High School Convention when changing integral limits

Click For Summary
Changing integral limits without adjusting the integrand is incorrect when relating kinetic energy to work done. The initial integral representation of work done should be modified to reflect the variable change from position to velocity. Specifically, using limits of 0 and v requires changing the variable to v(x) for proper integration. The discussion highlights that earlier equations in the referenced material are flawed until the correct variable substitution is made. Accurate representation of the relationship between kinetic energy and work necessitates careful attention to variable limits and integrands.
etotheipi
Sorry for the silly question! If we start of with the relationship $$\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}} F dx = KE_{2} - KE_{1}$$ and then state that at position x1 the velocity (and hence also kinetic energy) of the particle is 0, and at x2 its velocity is v, is it sloppy or valid to write the integral representing the work done to increase the velocity from 0 to v as $$\int_{0}^{v} F dx = KE_{2}$$ or is it necessary to change the integrand to something like the following $$\int_{0}^{v} F \frac{dx}{dv} dv = KE_{2}$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not sloppy or valid. It is just wrong. You need to change variables to ##v(x)## to use those limits.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
Orodruin said:
It is not sloppy or valid. It is just wrong. You need to change variables to ##v(x)## to use those limits.

Thank you, that's what I'd hoped was the case. I got confused since on this page in equation 2.1.13 the author uses limits 0 and v whilst everything still being in terms of x, which seemed a little off.
 
Yeah, that's definitely wrong. The author fixes things by changing variables at (2.1.16) so that the limits now make sense but the equations before that point are nonsense. The ##v## is just serving the role of placeholder in (2.1.13-15), "this equation is incorrect and something else goes into this position but I'm not going to bother figuring out what"
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K