Derivative of (v)^2 with respect to position

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the application of the chain rule in physics, specifically regarding the derivative of v^2 with respect to position. The user seeks clarification on their method of using the chain rule to derive acceleration from velocity, ultimately confirming that their approach is valid. They demonstrate the relationship between acceleration, velocity, and position through the chain rule, arriving at the conclusion that both methods of derivation are correct. Participants agree that while there are limited ways to apply the chain rule in this context, the fundamental principles remain consistent. The conversation reinforces the importance of understanding the underlying reasoning behind the chain rule in physics equations.
TheWonderer1
Messages
88
Reaction score
1
I forgot where I came across this and why I got so determined to figure it out but I wanted to ask about this d/dx(v^2) business.

My question is to solidify my understanding of the chain rule with physics equations (sorry for crap terminology). Therefore, I know I use it and do the math as
d(v^2)/dv * dv/dx = 2v x dv/dx = 2 dx/dt * dv/dx= 2 dv/dt = 2a. I just sort of do that automatically but I’m unsure of the “why”.

Basically, if possible, could you explain to me the chain rule being used for these sort of equations? I understand the use for something like the derivative of (3x+1)^7 = 21(3x+1)^6.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's easier to see what's going on if you go backwards from what you have. The definitions of velocity and acceleration are
$$v=\frac{dx}{dt}~;~~~a=\frac{dv}{dt}$$
Apply the chain rule
$$a=\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{dv}{dx} \frac{dx}{dt}=v\frac{dv}{dx}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dx}(v^2)$$Does this make sense?
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker, vanhees71 and lekh2003
It is clear. So I think I used the chain rule correctly in my case. I know I got to the right answer just want to be sure my reasoning was on point and I didn’t misuse the chain rule.

Could I have done the chain rule differently? Just trying to get further concrete understanding.
 
TheWonderer1 said:
Could I have done the chain rule differently?
You did do it differently. You started from d(v2)/dx and you showed that it is equal to 2a. I started from a and showed that it is equal to (1/2)d(v2/dx. Both ways are equally correct and lead to the same equation.
 
Oops, to ask my question more explicitly we have two ways are there other ways?
 
TheWonderer1 said:
Oops, to ask my question more explicitly we have two ways are there other ways?
I can't think of any. You have to start from the definition of the acceleration and there is a limited choice of what to do next if you want to introduce the velocity in the expression and use the chain rule.
 
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