Can We Cancel the Derivative of dt in These Equations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the cancellation of the derivative of dt in equations from classical mechanics. Participants question whether it is valid to cancel dt, particularly in the context of time-dependent variables like sin(θ). The consensus suggests that while it may seem permissible due to the relationship between derivatives, the underlying mathematical principles, such as tangent bundles and differential forms, complicate the issue. A simpler analogy is provided, illustrating that treating derivatives as ordinary quotients can lead to valid conclusions through integration. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the nuanced understanding required when dealing with derivatives in physics equations.
Another
Messages
104
Reaction score
5
CM 1.png


CM 2.png

problem in this book : classical mechanics goldstein

Why can we cancel the derivative of dt from these equations?

e.g.
##\frac{d(x)}{dt} + \frac{b sin\theta}{2} \frac{d(\theta)}{dt} = asin\theta \frac{d(\phi)}{dt}##
## x +\frac{b \theta sin\theta}{2} = a \phi sin\theta ##

because I think
##\frac{d(x)}{dt} + \frac{b sin\theta}{2} \frac{d(\theta)}{dt} = asin\theta \frac{d(\phi)}{dt}##
##\frac{d}{dt}(x - (b/2) cos\theta) = asin\theta \frac{d(\phi)}{dt}## due to ##sin\theta ## dependent on t. we can't cancel dt

Or it is just only divider. So We can cancel
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The short answer is: because it works.
The long answer is: because of the connection between tangent bundles and differential forms.

The long answer is not really trivial and I'm not sure I can explain it without making mistakes.

Let's consider an easy case: ##\dot{x}=\dot{y}.## If we treat the expressions ##\dfrac{dx}{dt}## as ordinary quotients, then ##dx=dy## is obvious. We could either imagine that the infinitesimals are tiny distances, which is rigorously seen wrong, or we could invoke L'Hôpital's rule, which is a bit better, since ##\frac{dx}{dt}## is an abbreviation of a limit process.

Let's see what ##dx=dy## tells us. Integration yields ##\int dx = \int dy## and thus ##x=y+C##, which is what we would expect from ##\dot{x}=\dot{y}.##
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top