Prove forces derived from a velocity-dependent potential are not central

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Happiness
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces Potential
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that forces derived from a velocity-dependent potential, denoted as ##V=V(|r_i-r_j|, |v_i-v_j|)##, are not central. The initial claim was challenged, revealing that ##\partial_{x_i}V(p, q) \neq \partial_{x_i}V(p)##, which is crucial for satisfying equation (1.34). The author successfully demonstrated that the force derived from this potential can indeed satisfy (1.34), contradicting the assertion made in the referenced book. Key variables include ##p=|r_i-r_j|## and ##q=|v_i-v_j|##, which are essential for the derivation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, particularly gradient operations.
  • Familiarity with classical mechanics concepts, especially potential energy and forces.
  • Knowledge of partial derivatives and their applications in physics.
  • Basic understanding of the relationship between position and velocity in a multi-particle system.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of velocity-dependent potentials in classical mechanics.
  • Explore the derivation and applications of the gradient operator in physics.
  • Investigate the mathematical properties of central forces and their characteristics.
  • Learn about the role of potential energy functions in multi-body systems.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in mechanics, and researchers focusing on dynamical systems will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the implications of velocity-dependent forces in theoretical frameworks.

Happiness
Messages
686
Reaction score
30
I don't see why the last sentence in the attachment is true. It claims that if ##V_{ij}## or simply ##V## is also a function of the difference of velocities of particles ##i## and ##j##, then the force derived from ##V## is not central. In other words, if ##V=V(|r_i-r_j|, |v_i-v_j|)##, then (1.34) is not satisfied.

Let ##p=|r_i-r_j|## and ##q=|v_i-v_j|## and ##\partial_x=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}##.

##\nabla_iV(p, q)=\partial_{x_i}V(p, q)\vec{e_x}+\partial_{y_i}V(p, q)\vec{e_y}+\partial_{z_i}V(p, q)\vec{e_z}##. Definition of ##\nabla_i## is given by the first sentence of the attachment.

Since ##\partial_{x_i}V(p, q)=\partial_{x_i}V(p)##, the RHS above should be the same as the RHS of (1.34). Then, (1.34) will be satisfied.

##\partial_{x_i}V(p, q)=\partial_{x_i}V(p)## for the same reason as ##\partial_x(x+\dot{x}^2)=1=\partial_xx##.

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 8.57.48 pm.png


EDIT: I found the mistake. ##\partial_{x_i}V(p, q)\neq\partial_{x_i}V(p)## for the same reason as ##\partial_x(x+x\dot{x})\neq\partial_xx##.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Nonetheless, I am still able to prove that the force derived from ##V=V(p, q)## satisfies (1.34), contrary to what is claimed by the book.

Recall that ##p=|r_i-r_j|=\sqrt{(x_i-x_j)^2+(y_i-y_j)^2+(z_i-z_j)^2}## and ##q=|v_i-v_j|##.

Thus, ##\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i}=\frac{1}{2p}2(x_i-x_j)=\frac{1}{p}(x_i-x_j)##.

Let ##V'(p, q)=\partial_{p}V(p, q)##.

##\nabla_iV(p, q)=\partial_{x_i}V(p, q)\vec{e_x}+\partial_{y_i}V(p, q)\vec{e_y}+\partial_{z_i}V(p, q)\vec{e_z}##

##=V'(p, q)\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i}\vec{e_x}+V'(p, q)\frac{\partial p}{\partial y_i}\vec{e_y}+V'(p, q)\frac{\partial p}{\partial z_i}\vec{e_z}##

##=\frac{V'(p, q)}{p}(x_i-x_j)\vec{e_x}+\frac{V'(p, q)}{p}(y_i-y_j)\vec{e_y}+\frac{V'(p, q)}{p}(z_i-z_j)\vec{e_z}##

##=\frac{V'(p, q)}{p}(\vec{r_i}-\vec{r_j})##,

which is equivalent to the RHS of (1.34).

What's wrong?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K