Derivative of kinetic energy with respect to position help

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiation of kinetic energy with respect to position, specifically exploring the expression dT/dx = ma. The subject area includes concepts from mechanics, particularly relating to kinetic energy and the application of the chain rule in calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the chain rule to differentiate kinetic energy, questioning the steps involved in transitioning from dT/dx to mv(dv/dx). There are inquiries about the validity of canceling terms in derivatives and the implications of treating derivatives as fractions.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the differentiation process and the chain rule, with some expressing concerns about the conceptual understanding of canceling terms in derivatives. The discussion appears to be productive, with participants clarifying their understanding and engaging with each other's explanations.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on maintaining rigor in mathematical reasoning, particularly regarding the manipulation of derivatives and the assumptions made about constants during differentiation.

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

Thanks heaps HallsofIvy, this is very clear. :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
836
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K