?Do you have to integrate velocity (v) to get the position function r(t)?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the necessity of integrating velocity (v) to derive the position function r(t) in the context of a physics problem involving gravitational forces. Participants clarify that the velocity function is given by V = √(2g/γ)e^(-γr/2), and they emphasize the importance of correctly substituting this into the equations governing motion. The conversation highlights the relationship between maximum distance and velocity, indicating that if the particle reaches a maximum distance, its velocity must be zero at that point, confirming the particle's return to the planet.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, particularly derivatives and integrals.
  • Familiarity with gravitational physics, specifically the concepts of potential and kinetic energy.
  • Knowledge of exponential functions and their properties in the context of motion.
  • Ability to manipulate equations involving variables and constants in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of position functions from velocity functions in classical mechanics.
  • Learn about the implications of maximum and minimum points in calculus, particularly in relation to motion.
  • Explore the relationship between energy conservation and motion in gravitational fields.
  • Investigate the behavior of exponential decay functions in physical systems.
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics or mathematics, educators teaching calculus and mechanics, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of motion under gravitational forces.

  • #31


Mark44 said:
Let me say it again. Do you think that the first inequality here might be important?
V^2 \geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma R}

v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})
The limit of this first inequality is infinity, as R goes to infinity, R represents a position function?

V^2 \geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma R}

this means that the velocity v^2 is also infinity? so it won't return to the planet?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


anyone? please can you help.

how do i solve this, can someone tell me steps
 
  • #33


Mark44 said:
Let me say it again. Do you think that the first inequality here might be important?
V^2 \geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma R}

v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})

From the inequalilty, substitute for V2 in the equation.

v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R}) \geq \text{something}
 
  • #34


so we let

V^2=2g/(gamma*e^(-gamma*R))

to get

v^2=2g/(gamma*e^(-gamma*R)) + (2*g/gamma)(e^(-gamma*r)-e^(-gamma*R))

can you please tell me what that something is, so i can go to next step
 
Last edited:
  • #35


The "something" is what you get if you replace V2 by an expression that is greater than or equal to V2.

V^2 \geq \frac{2g}{\gamma} e^{-\gamma R}


v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R}) \geq \text{something}
 
  • #36


cloud360 said:
as the bracket 2g/gamma(stuff inside bracket), part is positive?
The quantity

\frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})

is not positive; it's negative. Because r>R, i.e. the particle is above the planet's surface, the first exponential will be smaller than the second exponential, right?
cloud360 said:
so we let

V^2=2g/(gamma*e^(-gamma*R))
The original inequality actually gives you

V^2 \ge \frac{2g}{\gamma} e^{-\gamma R}

The exponential isn't in the denominator. So now you have

v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R}) \ge \frac{2g}{\gamma} e^{-\gamma R} + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})
 
  • #37


vela said:
The quantity

\frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})

is not positive; it's negative. Because r>R, i.e. the particle is above the planet's surface, the first exponential will be smaller than the second exponential, right?

The original inequality actually gives you

V^2 \ge \frac{2g}{\gamma} e^{-\gamma R}

The exponential isn't in the denominator. So now you have

v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R}) \ge \frac{2g}{\gamma} e^{-\gamma R} + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})

Now do we find the limit?
 
  • #38


vela said:
The quantity

\frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})

is not positive; it's negative. Because r>R, i.e. the particle is above the planet's surface, the first exponential will be smaller than the second exponential, right?

The original inequality actually gives you

V^2 \ge \frac{2g}{\gamma} e^{-\gamma R}

The exponential isn't in the denominator. So now you have

v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R}) \ge \frac{2g}{\gamma} e^{-\gamma R} + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})

cloud360 said:
Now do we find the limit?
No.
First, simplify the expression at the right in the inequality above.
Next, remind yourself what question you're trying to answer (part d of this problem).
Does the simplified inequality suggest an answer to this question?
 
  • #39


Mark44 said:
No.
First, simplify the expression at the right in the inequality above.
Next, remind yourself what question you're trying to answer (part d of this problem).
Does the simplified inequality suggest an answer to this question?
Following your help, i have attached my solution.Please can you kindly tell me if it is correct or not?
[PLAIN]http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/4393/2010b5d.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40


You're going through a lot of motions that you don't need.
You're given that
V \geq \sqrt{2g/\gamma}e^{-\gamma R/2}
\Rightarrow V^2 \geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma R}


In your first inequality, you can say this
v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})
\geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma R} + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})
= 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma r}
\text{So } v^2 \geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma r}

The line where you have
r' >= sqrt(2g/gamma * e^{- gamma * r) is incorrect.

If y2 >= A, with A a positive number,
then y >= sqrt(A) or y <= -sqrt(A)
It is incorrect to say that y >= +/-sqrt(A).

What you should have is
v \geq \sqrt{2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma r}}

You don't need to concern yourself with negative values of v, since if v < 0, the particle is moving back toward the planet. We're interested only in the case where the particle is moving in the positive direction; i.e., v > 0, and the particle is moving away from the planet.

Most of what you have in the last seven or eight lines should go away, as it is either unnecessary or incorrect.

Since you have shown that v (= r') > 0, it's not zero, so the particle never stops, and continues moving away from the planet. That's all you need to say.
 
  • #41


Mark44 said:
You're going through a lot of motions that you don't need.
You're given that
V \geq \sqrt{2g/\gamma}e^{-\gamma R/2}
\Rightarrow V^2 \geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma R}


In your first inequality, you can say this
v^2 = V^2 + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})
\geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma R} + \frac{2g}{\gamma}(e^{-\gamma r} - e^{-\gamma R})
= 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma r}
\text{So } v^2 \geq 2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma r}

The line where you have
r' >= sqrt(2g/gamma * e^{- gamma * r) is incorrect.

If y2 >= A, with A a positive number,
then y >= sqrt(A) or y <= -sqrt(A)
It is incorrect to say that y >= +/-sqrt(A).

What you should have is
v \geq \sqrt{2g/\gamma e^{-\gamma r}}

You don't need to concern yourself with negative values of v, since if v < 0, the particle is moving back toward the planet. We're interested only in the case where the particle is moving in the positive direction; i.e., v > 0, and the particle is moving away from the planet.

Most of what you have in the last seven or eight lines should go away, as it is either unnecessary or incorrect.

Since you have shown that v (= r') > 0, it's not zero, so the particle never stops, and continues moving away from the planet. That's all you need to say.

thanks a lot for your help :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K