How does the substitution in equations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 work?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marmot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hamiltonian Two masses
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the substitution process in equations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 from a Schaum outline, specifically regarding the derivatives of variables x and X with respect to x1 and x2. The key takeaway is that the derivatives are calculated using the chain rule, allowing for a transition from partial derivatives in terms of x1 and x2 to those in terms of x and X. The user also expresses confusion about the relationship between equations 3.2.14 to 3.2.16, particularly regarding the presence of a negative Ecm in one side of the equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial derivatives
  • Familiarity with the chain rule in calculus
  • Basic knowledge of variable substitution in equations
  • Concepts of classical mechanics and energy conservation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the chain rule in multivariable calculus
  • Review the derivation of equations in classical mechanics
  • Examine examples of variable substitution in physics problems
  • Analyze the implications of negative values in energy equations
USEFUL FOR

Students preparing for quantum mechanics, physics enthusiasts, and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of calculus and its applications in physical equations.

marmot
Messages
55
Reaction score
1
I am not posting this in the homework section because it is not really a homework problem. Its from the schaum outline and I am stumped in this:

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/688/67356569.jpg
I have NO idea about 3.2.4 and 3.2.5. Its black magic! How the hell does that substitution work?

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In 3.2.4 they simply take the derivatives of x and X with respect to x1 and x2.

Example:

<br /> \frac{\partial x}{\partial x_1}=\frac{\partial x_1-x_2}{\partial x_1}=\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial x_1}-\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial x_1}=1<br />

Because x2 is a constant with respect to x1. The others go the same way. In 3.2.5 they use the chain rule.
 
It's a simple partial derivative. It has nothing to do with the problem. You're looking at

\begin{array}{l}<br /> x = x_1 - x_2 \\ <br /> X = \frac{{m_1 x_1 + m_2 x_2 }}{{m_1 + m_2 }} \\ <br /> \end{array}

however the problem is stated in terms of x_1 and x_2. You're simply switching to these new variable x and X. When you want to switch variable in a problem that involves derivatives, you'll need to determine how the derivatives act. What you're looking for is instead of \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1 }} and \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_2 }}, you're looking for \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}} and\frac{\partial }{{\partial X}}. Simple chain rule shows for example <br /> \frac{\partial }{{\partial X}} = \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1 }}\frac{{dx_1 }}{{dX}} + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1 }}\frac{{dx_2 }}{{dX}}<br /> which is about what's going on except you're going the other way and looking for the what \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1}} is and \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_2}} is
 
Last edited:
Multiply equation 14 by -1 on both sides, then plug the result into equation 13 to obtain equation 16.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K