Yukawa potential energy function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the radial force function from the Yukawa potential energy function, U(r) = -(r/r0)U0 exp(-r/r0). Participants consider two methods for differentiation: normal differentiation and partial differentiation, noting that since the function depends solely on r, both approaches yield the same result. There is some debate about whether spherical coordinates are necessary for the derivation, but it is concluded that only the radial axis is relevant in this context. The gradient can be expressed simply as ∂f/∂r in the radial direction. Overall, the focus remains on confirming the correct approach to deriving the radial force from the Yukawa potential.
astenroo
Messages
47
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This is not yet an attempt at solving a problem. I just need confirmation on that I'm on the right track. So, I am supposed to derive an expression for the radial force function from the given Yukawa-function.


Homework Equations



U(r) = -(r/r0)U0 exp-(-r/r0)

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm thinking about two possibilities here. First: Derivation of said function with respect to r (normal differential). Second: Partial differentiation to solve for the gradient (although I think this is not necessary since r is a fixed value, and no coordinates are given in the context of the problem)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RoyalCat said:
\vec F = -\nabla U

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_in_cylindrical_and_spherical_coordinates

In this case the normal derivative is the same as the partial derivative.

Ah true, since this function only has one variable which is r. What I am a bit concerned about is that if the system for spherical coordinates should be used in this derivation... Or they aren't needed since the radial force is dependant only on r (in this given situation)?
 
astenroo said:
Ah true, since this function only has one variable which is r. What I am a bit concerned about is that if the system for spherical coordinates should be used in this derivation... Or they aren't needed since the radial force is dependant only on r (in this given situation)?

It doesn't matter, you have only one axis specified in the problem, and that's the radial axis. The way to take the gradient with respect to the radial axis is \frac{\partial f}{\partial r}\hat r
It doesn't matter what the other two axes are.
 
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