How Does Real Analysis Justify Manipulation of Differential Elements in Physics?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the rigorous justification of manipulating differential elements in the context of proving the work-kinetic energy theorem. The key equation derived is \(\frac{1}{2}m( \vec {v}^2_f - \vec{v}^2_i)=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \vec{F} \cdot dx\), where the transition from \(\int_{x_1}^{x_2} (m \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}) \cdot dx\) to \(m \int_{x_1}^{x_2} (\frac{d\vec{x}}{dt}) \cdot dv\) is validated through parameterization of the curve using time \(t\). The discussion emphasizes the importance of the fundamental theorem of calculus in establishing the validity of these manipulations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the work-kinetic energy theorem
  • Familiarity with line integrals and parameterization of curves
  • Knowledge of the fundamental theorem of calculus
  • Basic concepts of real analysis related to integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the work-energy theorem in classical mechanics
  • Learn about parameterization techniques for curves in vector calculus
  • Explore the fundamental theorem of calculus in depth
  • Investigate real analysis concepts related to differential forms and integration
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mathematics enthusiasts, and educators seeking to deepen their understanding of the interplay between real analysis and classical mechanics, particularly in the context of energy principles.

aliens123
Messages
75
Reaction score
5
Suppose I wanted to prove the work-kinetic energy theorem. This means that I want to show that
[itex]\frac{1}{2}m( \vec {v}^2_f - \vec{v}^2_i)=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \vec{F} \cdot dx[/itex].

So, I go ahead and start on the right side:

[itex]\int_{x_1}^{x_2} (m \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}) \cdot dx = m \int_{x_1}^{x_2} (\frac{d\vec{x}}{dt}) \cdot dv=m \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \vec{v} \cdot dv=\frac{1}{2}m( \vec {v}^2_f - \vec{v}^2_i)[/itex].

And I say that I am done. But my question is, how do we rigorously argue that the following step is valid?:
[itex]\int_{x_1}^{x_2} (m \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}) \cdot dx = m \int_{x_1}^{x_2} (\frac{d\vec{x}}{dt}) \cdot dv[/itex]

In other words, if we were in a real analysis class, what would allow us to switch the [itex]d\vec{v}[/itex] with the [itex]d\vec{x}[/itex], using just the formal definition of an integral? Intuitively if we think of these as representing infinitesimally small amounts which are multiplied, then obviously the multiplication is commutative. But this is not very satisfying. What role does the [itex]d\vec{x}[/itex] actually play in the integral?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Doesn't this look like a partial integration to an analysis expert ?
[edit] never mind, just woke up.o:)o:)o:)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Logical Dog
aliens123 said:
Suppose I wanted to prove the work-kinetic energy theorem. This means that I want to show that
[itex]\frac{1}{2}m( \vec {v}^2_f - \vec{v}^2_i)=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \vec{F} \cdot dx[/itex].

The first thing is to define what is meant by a line integral along a curve. First you have to parameterise the curve and in this case using time ##t## is the best option. By definition:

##\int_{C} \vec{F} \cdot \vec{dr} = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \vec{F}(\vec{r(t)}) \cdot \vec{r'(t)} dt##

Where ##\vec{r(t)}## is a parameterisation of the curve ##C##.

In this case we have:

##\vec{F}(\vec{r(t)}) \cdot \vec{r'(t)} = m \vec{r''(t)}\cdot \vec{r'(t)} = m(\frac12) \frac{d}{dt}(\vec{r'(t)} \cdot \vec{r'(t)}) = m(\frac12) \frac{d}{dt}(v^2(t))##

Hence:

##\int_{C} \vec{F} \cdot \vec{dr} = \frac12 m \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \frac{d}{dt}(v^2(t)) dt = \frac12 m (v^2(t_2) - v^2(t_1))##

The last integral is just an ordinary integral wrt ##t## and we can apply the fundamental theorem of calculus.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU and FactChecker

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K