Proving rotational motion using Newton's laws

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the trajectory of a two-particle system connected by a spring, under the influence of an external force applied perpendicularly to the spring. Participants explore whether the trajectory in the center of mass (C.O.M.) frame can be shown to be circular and discuss the implications of using Newton's laws without relying on torque or angular momentum concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the initial velocity of the masses being perpendicular to the rod implies conservation of speed, leading to a constant rotation around the C.O.M.
  • Another participant counters that while the initial velocities are perpendicular, the direction of motion could lead to conflicting rotational tendencies, complicating the analysis.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the forces exerted by the rod would not allow for a uniform acceleration of both masses due to the nature of the impulsive force applied.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of using a rigid rod versus a spring and how forces are transmitted through these connections, noting that the rod can only transfer forces along its length.
  • There is a suggestion to explore Lagrangian mechanics or elasticity theories as potential frameworks to analyze the problem, although no consensus is reached on their applicability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the behavior of the system under the applied force, with no consensus on the trajectory or the implications of the forces involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the validity of the proposed approaches and the nature of the motion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the analysis, such as the dependence on the assumptions about force transmission in rigid bodies and the nature of impulsive forces. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the system dynamics without resolving the mathematical steps involved.

metalrose
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
I have asked this question before, but couldn't get a satisfactory response.
Let me make the problem more concise.

We have a two particle system, i.e. two masses of mass m each joined together by a spring of spring constant k.
A force F is applied to one of these particles in a direction perpendicular to that of the spring joining the two masses.
As the spring constant tends to infinity, the system behaves as two masses joined by a rigid rod.

Prove, (without using the kinematic approches of torque, ang. momentum et al) that the trajectory followed by the two masses, as viewed from the C.O.M. frame would be a circle centered at the C.O.M. and find out the angular velocity or acc.

You can not use the usual approches of finding the torque.
Prove the trajectory using anything but the torque or ang. momentum eq.'s

Even if you don't solve this here, please atleast tell me wether it is solvable or not. And if it is, what topics are needed as a prerequisite?
Can lagrangian mechanics solve my above problem? or theories which deal with elasticity?
And if they can, please give me some references so that I can look up.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should be able to sketch a "proof" as seen from the CM using the fact that the initial velocity of the masses are perpendicular to the rod which means that the velocity vector will only turn (and not increase or decrease in magnitude) and the speed is thus conserved. I guess will need to identify some invariant related to the geometric relationship between the two masses (the distance constraint imposed by the rod) in order conclude the rod forces are always perpendicular to the velocity of the masses and that they therefore are bound to a constant rotation around the CM.
 
@Filip larsen

Yes, the initial velocity vector of both the particles is perpendicular to the rod, "but in the same direction". And even if the rigid rod were to provide them with a centripetal force so as to rotate them, since they have an initial velocity in the same direction and centripetal forces in the opposite directions, one particle would have a tendency to rotate clockwise, while the other, anticlockwise.

And this ofcourse can't be true, because in the rotational motion we observe, both particles eitehr move clockwise or anticlockwise.
There lies the problem.
Hope you can help.

Thanks
 
metalrose said:
Yes, the initial velocity vector of both the particles is perpendicular to the rod, "but in the same direction".
No, as seen from the CM the two masses have opposite velocities.

To see this you can look at it from a frame that is at rest with the masses just before the impulsive force is applied. Right after the impulsive force has been applied the first mass moves perpendicular to the rod but the second mass is at rest since none of the impulsive force can be translated to the second mass. If the rod was missing then the first mass would continue to move in its initial direction and the second mass would continue to stay at rest. The CM of the two masses (without the rod) would therefore travel with half the velocity of the first mass, which means, that seen from the CM the first mass moves one way while the other moves the opposite way. Now "insert" the rod again and note that at the CM the rod forces cancels each other, so the CM will continue to move with this initial "half" velocity even with the rod present.

From here you should be able to continue the argument with perpendicular forces on the masses.
 
@filip larsen

I guess this won't be the case.
If we have a rigid rod, the force applied on anyone of the particles will get evenly distributed all throughout the rod and upto the other particle and this is how the entire system will achive a common acc. in the forward direction given by a=F/2m. So the initial acc. of both the particles is the same, and so both should have the same initial velocity.

Did I go wrong somewhere?
 
metalrose said:
I have asked this question before, but couldn't get a satisfactory response.
You have gotten satisfactory response to this.
Period.
 
metalrose said:
If we have a rigid rod, the force applied on anyone of the particles will get evenly distributed all throughout the rod and upto the other particle and this is how the entire system will achive a common acc. in the forward direction given by a=F/2m. So the initial acc. of both the particles is the same, and so both should have the same initial velocity.

This is not so. The (idealized one-dimensional) rod is only capable of transferring forces along the direction of the rod so there is no way a perpendicular impulsive force on one mass can yield a perpendicular force on the other mass at the same time. You can replace the rod with a thin strong thread that is incapable of transferring anything but "pull-forces" and still get the same motional behavior as in the original setup.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K