No problem, glad I could help! :smile:

  • Thread starter Thread starter Austin0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration
Austin0
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
1
I have been trying to learn the proper acceleration math , and don't understand d^{2}x , or d^{2}t as it appears , where d seems to have the normal meaning of delta.

Is this simply equivalent to dx^{2} or dt^{2} ?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Austin0! :smile:

(try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)
Austin0 said:
I … don't understand d^{2}x , or d^{2}t as it appears , where d seems to have the normal meaning of delta.

Is this simply equivalent to dx^{2} or dt^{2} ?

No.

d is an operator (a sort of function), and d2 means that you perform the operation twice.

If you perform it both times with respect to the same variable, say y, you put dy2 on the bottom, so it's d2/dy2 (x), or d2x/dy2.

If you perform it once with respect to y and once with respect to z, you put dxdy on the bottom, so it's d2/dydz (x), or d2x/dydz. :smile:

If you want to see it in ∆s …

define ∆+x to be the increase in x if you increase y by ∆y, and ∆-x to be the decrease in x if you decrease y by ∆y.

Then dx/dy = lim ∆+x/∆y = lim ∆-x/∆y

and d2x/dy2 = lim ∆(dx/dy))/∆y

= lim (∆+x - ∆-x)/(∆y)2

(and, by comparison, (dx/dy)2 = dx/dy = lim (∆x)/(∆y)2, which is not the same :wink:)

For example, if x = yn,

then ∆+x = nyn-1∆y + (1/2)n(n-1)yn-2(∆y)2 + …,

and ∆-x = nyn-1∆y - (1/2)n(n-1)yn-2(∆y)2 + …,

so dx/dy = lim ∆+x/∆y = lim ∆-x/∆y = nyn-1,

and d2x/dy2 = lim (∆+x - ∆-x)/(∆y)2 = n(n-1)yn-2 :smile:
 
Last edited:
tiny-tim said:
Hi Austin0! :smile:

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


No.

d is an operator (a sort of function), and d2 means that you perform the operation twice.

If you perform it both times with respect to the same variable, say y, you put dy2 on the bottom, so it's d2/dy2 (x), or d2x/dy2.

If you perform it once with respect to y and once with respect to z, you put dxdy on the bottom, so it's d2/dydz (x), or d2x/dydz. :smile:

If you want to see it in ∆s …

define ∆+x to be the increase in x if you increase y by ∆y, and ∆-x to be the decrease in x if you decrease y by ