Justification for differential manipulation in work-KE theorem proof

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion centers on the mathematical justification for the manipulation of differentials in the proof of the work-energy theorem. Participants explore the validity of substituting variables in integrals and the implications of treating velocity as a function of both position and time.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the justification for the substitution "dx = vdt" in the context of the work-energy theorem proof, seeking a non-differential explanation.
  • Another participant argues against the necessity of changing variables from dx to dt, suggesting that the proof can be maintained without this substitution.
  • A later reply addresses the relationship between velocity and position, questioning whether treating velocity as a function of position conflicts with its definition as a time derivative.
  • Another participant responds by explaining that velocity can be represented as a function of either time or position, indicating that the representation depends on the context of the analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and validity of variable substitution in the proof, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential confusion arising from treating velocity as a function of both position and time, suggesting that further clarification on this relationship may be needed.

shooba
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi, this question is about the mathematical justification for a physics topic so hopefully this is the right forum.
All the proofs of the work-KE theorem I have found go something like this:
W= int(F)dx from x1 to x2
= m(int(dv/dt))dx from x1 to x2
= m(int((dv/dt)v)dt from t1 to t2
= (m/2)(vf^2-vi^2) by the chain rule/substitution
My question is regarding the substitution "dx=vdt," and the associated change of variables from x to t, which is obviously true but how do you justify it from the substitution rule or something else not involving differentials? (I'm sure that expression makes perfect sense when it comes to differential forms but I have not learned those yet)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi shooba! :smile:

(have an integral: ∫ and try using the X2 and X2 icons just above the Reply box :wink:)
shooba said:
All the proofs of the work-KE theorem I have found go something like this:
W= int(F)dx from x1 to x2
= m(int(dv/dt))dx from x1 to x2
= m(int((dv/dt)v)dt from t1 to t2
= (m/2)(vf^2-vi^2) by the chain rule/substitution

no, that's wrong, there's no need for a change in variable from dx to dt

it should only use the https://www.physicsforums.com/library.php?do=view_item&itemid=353"

m(∫(dv/dt))dx from x1 to x2

= m(∫(dv/dx)(dx/dt))dx from x1 to x2 (from the chain rule)

= m(∫(dv/dx)v)dx from x1 to x2

= m(∫(dv/dx)v)dx from x1 to x2

= m(∫(d(v2/2)/dx))dx from x1 to x2

= (m/2)(v22-v12)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow thanks, that's a lot clearer than the other derivations!
Just one question; when we write dv/dx we are treating velocity as a function of x; does this somehow conflict with the fact that velocity is the time derivative of x and thus a function of t? Is "v" somehow a function of both? (this might be more of a physics question)
 
hi shooba! :smile:

(just got up :zzz: …)
shooba said:
… Is "v" somehow a function of both? (this might be more of a physics question)

no, it's a maths question …

suppose you're in a car looking at the speedometer, and you want to draw a graph of the speed,v …

you can look at your watch, and draw a graph of v against t, or you can look at the milometer, (or mileposts), and draw a graph of v against x …

the speedometer doesn't know how you're graphing it …

all it produces is v :wink:

v is a function of whatever we want it to be
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K