How to Differentiate a Scalar Potential?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around differentiating a scalar potential function, specifically the expression for \( V(\chi) \) provided by the original poster. The context involves understanding the relationship between different forms of the potential and its derivatives as presented in a referenced academic paper.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the differentiation of a complex expression involving multiple terms and derivatives. Questions arise regarding the application of the product rule in the context of differentiating a product of three functions. There is also a discussion about the presence of higher-order derivatives and potential typographical errors in the expressions presented.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on the derivation process and the relationship between the expressions provided. Some participants have pointed out that the original poster's expression may not require additional differentiation but rather algebraic manipulation. There is a recognition of the need for careful examination of the terms involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original poster's inquiry is situated within the framework of a specific academic reference, which may impose certain constraints on the interpretation of the potential and its derivatives. The discussion also reflects the forum's policy on homework help, emphasizing guidance rather than direct answers.

Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8

Hello,

I have this potential:

## V(\chi) = \frac { F ’’ (\chi) [ 2 F(\chi) - \chi F’ (\chi) ]}{ (F’(\chi))^3} ##

How to get

## \frac{ d V(\chi)}{d \chi} = \frac{ \chi F’’ + F’ - F’ }{ F’^2} - 2 \frac{ \chi F’ -F }{ F’^3} F’’ ~~~~~~(*)##

My trail,

## V( \chi) = 2 F F’’ F’^{-3} - \chi F’’ F’^{-2} ##

## \frac{ d V(\chi)}{d \chi} = 2 F’’ F’^{-2} + 2 F F’’’ F’^{-3} - 6 F F’’^2 F’^{-4} - F’’ F’^{-2} - \chi F’’’ F’^{-2} + 2 \chi F”^2 F’^{-3} ##,

which is not close to (*) !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you explain where each of your terms came from? I assume you're using the product rule but you have a product of three terms, so the application of the product rule is going to be more complex. Can you show more steps?

Also, your expression has ##F'''## which I'd expect given that ##V(x)## has terms in ##F''##. Yet ##F'''## doesn't appear in what you say is the answer. Also, the first term in (*) has F' - F' in the numerator. I assume that is a typo and one of those has the wrong number of primes on it.

So can you also check what the correct answer is supposed to be?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Safinaz
What you wrote as ##V(\chi)## is equation (5) for ##dV/d\chi##, the derivative of (4) with respect to ##\chi##.
What you wrote as (*) is the term in square brackets in (9), which supposedly represents ##dV/d\chi## (ignoring the constant up front as you did). Thus the authors are saying it's the same as (5), not the derivative of (5).

So all they're doing is algebraic rearranging of the expression in (5), no extra differentiating happened.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Safinaz
I showed a derivation which does indeed go from (5) to the expression in [*] by algebraic manipulation, but I have deleted it temporarily. I don't think this is homework since you're just trying to read an online paper, but you did post it in a homework forum, and the policy of this site is not to give answers to homework.

You can repeat what I did by taking the expression in (*) and rearranging it to get to equation (5). Then simply do the steps in reverse.
 
RPinPA said:
What you wrote as ##V(\chi)## is equation (5) for ##dV/d\chi##, the derivative of (4) with respect to ##\chi##.
What you wrote as (*) is the term in square brackets in (9), which supposedly represents ##dV/d\chi## (ignoring the constant up front as you did). Thus the authors are saying it's the same as (5), not the derivative of (5).

So all they're doing is algebraic rearranging of the expression in (5), no extra differentiating happened.

Yep.. this is true .. thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K