Physical intepretation of mathematical impossibility

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ailo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematical Physical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physical interpretation of a mathematical scenario involving a bead on a rotating ring. Participants explore the implications of angular velocity on the bead's position and the forces acting on it, particularly focusing on the conditions under which the bead remains in equilibrium or slides off the ring. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and mathematical analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the equations governing the forces acting on the bead, suggesting that as angular velocity (\omega) decreases, the normal force (N) must exceed the gravitational force (mg) for the bead to remain at an angle (\theta) on the ring.
  • Another participant proposes that there is a minimum angular velocity below which the bead cannot maintain a position at an angle and will slide to the bottom of the ring.
  • A third participant analyzes the mathematical steps taken to derive the formula for \theta, pointing out that dividing by \sin(\theta) is only valid when \sin(\theta) is not zero, leading to multiple solutions for the angle.
  • This participant also notes that the condition \cos(\theta) = g/(\omega^2 R) can only be satisfied for \omega greater than or equal to \sqrt{g/R}, indicating a minimum threshold for angular velocity.
  • A later reply expresses uncertainty about the mathematical manipulations involved, particularly regarding the cancellation of terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is a minimum angular velocity required for the bead to maintain a position on the ring, but the discussion reveals multiple interpretations of the mathematical implications and physical realities involved. The exact nature of the solutions and the conditions under which they apply remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their mathematical manipulations, particularly regarding the conditions under which certain operations are valid. The discussion also reflects uncertainty about the physical implications of the derived equations and the behavior of the bead at low angular velocities.

Ailo
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi! I would appreciate your thoughts on something. :smile:

Let's say you have a ring with radius R rotating with angular velocity \omega about a vertical axis. A little bead is threaded onto the ring, and the friction between the bead and the ring is negligible. The bead follows the ring's rotation, and will for a given \omega place itself on a position on the ring which makes an angle \theta with the vertical.

By applying Newton's laws, one obtains the following equations for a given omega (N is the magnitude of the normal force from the ring on the bead):

N cos(\theta) = mg

and

N sin(\theta) = m \omega^2 (R sin(\theta)).

This gives a formula for the cosine of theta;

cos(\theta)=\frac{g}{\omega^2 r}.

So the problem is: what is the physical intepretation of what happens when omega gets so small that the right side of the equation exceeds 1?

My thoughts are that, since N both has to balance the force of gravity and simultaneously create a centripetal acceleration, N obviously has to be larger than mg. When omega sinks below a certain value, that just isn't the case anymore. So if you were to have it at an angle theta at a high angular velocity and then gradually lower omega until you hit that lower bound, it will just slide to the bottom.

Am I right?:redface:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is a funny one, isn't it?
I think the fallacy / flaw / loophole is that N has to be greater or equal to mg. I think that keeps physical reality from imaginary roots to the trig equation. It must mean that there is a minimum omega, below which the ring stays at the bottom.
I can't 'feel' that, though.
For a 1m radius ring, omega would need to be greater than about root g!
 
I think I see the problem. Look at how we solve the equations to get the formula for \theta which you found. We take

N \cos(\theta) = mg

and divide to get

N = \frac{mg}{\cos(\theta)}

Then we substitute into the other equation

N \sin(\theta) = m \omega^2 R \sin(\theta)

to get

m g \frac{\sin(\theta)}{\cos(\theta)} = m \omega^2 R \sin(\theta)

We multiply each side by the quantity \frac{\cos(\theta)}{m \omega^2 R} to get

\frac{g}{\omega^2 R} \sin(\theta) = \sin(\theta) \cos(\theta)

At this point we divide by \sin(\theta). Now, this is only permissible when \sin(\theta) \neq 0, so there are actually multiple solutions to this equation. There are the solutions which come from solving

\sin(\theta) = 0

and those which come from solving

\cos(\theta) = \frac{g}{\omega^2 R}

The first equation always has the solutions \theta = 0 and \theta = \pi, whereas the second equation can only be solved for \omega \geq \sqrt{\frac{g}{R}}. The second equation also only applies when we don't have \theta = 0 or \theta = \pi, as in those cases we would have divided by 0 to get it.

Physically, this corresponds to saying that there is a minimum value of \omega, below which the only fixed points are those at the top and bottom of the ring.
 
Looks good. I must say I had my doubts about canceling the sin thetas but I'm not too confident with what you can and what you can't do in that area. 'Back to first principles' involves going 'back' too many years!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K