Is there a more rigorous way to prove this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Keshroom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rigorous
Keshroom
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that d(v^2)/dt = 2 . (d^2r/dt^2) . (dr/dt)

HINT: v^2 = ||dr/dt||^2 = dr/dt . dr/dt

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I did it another method:

d(v^2)/dt = d/dv(v^2) . dv/dt --------------chain rule
= 2v . dv/dt
since v=dr/dt and dv/dt = d^2r/dt^2
therefore = 2 . (d^2r/dt^2) . (dr/dt)

Is there a more rigorous method to solving this, using the 'HINT' it gave me. I can't quite figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Keshroom! :smile:

(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)

Sorry, but this doesn't work at all. :redface:
Keshroom said:
Show that d(v^2)/dt = 2 . (d^2/dt^2) . (dr/dt)

HINT: v^2 = ||dr/dt||^2 = dr/dt . dr/dt

I did it another method:

d(v^2)/dt = d/dv(v^2) . dv/dt --------------chain rule
= 2v . dv/dt
since v=dr/dt and dv/dt = dr^2/dt^2

(your "." is ordinary multiplication of two scalars, unlike the question, where it's the dot-product of two vectors; but anyway:)

no, dv/dt is not d2r/dt2 :redface:

(except in one-dimensional motion)
Is there a more rigorous method to solving this, using the 'HINT' it gave me.

it's easier if you rewrite the hint as:

v2 = r' . r' :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Keshroom! :smile:

(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)

Sorry, but this doesn't work at all. :redface:(your "." is ordinary multiplication of two scalars, unlike the question, where it's the dot-product of two vectors; but anyway:)

no, dv/dt is not d2r/dt2 :redface:

(except in one-dimensional motion)it's easier if you rewrite the hint as:

v2 = r' . r' :wink:

Sorry I'm still learning with the notation and everything. Awww ok. You mind telling me how to prove this please?
thanks

btw there were errors in the question which i have edited now
 
Last edited:
tiny-tim said:
just differentiate r' . r' using the product rule :smile:

lol what...so simple. So it's just
r'r'' + r'r'' = 2r'r'' ?
 
Last edited:
no, it's r'.r'' + r'.r'' = 2r'.r'' :wink:
 
--_--

haha thanks!
 
Back
Top