I How can engineers get away with splitting differentials in dynamics?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Trying2Learn
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical validity of manipulating differentials in introductory dynamics, particularly the progression from velocity and acceleration to the equation vdv = ads. While this approach works for certain one-dimensional problems, it raises concerns about the rigor of splitting differentials, which can lead to oversights, especially when transitioning between vector and scalar forms. Participants note that engineers often use this method despite its mathematical shortcomings, suggesting that familiarity with these manipulations allows for practical applications, albeit with risks. Caution is advised, as improper handling of differentials can lead to errors in more complex scenarios. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the balance between practical engineering applications and the need for mathematical precision.
Trying2Learn
Messages
375
Reaction score
57
TL;DR Summary
splitting the differential
In an introductory dynamics textbook, we often see this progression

v = ds/dt ---> dt = ds/v

a = dv/dt ---> dt = dv/a

Equating the dt, we get: vdv=ads

Now my question

On the one hand, this works for certain problems.
On the other hand, this is splitting the differential.

Could someone please explain

Why it works under certain conditions? How engineers get away with this?

If it is poor math to do this: why? Is it because one should never split the differential?

How can engineers get away with this?

I see that it does work, but only in ONE dimension.

This whole issue has always bothered me but I cannot state, with clarity, conviction, precision:
Why it is poor math to do this
Why we can get away with it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists are usually pretty casual in dealing with differentials :smile: .
In the 'progression' you quote, the expressions at the left are vector equations; the ones on the right are scalar expressions.
Beginning physicists should be careful not to accidentally hop back and forth, or they risk overlooking a Jacobian and other useful mathematical goodies.

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42, topsquark and vanhees71
Trying2Learn said:
TL;DR Summary: splitting the differential

In an introductory dynamics textbook, we often see this progression

v = ds/dt ---> dt = ds/v

a = dv/dt ---> dt = dv/a

Equating the dt, we get: vdv=ads

Now my question

On the one hand, this works for certain problems.
On the other hand, this is splitting the differential.

Could someone please explain

Why it works under certain conditions? How engineers get away with this?

If it is poor math to do this: why? Is it because one should never split the differential?

How can engineers get away with this?

I see that it does work, but only in ONE dimension.

This whole issue has always bothered me but I cannot state, with clarity, conviction, precision:
Why it is poor math to do this
Why we can get away with it.
A formal proof of why this jugglery with "d"'s actually works is a nightmare because they are not even defined as solids at this level.
$$
\dfrac{ds}{dt}=\lim_{h \to 0}\dfrac{s(t+h)-s(t)}{h}
$$
Now, how would you isolate ##dt## here? I like to avoid such steps by using Weierstraß's formula: $$ s(t+h)= s(t)+ s'(t) \cdot h + o(h)$$ with a remainder ##o(h)## that is quadratic in ##h## so it vanishes fast as ##h## goes to zero. With that formula, Weierstraß has out all the limit stuff in the ##o(h)## term and we can work with them as there was no limit stuff.

You should be careful with
BvU said:
Physicists are usually pretty casual in dealing with differentials :smile: .
because: they have practiced juggling! It can go wrong!
 
fresh_42 said:
It can go wrong!
Tell me something I don't know :smile:

Been there, done that.

##\ ##
 
  • Haha
Likes malawi_glenn and fresh_42
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top