Derivation of kinetic energy


by bentley4
Tags: kinetic energy work
bentley4
bentley4 is offline
#1
Feb23-12, 05:43 PM
P: 66
Hi everyone,

There are 2 things I do not understand in the derivation of kinetic energy from work:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111162

(1) W = [itex]\int[/itex][itex]\vec{F}[/itex](t).d[itex]\vec{r}[/itex](t)=

(2) m.[itex]\int[/itex][itex]\frac{d\vec{v}(t)}{dt}[/itex].d[itex]\vec{r}[/itex](t)=

(3) m.[itex]\int[/itex]d[itex]\vec{v}[/itex](t).[itex]\frac{d\vec{r}(t)}{dt}[/itex]=

(4) [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].(v(t1) - v(t0))[itex]^{2}[/itex]

Question I: I don't understand why you can just change the division like that between (2) and (3). I know multiplication and division have the same order but they are calculated from left to right. So why can you do that from (2) to (3)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Question II: I don't understand why the change in kinetic energy between t1 and t0 is sometimes written as [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex].m.v(t1)[itex]^{2}[/itex] - [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex].m.v(t0)[itex]^{2}[/itex]
E.g. like in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=194461.

After (4), it should be [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].v(t1)[itex]^{2}[/itex] - m.v(t1).v(t0) + [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].v(t0)[itex]^{2}[/itex] , right?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Information storage for the next generation of plastic computers
Scientists capture ultrafast snapshots of light-driven superconductivity
Progress in the fight against quantum dissipation
Doc Al
Doc Al is offline
#2
Feb23-12, 05:50 PM
Mentor
Doc Al's Avatar
P: 40,875
Quote Quote by bentley4 View Post
Question II: I don't understand why the change in kinetic energy between t1 and t0 is sometimes written as [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex].m.v(t1)[itex]^{2}[/itex] - [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex].m.v(t0)[itex]^{2}[/itex]
E.g. like in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=194461.

After (4), it should be [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].v(t1)[itex]^{2}[/itex] - m.v(t1).v(t0) + [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].v(t0)[itex]^{2}[/itex] , right?
No. Your step (4) is incorrect.
bentley4
bentley4 is offline
#3
Feb23-12, 05:59 PM
P: 66
Quote Quote by Doc Al View Post
No. Your step (4) is incorrect.
I'm sorry, I don"t understand what I am doing wrong going from (3) to (4). Can you elaborate please?

Doc Al
Doc Al is offline
#4
Feb23-12, 06:02 PM
Mentor
Doc Al's Avatar
P: 40,875

Derivation of kinetic energy


Quote Quote by bentley4 View Post
I'm sorry, I don"t understand what I am doing wrong going from (3) to (4). Can you elaborate please?
∫v dv = v2/2 → v12/2 - v02/2
Philip Wood
Philip Wood is offline
#5
Feb24-12, 04:17 AM
P: 861
Re your QI...
I respect your unwillingness to regard [itex]\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/itex] as one thing divided by another, but you might be happier to do this with [itex]\frac{Δ\vec{v}}{Δt}[/itex], and then associate Δt with Δ[itex]\vec{r}[/itex] to make [itex]\vec{v}[/itex]. Only then take it to the limit.

I don't suppose this is rigorously valid, but I suspect this is how a lot of physicists justify this sort of transposition.
bentley4
bentley4 is offline
#6
Feb24-12, 02:11 PM
P: 66
Thnx for your responses.
juanrga
juanrga is offline
#7
Feb25-12, 11:49 AM
P: 476
Quote Quote by bentley4 View Post
Hi everyone,

There are 2 things I do not understand in the derivation of kinetic energy from work:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111162

(1) W = [itex]\int[/itex][itex]\vec{F}[/itex](t).d[itex]\vec{r}[/itex](t)=

(2) m.[itex]\int[/itex][itex]\frac{d\vec{v}(t)}{dt}[/itex].d[itex]\vec{r}[/itex](t)=

(3) m.[itex]\int[/itex]d[itex]\vec{v}[/itex](t).[itex]\frac{d\vec{r}(t)}{dt}[/itex]=

(4) [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].(v(t1) - v(t0))[itex]^{2}[/itex]

Question I: I don't understand why you can just change the division like that between (2) and (3). I know multiplication and division have the same order but they are calculated from left to right. So why can you do that from (2) to (3)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Question II: I don't understand why the change in kinetic energy between t1 and t0 is sometimes written as [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex].m.v(t1)[itex]^{2}[/itex] - [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex].m.v(t0)[itex]^{2}[/itex]
E.g. like in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=194461.

After (4), it should be [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].v(t1)[itex]^{2}[/itex] - m.v(t1).v(t0) + [itex]\frac{m}{2}[/itex].v(t0)[itex]^{2}[/itex] , right?
Question I: Because a derivative is equivalent to a division of differentials. And then by usual algebraic rules you can move the denominator.

Question II: It is not sometimes, but always, because that is the result of the integration of (3). You own result (4) is incorrect.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
difference between relatavistic kinetic energy and normal kinetic energy Special & General Relativity 2
Derivation of Kinetic Energy Introductory Physics Homework 3
Understanding derivation of kinetic energy from impulse? Classical Physics 3
Ratio kinetic energy of alpha particle / kinetic energy of proton Introductory Physics Homework 2
Derivation of Kinetic Energy Classical Physics 1