Why Does Vqp Need to be Tangential to Vq in Order for Q to Get Closest to P?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which particle Q can achieve the closest approach to particle P, given their respective velocities Vp and Vq. Participants explore the geometric and kinematic implications of relative velocities in a two-dimensional context, particularly focusing on the tangential relationship between these velocities and the concept of distance of closest approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that for Q to get closest to P, the relative velocity Vqp must be tangential to the velocity Vq, suggesting a geometric relationship involving circles and tangents.
  • Others argue that the relative velocity of Q should be antiparallel to the displacement from Q to P, indicating a direct approach without the need for tangential considerations.
  • A participant mentions that the closest distance between a point and a line is represented by the perpendicular from the point to the line, relating this to the concept of the impact parameter.
  • Another participant questions the clarity of the problem without a diagram and suggests that the discussion may involve an intercept scenario, where Q is aiming directly at P.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the tangential relationship between the velocity vectors and indicates a need for further clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of the tangential relationship between the velocities for achieving the closest approach. Multiple competing views remain regarding the geometric interpretation of the problem.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about planar motion and the nature of the velocities involved, which may not be fully articulated. The lack of a diagram is noted as a limitation in understanding the geometric relationships discussed.

Jas
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/221718 Say if we have two particles P, and Q, traveling at velocities Vp and Vq respectively. If it is IMPOSSIBLE for Q to collide with P, let us find the distance of closest approach. So from the frame of reference of P, itself is stationary, and Q is moving at Vqp (velocity of q relative to p). In order to get the closest to P, the velocity of Q (Vq) can take a locus of velocities, forming the shape of a circle of radius mod(Vq).

Why is it that in order for Q to get the CLOSEST to P, Vqp has to be tangential to Vq from the circle?This is in 2 dimensions, and by collide, I mean intercept
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    32.5 KB · Views: 596
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Jas said:
Say if we have two particles P, and Q, traveling at velocities Vp and Vq respectively. If it is IMPOSSIBLE for Q to collide with P, let us find the distance of closest approach. So from the frame of reference of P, itself is stationary, and Q is moving at Vqp (velocity of q relative to p). In order to get the closest to P, the velocity of Q (Vq) can take a locus of velocities, forming the shape of a circle of radius mod(Vq).

Why is it that in order for Q to get the CLOSEST to P, Vqp has to be tangential to Vq from the circle?This is in 2 dimensions, and by collide, I mean intercept
Without a diagram, you've certainly lost me.

Since you are talking about circles, you must be talking about planar motion. If you are mention a locus of velocities forming a circle, you must be talking about a fixed relative speed with an unknown direction. But in order to get "closest" to P, the relative velocity of Q must simply be antiparallel to the displacement of Q from P. No mystery and no tangents there.

If you want to hit something that's motionless: aim directly at it.

Edit: I see that kuruman has assumed that this is an intercept problem. You are launching a projectile from Q at P with some fixed speed (relative to Q - a bullet?) (relative to an absolute frame - a torpedo?)
 
Last edited:
Jas said:
Why is it that in order for Q to get the CLOSEST to P, Vqp has to be tangential to Vq from the circle?
Because the closest distance between a point and a straight line is the perpendicular from the point to the line. Furthermore, the tangent to a circle is perpendicular to the radius. So the perpendicular from the point to the line is the radius of the circle.

On edit: The radius of that circle is also called the impact parameter, look it up.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
jbriggs444 said:
Without a diagram, you've certainly lost me.

Since you are talking about circles, you must be talking about planar motion. If you are mention a locus of velocities forming a circle, you must be talking about a fixed relative speed with an unknown direction. But in order to get "closest" to P, the relative velocity of Q must simply be antiparallel to the displacement of Q from P. No mystery and no tangents there.

If you want to hit something that's motionless: aim directly at it.

Edit: I see that kuruman has assumed that this is an intercept problem. You are launching a projectile from Q at P with some fixed speed (relative to Q - a bullet?) (relative to an absolute frame - a torpedo?)

I've added a diagram. As you can see, qVp (same thing as Vqp) is tangential to the locus of Vq
 
kuruman said:
Because the closest distance between a point and a straight line is the perpendicular from the point to the line. Furthermore, the tangent to a circle is perpendicular to the radius. So the perpendicular from the point to the line is the radius of the circle.

On edit: The radius of that circle is also called the impact parameter, look it up.
But we're talking about the tangent between two velocity vectors
 
Jas said:
But we're talking about the tangent between two velocity vectors
I am not sure what this is. Anyway, posting the problem that relates to your question clarifies the situation. I will have to think about the answer to your question, but now I have to sign off for a few hours. Perhaps someone else will be able to help you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
6K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
28K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
14K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K