Help with Deriving d/dt |r(t)| = (1/|r(t)|) r(t)dot r'(t)

  • Thread starter Thread starter bubbers
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the expression for the derivative of the magnitude of a vector function r(t), specifically showing that d/dt |r(t)| = (1/|r(t)|) r(t) dot r'(t). The context involves vector calculus and the application of the chain rule.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the chain rule to the equation |r(t)|^2 = r(t) dot r(t). There are attempts to differentiate both sides, leading to confusion about the roles of the derivatives and the assumptions regarding the constancy of |r(t)|.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning assumptions about the constancy of the magnitude of r(t) and clarifying the application of the chain rule. Some have expressed confusion, while others are beginning to articulate the correct derivative form.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the implications of treating |r(t)| as a constant versus recognizing its dependence on t. This has led to varied interpretations of the differentiation process.

bubbers
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If vector r(t) is not 0, show that d/dt |r(t)| = (1/|r(t)|) r(t)dot r'(t).

Homework Equations



The hint given was that |r(t)|^2 = r(t) dot r(t)

The Attempt at a Solution



the post I saw about this question said that you should take the derivatives of both sides of the hint equation using chain rule, so I got:

2|r(t)|(1)=r'(t) dot r(t) + r(t) dot r'(t)
which is equal to:
|r(t)|= r'(t) dot r(t)

aaaaand now I don't know what to do
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


bubbers said:
2|r(t)|(1)=r'(t) dot r(t) + r(t) dot r'(t)

This step is incorrect. You have the equivalent of f(g(x)) -- the chain rule says d/dx f(g(x)) = f'(g(x)) * g'(x).
 


Okay, now I'm confused... in this situation, wouldn't f'(g(x)) be equivalent to 2|r(t)| and g'(x) be equivalent to 0 because |r(t)| is a length and the derivative of a number is 0? So then it would be 2|r(t)|(0)=r'(t) dot r(t) + r(t) dot r'(t) --> 0=r'(t) dot r(t) + r(t) dot r'(t)?
If this is right, then I still don't know where to go from here.
 


bubbers said:
Okay, now I'm confused... in this situation, wouldn't f'(g(x)) be equivalent to 2|r(t)| and g'(x) be equivalent to 0 because |r(t)| is a length and the derivative of a number is 0? So then it would be 2|r(t)|(0)=r'(t) dot r(t) + r(t) dot r'(t) --> 0=r'(t) dot r(t) + r(t) dot r'(t)?
If this is right, then I still don't know where to go from here.

No. |r(t)| has t dependence. Accordingly, we can't assume the magnitude is constant.
 


Oh man...I totally get it now...i feel kinda dumb :P
the derivative would just be:
2|r(t)|d/dt|r(t)|= r'(t) dot r(t) + r(t) dot r'(t)
2|r(t)|d/dt|r(t)|= 2(r'(t) dot r(t))
|r(t)|d/dt|r(t)|= r'(t) dot r(t)
d/dt|r(t)|=(1/|r(t)|) ( r'(t) dot r(t))

Thanks for letting me waste your time :)
 


No problem. Glad to have helped. :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K