Understanding Central Forces in Polar Coordinates

  • Thread starter Thread starter AntiStrange
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the equations of motion for an object influenced by a central force in polar coordinates. The first equation relates radial acceleration and centripetal force, highlighting the need for both the central force and the centripetal term due to the object's motion in a curved path. The second equation addresses angular motion, emphasizing that tangential forces should not exist in this scenario, which clarifies why the equation is set to zero. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of how these components interact when an object spirals outward, reinforcing the relationship between radial and angular motion. Overall, the thread clarifies the dynamics of central forces in polar coordinates.
AntiStrange
Messages
18
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I'm supposed to read this little packet on mechanics, specifically dealing with central forces.
and they are explaining a scenario where something is moving due to a central force (say, the Earth rotating around the sun) where all the motion takes place in the xy plane. They describe some initial conditions y0 = z0 = 0 for example and Vz = 0 because it's not moving in the z direction.
Then they switch to polar coordinates (r,theta) and they say the equations of motion are:
m\ddot{r} - mr\dot{\theta}^2 = F(r)
mr\ddot{\theta} + 2m\dot{r}\dot{\theta} = 0

Homework Equations


Force: F = m*a
Angular Velocity: \omega = \frac{v_{t}}{r}
Angular Acceleration: \alpha = \frac{d\omega}{dt}
Centripetal Acceleration: \alpha_{c} = \omega^{2}r = \frac{v^{2}_{t}}{r}

v_t = tangential speed

The Attempt at a Solution


well for the first equation of motion they give, I recognize that the first part is a force m*a because \ddot{r} is an acceleration. Because it's the acceleration of the radius it should be the centripetal force right? But I don't understand why there needs to be another force component subtracted from this one, because the only force acting on this object should be the central force. In addition to that, the second component appears to ALSO be the same central force because \dot{\theta} is the angular velocity \omega and that is squared times the radius which is just another way to find the centripetal acceleration. So I don't understand why there needs to both, let alone why they must be subtracted.

edit: the two dots aren't showing up above the theta below, but instead of (theta)r it should be d^2(theta)/dt^2 * r
For the second equation of motion they have \ddot{\theta}r is just the angular acceleration times the mass would be any force that acts tangential to the motion, which should not exist in this case which is why it is equal to zero. But again I don't know why they include a second part.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first equation is Newton's Second Law in the radial direction. Imagine an object spiraling out moving faster and faster as time increases. In the radial direction, the force does two things: (a) it causes the component of the velocity vr to increase as the object spirals out (first term) and (b) it causes the object to go around a curved path (second "centripetal" term).

If you consider an object going around a circle, i.e. r = constant,

\dot{r} = 0

which changes your radial equation to the familiar "centripetal force" equation,

<br /> - mr\dot{\theta}^2 = F(r)<br />
 
Ok that makes perfect sense now. Thank you!
 
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 .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top