0
$\begingroup$

In solving the following problem from Kleppner and Kolenkow

enter image description here

the solution assumes there is a point $C$ along the line joining $m$ and $M$ such that

  1. Both $m$ and $M$ execute uniform circular motion with the same angular velocity $\omega$ about $C$

  2. $C$ is inertial and thus $F=mr\omega^2=M(R-r)\omega^2$ applies

I don't understand how those two statements follow from the fact that each particle executes UCM about the other with angular velocity $\omega$.

The fact that there exists a point $C$ (namely, the center of mass) along the line joining the masses that is inertial does follow from conservation of linear momentum, but this problem is presented before the introduction of the concept of momentum, so I think there should be a way to do it without this. Moreover, I still can't deduce (1) from it.

Any hint would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

You can use kinematics of circular motion to solve this.

As the bodies perform uniform circular motion about each other, it means that with respect to one of the bodies, the velocity of other body is perpendicular (condition for circular motion). As the circular motion is uniform, there is not tangential acceleration, which means the Force must be in the along the line joining the two masses(lets call the line joining the masses "AB"). As force is constant and always perpendicular to the masses' velocity, we can observe from the ground frame and say that each mass is doing uniform circular motion about a fixed point(or intertial) lying on the line joining the two masses. (As magnitude of force is constant and always perpendicular to velocity)

Now here's the tricky part, which is proving that the two centers of these moving masses are at the same point. Assume that the centers do not coincide. If they do not coincide, then the distance between the masses will continuously change, but the distance between the bodies is constant, thus, the centers coincide. Therefore we proved that the bodies perform uniform circular motion about a fixed common point on the line AB.

There is another method which is of center of mass.

F=$\frac{dp}{dt}$. Take both bodies as a system. There is no external force, so the Center of mass of the system remains at rest, therefore directly proving that the system rotates about the COM.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ "As the circular motion is uniform, there is not tangential acceleration, which means the Force must be in the along the line joining the two masses". No tangential acceleration does not imply no tangential force when observing from a non-inertial frame of reference, and the frame attached to each particle (assuming both rotate about their center of mass) is certainly non-inertial, so I think this reasoning is fallacious $\endgroup$ Commented May 20 at 8:32
  • $\begingroup$ Since the body rotates about a fixed point, its speed is constant, but you are correct, the frame is not inertial. The acceleration of the bodies will be towards each other from a inertial frame, like the Earth. From a non intertial frame, there will be a pseudo force opposite to the direction of frame's acceleration. This means the pseudo force away from the other body. Therefore there is no component of force in tangential direction. Also if there was a net component of force in the tangential direction, there would certainly be tangential acceleration with respect to the non intertial frame $\endgroup$ Commented May 20 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ "From a non intertial frame, there will be a pseudo force opposite to the direction of frame's acceleration. This means the pseudo force away from the other body." To make this claim, you use the fact that each body is executing UCM when observed from an inertial frame which is what was to be deduced in the first place, rendering your reasoning circular $\endgroup$ Commented May 20 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ I deduced that they were UCM, by the fact that they are in UCM with respect to each other. This piece of information was given in the question. $\endgroup$ Commented May 20 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ How does being in UCM with respect to each other imply UCM with respect to an inertial frame? $\endgroup$ Commented May 20 at 16:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.