Why does integrating both sides of a differential equation work in physics?

AI Thread Summary
Integrating both sides of a differential equation works in physics because it applies the chain rule, allowing for the manipulation of variables. When solving for velocity as a function of time, the relationship dv/dt = a can be transformed into an integral form that simplifies the process. This method effectively treats the dependent variable as a function of time, enabling the use of integration boundaries that reflect the function's behavior. Although this approach may not be covered in standard calculus texts, it is fundamentally linked to the principles of separation of variables and the chain rule. Understanding this connection enhances comprehension of differential equations in both mathematics and physics.
Suicidal
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
In my calculus course I was tough to solve differential equations by separation and then integrating
For instance
dv/dt = a
dv = a*dt
v= a*t + c (c is a constant of integration)
then if I was given an initial condition such as v(0)=Vo I would substitute into my general solution
and get
Vo=a*0+c=c
V=a*t+Vo
Now that I started learning physics I keep coming across this funny way of solving differential equations:
v
[inte] dv=
Vo
t
[inte] a*dt
0
Why does this second method work. I realize that it is probably somehow equivalent to the first I just don’t see it. I would really like to know how and why this second method works.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What you are doing is basically applying the chain rule
You have an original fuction f(v). It turns out that v itself is a fuction of t, say v(t).
The differential gives
dv = v'(t)dt
or in Leibnitz notion
dv = (dv/dt) dt. You can see this be saying the dt's cancel out. This is of course wrong, as any mathematician will tell you, but in practice it makes working with differential easier.

Now all you do is apply the chain rule to the given integral so that

v(t)
[inte]dv =
v(0)

t
[inte](dv/dt)dt with then saying physics-wise that dv/dt=a
0

Say when you replace the funtion of v the function of t, you adjust the boundries of the integral by putting the argument of the function there instead of the it's value. So generally putting a instead of f(a).

Consult any freshman calculus text for a brief proof of this if you don't believe me (and you shouldn't :smile: )
 
You answer doesn’t really answer my questing. I was basically asking why the method works, so I guess I was asking for a proof.

I have taken Calculus BC in high school which is equivalent to Calculus I & II and I have a book called Thomas’ Calculus that goes through all the way to Calculus III. I have never seen this method of solving differential equations used outside my physics book.

My calc book doesn’t include any proof for this method because it doesn’t use it.

Is anyone familiar with this “brief proof”?
 
This really is the same thing as the chain rule.


In general, separation of variables means that you can write your differential equation as:

f(y) dy = g(t) dt

Which, at the calculus level, really means:

f(y(t)) (dy(t) / dt) = g(t)


Consider the integral

∫y(a)..y(b) f(y) dy

(where I've changed notation for an integral slightly due to the fact superscripts don't tend to look nice in this context)

Since y is a function of t, we may apply the chain rule to get

∫a..b f(y(t)) (dy(t) / dt) dt = ∫a..b g(t) dt
 
I think I see it now.

Thank you both.
And Dimitri Terryn I am sorry for saying that you weren't answering my question. I simply misunderstood what you were saying. After reading Hurkyl's answer I realized that you were both saying the same thing.
 
No problem. I've only just finished my first year math/physics so I haven't got a lot of experience explaining these things to other people. This is one of the reasons I hang around here, trying to explain something invariably helps my own understanding.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top