Velocity for uniform circular motion

In summary: You start with the normalized tangent vector,$$\vec{T}=\frac{\dot{\vec{x}}}{|\dot{\vec{x}}|}.$$For the following it is more convenient to introduce the arc-length parameter,$$s=\int_{t_0}^t \mathrm{d} t' |\dot{\vec{x}}(t')|,$$which is the arclength of the piece of curve given by ##t' \in [t_0,t]##.Obviously$$\dot{s} =|\dot{\vec{x}}|>0,$$and thus you can paramet
  • #1
Chenkel
482
108
Hello everyone, I've been studying centripetal and centrifugal acceleration and derivation of their magnitude. I noticed in one of Walter Lewin's lectures that the velocity is written as both a vector and an arc length which is confusing to me. When velocity is written as a vector, it has a length that is contained in a line tangent to the circle, where velocity is written as arc length it is the length of the arc traced out by the position vector divided by time. I am wondering if these to scalar quantities are the same, and if so how to prove it.

Looking forward to your feedback, thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Chenkel said:
Hello everyone, I've been studying centripetal and centrifugal acceleration and derivation of their magnitude. I noticed in one of Walter Lewin's lectures that the velocity is written as both a vector and an arc length which is confusing to me. When velocity is written as a vector, it has a length that is contained in a line tangent to the circle, where velocity is written as arc length it is the length of the arc traced out by the position vector divided by time. I am wondering if these to scalar quantities are the same, and if so how to prove it.

Looking forward to your feedback, thank you!
Are you confusing instantaneous velocity with average velocity (over a finite time interval)?
 
  • #3
PeroK said:
Are you confusing instantaneous velocity with average velocity (over a finite time interval)?
If we designate the arc length (ds) traveled during a small amount of time (dt), then we have the displacement over time (ds/dt), which is the velocity in arc length per unit time. I'm wondering if (ds/dt) is equal to the magnitude of the velocity vector when dt is small.
 
  • #4
Chenkel said:
If we designate the arc length (ds) traveled during a small amount of time (dt), then we have the displacement over time (ds/dt), which is the velocity in arc length per unit time. I'm wondering if (ds/dt) is equal to the magnitude of the velocity vector when dt is small.
It's not when ##dt## is small, it's the limit as ##dt## tends to zero. Those are fundamentally different things mathematically.

Technically, you ought to use ##\Delta s## and ##\Delta t## when you mean finite intervals (small or otherwise). And use ##dt## and ##ds## when you mean differentials or the derivative ##\dfrac {ds}{dt}## (which is the instantaneous velocity).
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel
  • #5
I'm wondering if ##\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} {|\vec V|} = \frac {ds} {dt} ## where ##\vec V## is the linear velocity of the point and ds/dt is the arc length per second where ds is the arc length traced out by the point
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Chenkel said:
I'm wondering if ##\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} {|\vec V|} = \frac {ds} {dt} ##
This doesn't make mathematical sense. What is ##\vec V## as a function of ##\Delta t##?
Chenkel said:
where ##\vec V## is the linear velocity of the point and ds/dt is the arc length traced out by the point per second
For uniform circular motion we have:
$$\vec r = R\cos(\omega t) \hat x + R \sin(\omega t) \hat y$$ and everything can be calculated from that:
$$\vec v = \frac{d\vec r}{dt} = -R\omega \sin(\omega t) \hat x + R \omega \cos(\omega t) \hat y$$$$|\vec v| = R\omega$$$$\Delta s = R \Delta \theta = R\omega \Delta t$$And, we can see that:
$$|\vec v| = \frac{ds}{dt} = \lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t}$$Note that this should hold for non-uniform motion in physical systems, although a mathematically pathological counterexample could be constructed (I think there was a thread about this recently).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Chenkel
  • #7
PeroK said:
This doesn't make mathematical sense. What is ##\vec V## as a function of ##\Delta t##?

For uniform circular motion we have:
$$\vec r = R\cos(\omega t) \hat x + R \sin(\omega t) \hat y$$ and everything can be calculated from that:
$$\vec v = \frac{d\vec x}{dt} = -R\omega \sin(\omega t) \hat x + R \omega \cos(\omega t) \hat y$$$$|\vec v| = R\omega$$$$\Delta s = R \Delta \theta = R\omega \Delta t$$And, we can see that:
$$|\vec v| = \frac{ds}{dt} = \lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{\Delta s}{\Delta t}$$Note that this should hold for non-uniform motion in physical systems, although a mathematically pathological counterexample could be constructed (I think there was a thread about this recently).
I see! It's as if the linear velocity is a string we can wrap around any curve representing the path of the object. Hopefully I am seeing things clearly.

Thanks for the reply!
 
  • #8
This is related to the definition of vectors related to a given trajectory ##\vec{x}(t)## in usual 3D Euclidean space. It defines specific (usually non-inertial) reference frame for an observer moving along this given curve.

