Kinetic energy, the integral of vdp

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of kinetic energy and its mathematical representation through integration, specifically the integral of velocity with respect to momentum. Participants are exploring the relationship between kinetic energy, momentum, and the integration process involved in deriving familiar forms of kinetic energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to derive kinetic energy from the integral of velocity and momentum, with some expressing confusion over the integration process and the application of integration by parts. Questions arise regarding the consistency of variables and the interpretation of the integration theorem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing different approaches and questioning their understanding of the integration steps. Some guidance has been offered regarding the need for consistent variables, but there is no explicit consensus on the correct method or resolution of the confusion surrounding the integration process.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the definitions and relationships between velocity, momentum, and their respective integrals. There is an acknowledgment of the potential impact of this understanding on future academic evaluations, such as interviews.

ponjavic
Messages
221
Reaction score
0
I read that kinetic energy is:
[tex]\int(vdp)[/tex]
where v is velocity and p is momentum
I'd like to see a calculation of this, I can't really get it right
[tex]\int(vdp)=vp+\int(pdv)[/tex]
Is this right? If so then how do I continue?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]\int v dp = \frac{1}{m} \int mv dp = \frac{1}{m} \int p dp = \frac{p^2}{2m}[/tex]

Which is one of the familiar forms of KE.

--J
 
bah that's a mean definition, is that 1/m understandable or is it just how it is
I mean if you hadn't seen it before would you be able to solve it?

[tex]\int(udv)=uv+\int(vdu)[/tex]
u=p du=dp dv=dp v=p
[tex]\int(pdp)=p^2+\int(pdp)[/tex]
What am I doing wrong?
how is [tex]\int(pdp)=\int(p)=\frac{p^2}{2}[/tex] ??
Still can't solve it...
 
The idea is to get consistent variables. You either have to integrate:

[tex]\int (p) dp[/tex] or [tex]\int (v) dv[/tex]

Since p=mv, it's easy to convert v into p. Except you don't want to change the value of your equation, so you can only multiply by 1.

[tex]\frac{m}{m}\int (v) dp = \frac{1}{m} \int (mv) dp[/tex]
 
Oh my god, that's a good way to forget the definition of the basic integration theorem
I thought of [tex]\int(p)dp[/tex] as [tex]\int(pdp)dp[/tex] totally forgot the meaning of dx in [tex]\int(f(x))dx[/tex] well at least I feel a bit better now and it is good that I got this sorted out before my cambridge interview, thank you!

Could someone explain why I get
[tex]\int(pdp)=p^2+\int(pdp)[/tex]
Why the left side does not equal the right.
I believe I have done a correct integration by parts...
This integral is a hypothetical [tex]\int(pdp)dp[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K