Stokes drag of oscillation sphere

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the dynamics of a sphere oscillating in a viscous fluid, with a focus on the velocity equations defined by Landau. The velocity of the fluid is expressed as a function of frequency and spatial variables, leading to a boundary condition where the sphere's velocity matches the fluid's at its surface. The original question raised concerns about the absence of an additional periodic force in a non-inertial frame. The resolution involves applying the Navier-Stokes equations in this non-inertial context and redefining the velocity to account for the sphere's motion. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the interplay between oscillatory motion and fluid dynamics without requiring extra forces.
chaosma
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If we consider a sphere oscillates in viscous fluid with frequency w,
then sphere has velocity u=u_0*e^{-iwt}

In Laudau's book, he defined the velocity of fluid is:
v=e^{iwt}*F
where F is a vector with only spatial variable involved.
The boundary condition then becomes u=v at |x|=R,
where R is radius of sphere and origin is center of sphere.

My question is that this is a non-inertial frame, but Landau didn't introduce any
extra periodic force. Why is this true? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I figured it out.
First, use non-inertial frame, write down the NS equation with velocity w.
Then let u=w+u_0
where u_0 is velocity of sphere.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top