You start with the normalized tangent vector,
$$\vec{T}=\frac{\dot{\vec{x}}}{|\dot{\vec{x}}|}.$$
For the following it is more convenient to introduce the arc-length parameter,
$$s=\int_{t_0}^t \mathrm{d} t' |\dot{\vec{x}}(t')|,$$
which is the arclength of the piece of curve given by ##t' \in [t_0,t]##.
Obviously
$$\dot{s} =|\dot{\vec{x}}|>0,$$
and thus you can parametrize the curve as well by ##s## rather than ##t##. Then the normalized tangent vector reads
$$\vec{T}=\frac{\dot{\vec{x}}}{\dot{s}}=\frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{x}}{\mathrm{d} s}.$$
Then, because of ##\vec{T}^2=1=\text{const}## you have
$$\vec{T} \cdot \mathrm{d}_s \vec{T}=0,$$
and thus you can define
$$\vec{N}=\frac{\mathrm{d}_s \vec{T}}{|\mathrm{d}_s \vec{T}|}$$
as one unit-normal vector to the curve and finally, as a third vector making a right-handed Cartesian coordinate system complete, the unit-binormal vector
$$\vec{B}=\vec{T} \times \vec{N}.$$
Further you have by definition of ##N##
$$\mathrm{d}_s \vec{T}=\kappa \vec{N},$$
where ##\kappa = |\mathrm{d}_s \vec{T}|##. Now from ##\vec{N}^2=1## you find that
$$\vec{N} \cdot \mathrm{d}_s \vec{N}=0 \; \Rightarrow \; \mathrm{d}_s \vec{N}=\alpha \vec{T} + \tau \vec{B}$$
and then
$$\mathrm{d}_s \vec{B} = (\mathrm{d}_s \vec{T}) \times \vec{N} + \vec{T} \times \mathrm{d}_s \vec{N} = \kappa \vec{N} \times \vec{N} + \vec{T} \times (\alpha \vec{T}+\tau \vec{B}) = \beta \vec{T} \times \vec{B} = \tau \vec{T} \times (\vec{T} \times \vec{N}) = \tau [ \vec{T} (\vec{T} \cdot \vec{N})-\vec{N} \vec{T}^2]=-\tau \vec{N}.$$
In matrix notation we can write
$$\mathrm{d}_s (\vec{T},\vec{N},\vec{B}) = (\vec{T},\vec{N},\vec{B}) \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \alpha & 0 \\
\kappa &0 & -\tau \\ 0 &\tau &0 \end{pmatrix}=(\vec{T},\vec{N},\vec{B}) \hat{M}. \qquad (*)$$
But now the matrix
$$\hat{O}=(\vec{T},\vec{N},\vec{B}),$$
built with the column vectors ##\vec{T}##, ##\vec{N}##, and ##\vec{B}## is an orthogonal matrix, because these three vectors form a right-handed Cartesian basis, i.e.,
$$\hat{O} \hat{O}^{\text{T}}=\hat{1}$$
and thus
$$\mathrm{d}_s (\hat{O} \hat{O}^{\text{T}})=0=(\mathrm{d}_s \hat{O}) \hat{O}^{\text{T}} + \hat{O} \mathrm{d}_s \hat{O}^{\text{T}},$$
which means that the matrix ##\mathrm{d}_s \hat{O}) \hat{O}^{\text{T}}## is antisymmetric. Now we can write (*) as
$$\mathrm{d}_s \hat{O} = \hat{O} \hat{M} \; \Rightarrow \; \hat{M}=\hat{O}^{\text{T}} \mathrm{d}_s \hat{O},$$
which implies that ##\hat{M}=-\hat{M}^{\text{T}}## and thus ##\alpha=-\kappa##, i.e., finally
$$\mathrm{d}_s \vec{T}=\kappa \vec{N}, \quad \mathrm{d}_s \vec{N} = -\kappa \vec{T} + \tau \vec{N}, \quad \mathrm{d}_s \vec{B}=-\tau \vec{N}.$$
These are the Frenet-Serret formulas, and ##\kappa## and ##\tau## are called curvature and torsion of the curve.

The geometrical meaning becomes clear from the following figure from Wikipedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frenet.svg#/media/File:Frenet.svg
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Chenkel and Delta2
  • #9
@vanhees71 do you have a typo there I believe in the definition of s you should have ##|\dot {\vec{x(t')}}|## and also that ##\dot s=|\dot {\vec x}|##.
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel and vanhees71
  • #10
I guess you refer to the missing time derivative in the definition of ##s##. I've corrected it.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes Chenkel and Delta2
  • #11
PeroK said:
$$\vec v = \frac{d\vec x}{dt} = -R\omega \sin(\omega t) \hat x + R \omega \cos(\omega t) \hat y$$$$|\vec v| =
Typo? You have replaced ##r## with ##x##. That should be confusing for the OP
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel
  • #12
erobz said:
Typo? You have replaced ##r## with ##x##.
Well spotted, thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel and erobz

Related to Velocity for uniform circular motion

1. What is the formula for calculating velocity in uniform circular motion?

The formula for calculating velocity in uniform circular motion is v = 2πr/T, where v is the velocity, r is the radius of the circle, and T is the time taken to complete one full revolution.

2. How is velocity different from speed in uniform circular motion?

Velocity in uniform circular motion is a vector quantity, meaning it has both magnitude and direction. Speed, on the other hand, is a scalar quantity and only refers to the magnitude of the velocity. In circular motion, the direction of the velocity is constantly changing, while the speed remains constant.

3. Can the velocity in uniform circular motion ever be zero?

No, the velocity in uniform circular motion can never be zero. This is because an object in circular motion is constantly changing direction, meaning it is always moving at some velocity, even if it is very small.

4. How does the radius of the circle affect the velocity in uniform circular motion?

The radius of the circle directly affects the velocity in uniform circular motion. The larger the radius, the greater the distance the object has to cover in one revolution, resulting in a higher velocity. Similarly, a smaller radius will result in a lower velocity.

5. Does the velocity in uniform circular motion remain constant?

Yes, the velocity in uniform circular motion remains constant. This is because the speed remains constant and the direction of the velocity is constantly changing, resulting in a circular path. However, the magnitude of the velocity may change if the radius of the circle or the time taken to complete one revolution changes.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
153
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
55
Views
799
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top