Prove that v(t) is any vector that depends on time

In summary: No... do the exact opposite of what you did last time... so start with the end:2v.a = 0 now take the integral... from the last part, you know that the derivative of v.v is 2v.a , so what is the integral of 2v.a ?without doing part a, what would make you want to multiply by 2?just v.v
  • #1
Oblio
398
0
Prove that v(t) is any vector that depends on time (for example the velocity of a moving particle) but which has constant magnitude, then [tex]\dot{v}[/tex](t) is orthogonal to v(t). Prove the converse that if [tex]\dot{v}[/tex](t) is orthogonal to v(t), then lv(t)l is constant. Hint: consder the derivative of v^2.

This is a very hand result. It explains why, in 2-D polars, d[tex]\hat{r}[/tex]/dt has to be in the direction of [tex]\hat{\phi}[/tex] and vice versa. It also shows that the speed of a charged particle in a magnetic field is constant, since teh acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity.



How to I approach proving this? I'm also unclear on Orthogonal, which I'll look up now but if someone could explain this to compliment what I'm off to figure out, I'd appreciate it a great deal.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The trick is to use this equation [tex]\vec{v}\cdot\vec{v} = |\vec{v}|^2[/tex]

Try taking the derivative of both sides... see what happens.
 
  • #3
How did you know that?
 
  • #4
Oblio said:
How did you know that?

Just kind of guessed... They want orthogonality... Orthogonality means perpendicular... so I thought it probably had to do with dot products. I looked up the derivative of the dot product, and checked that this idea worked.

When you have a problem that has to do with orthogonality... or angles between vectors... and the magnitudes of the vectors... you're probably dealing with dot product or cross product...
 
  • #5
haha. You's brilliant eh?

I'll let you know how it turns out
 
  • #6
Oblio said:
haha. You's brilliant eh?

lol Nope. I wish. It's just experience. Just seen these types of problems so many times. So I kind of know what to expect.

I'll let you know how it turns out

cool.
 
  • #7
I forget, do I treat v as a variable or does a vector differentiate differently?
 
  • #8
Oblio said:
I forget, do I treat v as a variable or does a vector differentiate differently?

look up the rule for taking the derivative of a dot product.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DotProduct.html

The [tex]|\vec{v}|[/tex] is just a scalar... so just differentiate that normally, like an ordinary variable.
 
  • #9
[tex]\vec{v}[/tex].[tex]\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/tex] + [tex]\vec{v}[/tex].[tex]\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/tex] = 2l[tex]\vec{v}[/tex]l

Hows that look so far?
 
  • #10
That's not actually equal is it?
 
  • #11
Oblio said:
[tex]\vec{v}[/tex].[tex]\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/tex] + [tex]\vec{v}[/tex].[tex]\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/tex] = 2l[tex]\vec{v}[/tex]l

Hows that look so far?

Left side looks good. Right side you need to multiply that by [tex]\frac{d|\vec{v}|}{dt}[/tex], using the chain rule. because you're taking the derviative wrt t.
 
  • #12
Right... oops. (embarrasing)

that gives me
2[tex]\vec{v}[/tex][tex]\vec{a}[/tex] = 2l[tex]\vec{v}[/tex]l [tex]\vec{a}[/tex]

and v and a are perpendicular?
 
  • #13
Oblio said:
Right... oops. (embarrasing)

that gives me
2[tex]\vec{v}[/tex][tex]\vec{a}[/tex] = 2l[tex]\vec{v}[/tex]l [tex]\vec{a}[/tex]

and v and a are perpendicular?

careful. left side looks good, but not the right side. [tex]\vec{a} = \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/tex]. But [tex]\frac{d|\vec{v}|}{dt}[/tex] isn't the same as [tex]\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/tex] (ie think of the velocity keeping the same magnitude but changing directions.)

You know the magnitude of the velocity is constant for this question, hence [tex]\frac{d|\vec{v}|}{dt}[/tex] is 0.
 
  • #14
Right, the slope of a scalar.
So, 2va = 0?
 
  • #15
Oblio said:
Right, the slope of a scalar.
So, 2va = 0?

yeah, [tex]2\vec{v}\cdot\vec{a} = 0[/tex]...hence [tex]\vec{v}\cdot\vec{a} = 0[/tex] if the dot product of two vectors is 0, then they are orthogonal/perpendicular.
 
  • #16
To prove the converse that if [tex]\dot{v}[/tex](t) is orthogonal to v(t), (that v(t) is constant), do i start in the same manner?
 
  • #17
a dv/dt + v da/dt = 0

this leaves me with the derivative of acceleration though...
 
  • #18
Oblio said:
To prove the converse that if [tex]\dot{v}[/tex](t) is orthogonal to v(t), (that v(t) is constant), do i start in the same manner?

Do the same thing as the first part... except backwards...

basically it's just the reverse of the steps starting with the end...

start with [tex]\vec{v}\cdot\vec{a} = 0[/tex]
 
  • #19
integrate instead of derive?
 
  • #20
Oblio said:
integrate instead of derive?

yes, exactly.
 
  • #21
which just leaves you with a dot product between position and v?

v.x = 0
 
  • #22
Oblio said:
which just leaves you with a dot product between position and v?

v.x = 0

No... do the exact opposite of what you did last time...

so start with the end:

v.a = 0

now you can go to the previous step by multiplying by 2:

2v.a = 0

now take the integral... from the last part, you know that the derivative of v.v is 2v.a , so what is the integral of 2v.a ?
 
  • #23
without doing part a, what would make you want to multiply by 2?
 
  • #24
just v.v
 
  • #25
Oblio said:
just v.v

Yes, and what happens to the right side?
 
  • #26
i know i shoul get the magnitude of v.. but how from 0?
 
  • #27
Oblio said:
i know i shoul get the magnitude of v.. but how from 0?

You're integrating both sides of:

2v.a = 0

what's the integral of the 0?
 
  • #28
the scalar of v..
 
  • #29
Oblio said:
the scalar of v..

yeah, it will turn out to be |v|^2... but when we integrate 0, we get C...

ie: integral of 0, is just a constant, so you can just call the right side C.

ie:

[tex]\vec{v}\cdot\vec{v} = C[/tex]
 
  • #30
I need to work it to v^2?

Was the multiplying by two only by the knowledge of doing the first part?
 
  • #31
Oblio said:
I need to work it to v^2?

Was the multiplying by two only by the knowledge of doing the first part?

yeah sort of... for the second part you somehow need to figure out that [tex]\frac{d(\vec{v}\cdot\vec{v})}{dt} = 2\vec{\frac{dv}{dt}}\cdot\vec{v}[/tex]

we already proved this in the first part.

so yes, v.v = |v|^2

|v|^2 = C, so |v|=sqrt(C), which is a constant.
 
  • #32
Alright, I wasn't sure if multiplying by two was also a reasonable 'step' without the preknowledge.
 

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
696
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
682
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
142
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
924
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
636
Back
Top