Did I Miss Something in Disputing a Popular Book's Solution on Relative Motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the disagreement with a popular book's solution regarding relative motion in rotating frames. It emphasizes that the derivatives of vectors in rotating frames depend on the angular velocity of the frame, which is a key detail often overlooked. The relationship between the derivatives of vectors in different frames is established through a mathematical theorem, highlighting the importance of the frame's basis. The invariant nature of the relative position vector is acknowledged, but its time-derivatives differ across frames. This clarification resolves the initial confusion about the book's explanation.
guv
Messages
122
Reaction score
22
Homework Statement
200 More challening physics problems question #2

Ann is sitting on the edge of a carousel that has a radius of 6 m and is
rotating steadily. Bob is standing still on the ground at a point that is 12 m from the
centre of the carousel. At a particular instant, Bob observes Ann moving directly
towards him with a speed of 1 m s−1. With what speed does Ann observe Bob to
be moving at that same moment?

The hint from the book: Be careful, the transformation principle due to Galileo Galilei applies
only to inertial reference frames. The idea that Ann simply observes Bob moving
towards her with a speed of 1 m s−1 is false.

Solution: some complex calculation involving using the center of the carousel. Bob's velocity relative to the center is decomposed into tangetial and radial components, the tangential components ##\sqrt{3}## m/s is used as solution.
Relevant Equations
$$v_{a/b} = - v_{b/a}$$
I do not agree, this is bullocks. We can simply set up position vector of ##\vec A(t)## and ##\vec B(t)## with respect to the fixed center of the carousel, their relative velocity is simply ##\frac{d (A-B)}{dt}## or ##\frac{d (B-A)}{dt}##

Since this is a pretty popular book, I am wondering if I overlooked any detail in disputing the book's solution.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The book is right! The answer is that in general, for frames that are permitted to rotate, the derivatives of vectors depend on the angular velocity of the frame! As a theorem, if frame ##\mathcal{B}## rotates at ##\boldsymbol{\omega}## relative to frame ##\mathcal{A}##, then the derivative of an arbitrary vector ##\mathbf{u}## with respect to these two frames are related by$$\left( \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} \right)_{\mathcal{A}} = \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} \right)_{\mathcal{B}} + \boldsymbol{\omega} \times \mathbf{u}$$It is because of how we define the derivatives of vectors with respect to ##\mathcal{A}## and ##\mathcal{B}##. If ##\{\mathbf{e}_i \}## is the basis of ##\mathcal{A}##, for instance, and ##\{\tilde{\mathbf{e}}_i \}## a basis for ##\mathcal{B}## then you have ##\mathbf{u} = u_i \mathbf{e}_i = \tilde{u}_i \tilde{\mathbf{e}}_i##, and we define:$$\left( \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} \right)_{\mathcal{A}} := \sum_i \frac{\mathrm{d}u_i}{\mathrm{d}t} \mathbf{e}_i$$i.e. treating the ##\mathcal{A}## basis as constant, whilst$$\left( \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} \right)_{\mathcal{B}} := \sum_i \frac{\mathrm{d}\tilde{u}_i}{\mathrm{d}t} \tilde{\mathbf{e}}_i$$i.e. treating the ##\mathcal{B}## basis as constant. You can see how they are related by writing ##\tilde{\mathbf{e}_i} = R_{ij}(t) \mathbf{e}_j## where ##R_{ij}(t)## is a time-dependent rotation matrix.

So even though the relative position vector ##\mathbf{x}## is indeed invariant (as all vectors are), its time-derivatives with respect to both frames are different. For more info consult a classical mechanics text e.g. Douglas Gregory.
 
Very good, that was the detail I overlooked. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and etotheipi
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Back
Top