Derivative of kinetic energy with respect to position help

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion focuses on deriving the expression for the derivative of kinetic energy with respect to position, specifically showing that dT/dx = ma. The key equations used include T = 1/2 mv² and F = ma. The chain rule is applied to differentiate T with respect to x, leading to the conclusion that dT/dx simplifies to ma, confirming the relationship between kinetic energy and force.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic calculus, specifically differentiation and the chain rule.
  • Familiarity with Newton's second law, F = ma.
  • Knowledge of kinetic energy formula, T = 1/2 mv².
  • Concept of derivatives and their application in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the chain rule in calculus.
  • Explore the relationship between force and energy in classical mechanics.
  • Learn about the implications of derivatives in physics, particularly in motion analysis.
  • Investigate advanced topics in calculus, such as limits and their role in derivative simplifications.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those focusing on mechanics, as well as educators and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of physical laws.

Keshroom
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show dT/dx = ma


Homework Equations


T=1/2mv^2
F=ma


The Attempt at a Solution



dT/dx = d/dx(1/2mv^2)
= mv.dv/dx <--------------i believe you use the chain rule. But can someone explain exactly how to get to this step?
= mv. (dv/dt). (dt/dx)
= m(dx/dt) . a(dt/dx) <-------------can someone please expain how m(dx/dt) = m? and a(dt/dx) = just a?
= ma
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Keshroom said:
dT/dx = d/dx(1/2mv^2)
= mv.dv/dx <--------------i believe you use the chain rule. But can someone explain exactly how to get to this step?
= mv. (dv/dt). (dt/dx)
In place of dv/dx it is valid to substitute (dv/dt)⋅(dt/dx) because the (dt) terms here would cancel like when simplifying fractions.

=m ⋅ (dx/dt) ⋅ (dv/dt) ⋅ (dt/dx)

One of these 'fractions' is the reciprocal of the other, so they cancel.

All done!
= m(dx/dt) . a(dt/dx) <-------------can someone please expain how m(dx/dt) = m? and a(dt/dx) = just a?
= ma
No need to. :wink:
 
NascentOxygen said:
In place of dv/dx it is valid to substitute (dv/dt)⋅(dt/dx) because the (dt) terms here would cancel like when simplifying fractions.

=m ⋅ (dx/dt) ⋅ (dv/dt) ⋅ (dt/dx)

One of these 'fractions' is the reciprocal of the other, so they cancel.

Yeah i understand that part, but how exactly do i use the chain rule to get to this step?
dT/dx = d/dx(1/2mv^2) to mv(dv/dx)
 
To differentiate something with respect to x:
you can instead differentiate it with respect to v
and then multiply the result by (dv/dx).

That's the application of the chain rule.
 
NascentOxygen said:
To differentiate something with respect to x:
you can instead differentiate it with respect to v
and then multiply the result by (dv/dx).

That's the application of the chain rule.

oooooo right. Makes so much sense now. Thanks heaps :)
 
I am really concerned when people talk about "canceling" parts of derivatives. It works, of course, but you should keep in mind that this is just a 'mnemonic'. What really is happening is that, going back to before the limit of the "difference quotient", where you really do have fractions, do the cancelling there, then taking the limit. You have to be careful that limits "respect" the fractions.

From T= (1/2)mv^2 we have dT/dx= (1/2)m d(v^2)/dx (assuming that m is constant, of course) = m v dv/dx. Now, a slightly more "rigorous" argument would be that since x is itself a function of t, dv/dt= (dv/dx)(dx/dt) (the chain rule). But, of course, dx/dt= v so that says that dv/dt= (dv/dx)(dx/dt)= (dv/dx)v and so dv/dx= (dv/dt)/v. Putting that into the above, dT/dx= m v (dv/dt/v)= m dv/dt= ma
 
HallsofIvy said:
I am really concerned when people talk about "canceling" parts of derivatives.
Hence the quotes. :wink:

It doesn't hurt to remind people, but the fact that it works is usually sufficient justification. :smile:
 
HallsofIvy said:
I am really concerned when people talk about "canceling" parts of derivatives. ...


I wholeheartedly agree !

 
HallsofIvy said:
I am really concerned when people talk about "canceling" parts of derivatives. It works, of course, but you should keep in mind that this is just a 'mnemonic'. What really is happening is that, going back to before the limit of the "difference quotient", where you really do have fractions, do the cancelling there, then taking the limit. You have to be careful that limits "respect" the fractions.

From T= (1/2)mv^2 we have dT/dx= (1/2)m d(v^2)/dx (assuming that m is constant, of course) = m v dv/dx. Now, a slightly more "rigorous" argument would be that since x is itself a function of t, dv/dt= (dv/dx)(dx/dt) (the chain rule). But, of course, dx/dt= v so that says that dv/dt= (dv/dx)(dx/dt)= (dv/dx)v and so dv/dx= (dv/dt)/v. Putting that into the above, dT/dx= m v (dv/dt/v)= m dv/dt= ma

Thanks heaps HallsofIvy, this is very clear. :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
742
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
992
Replies
2
Views
942
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K