How Does Vector Dot Product Differentiation Relate to Scalar Functions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter enricfemi
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
18 replies · 3K views
enricfemi
Messages
195
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



d( [tex]\vec {F}[/tex].[tex]\vec {F}[/tex])/dt=d(F*F)/dt=2*F*dF/dt (1)
d( [tex]\vec {F}[/tex].[tex]\vec {F}[/tex])/dt=2* [tex]\vec{F}[/tex].d [tex]\vec{F}[/tex]/dt (2)
so F*dF/dt=[tex]\vec{F}[/tex].d [tex]\vec{F}[/tex]/dt (3)
??

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would something be wrong in what you've written ?

Daniel.


do you mean it is right?
 
[tex]\vec{F}[/tex] and d[tex]\vec{F}[/tex]/dt are in the same direction?
 
but it really seems relevant
 
so which one do you think the relerance is weak?
(1) (2) (3)
 
[Why do you believe this??
Because of the the equation of (3)
it seems the angle between the two vector =0
 
Why do you believe the rate of change of the magnitude of the vector F equals the magnitude of the vector that is the rate of change of the vector F??

That's totally wrong!
Here's why:
[tex]\vec{F}=|F|\vec{i}_{r}, \vec{i}_{r}\cdot\vec{i}_{r}=1[/tex]
Therefore,
[tex]\frac{d\vec{F}}{dt}=\frac{d|F|}{dt}\vec{i}_{r}+|F|\frac{d\vec{i}_{r}}{dt}[/tex]
Thus, if the unit vector [itex]\vec{i}_{r}[/itex] changes with time, then your result doesn't hold.
 
yeah,it must be wrong.
but i don'nt know in which equation,while they all obey the rules of vector.
and in (2):

d([tex]\vec{F}[/tex].[tex]\vec{F}[/tex])/dt=[tex]\vec{F}[/tex].d[tex]\vec{F}[/tex]/dt+d[tex]\vec{F}[/tex]/dt.[tex]\vec{F}[/tex]
=2*[tex]\vec{F}[/tex].d[tex]\vec{F}[/tex]/dt

tell me,please!
 
Last edited:
[tex]\left |\frac{d\vec{F}}{dt} \right | \neq \frac{d|\vec{F}|}{dt}[/tex]

[tex]F*\frac{dF}{dt}=|\vec{F}| \frac{d|\vec{F}|}{dt}=\vec{F}\cdot\frac{d\vec{F}}{dt}=|\vec{F}|\left |\frac{d\vec{F}}{dt} \right | \cos{\theta}[/tex]

where [tex]\theta[/tex] is the angle between [tex]\dot{\vec{F}}[/tex] and [tex]\vec{F}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Hello,
i Think also that the vectors F and dF/dt are perpendicular if the square of the modulus do not change in time, i.e. something that in differential geometry can be interpretated as a mobile 2-D basis among a given curve a=a(t). And with the introduction of a third vector, let's call him n, perpendicular to both of them we have the so famous "Triedro di Frenet".
sorry for my bad english.

since the scalar product (,):VxV--->R is a bilinear form defined on a vector space and has value on the Real field numbers.

if we develop the calculus we obtain from a side:

[tex]\frac{d\vec{F}\vec{F}}{dt}=2 \vec{F}\frac{d\vec{F}}{dt}[/tex]

but from the other side:

[tex]\vec{F}\vec{F}=|F|^{2}[/tex]

and d/dt of this quantity is zero by hypothesis.

we can recognize de def. of perpendicularity of the two vec. F and dF/dt.

N.B.
i did'n use the dot for the scalar product
bye bye
Marco
 
Last edited:
i don't know what's going on with the tex compiler but i think everybody understood the meaning of my opinion.

bye

maRCO
 
The inner product of any constant-magnitude vector and its time derivative is identically zero. That's not an opinion, its an identity. (Note that this alone disproves the OP's misconception.) That [itex]\vect F \cdot \frac {d\vect F}{dt} = F \frac {dF}{dt}[/itex] is also an identity. That [itex]\vect F[/itex] is parallel to [itex]\frac{d\vect F}{dt}[/itex] is just plain wrong.
 
Thank you!
I can understand this problem thoroughly now.
best wishes for the coming of Christmas
o:) o:) o:) o:) o:) o:) o:) o:) o:) o:) o:)