s = \vec \theta \times \vec r##, where ##\vec s## represents a vector tangent to a circular path, ##\vec r## is a radius vector with constant magnitude, and ##\vec \theta## is the angle in radians. Participants debate the implications of assuming ##\vec r## is constant, with some arguing it must change direction if the particle is moving. The derivation of the time derivative of ##\vec s## leads to confusion due to the presence of a centripetal term, which complicates the relationship between ##\vec s## and the velocity of the particle. Ultimately, there is a consensus that the vector ##\vec s## may not be necessary for understanding the motion, as the normal and tangential components can be derived more straightforwardly from the radius vector. The conversation highlights the complexities in relating angular and linear motion in circular dynamics.
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##.
 
Back
Top