Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Derivation of kinetic energy

  1. Feb 23, 2012 #1
    Hi everyone,

    There are 2 things I do not understand in the derivation of kinetic energy from work:
    https://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 https://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?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 23, 2012 #2

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. Your step (4) is incorrect.
     
  4. Feb 23, 2012 #3
    I'm sorry, I don"t understand what I am doing wrong going from (3) to (4). Can you elaborate please?
     
  5. Feb 23, 2012 #4

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    ∫v dv = v2/2 → v12/2 - v02/2
     
  6. Feb 24, 2012 #5

    Philip Wood

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. Feb 24, 2012 #6
    Thnx for your responses.
     
  8. Feb 25, 2012 #7
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2012
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?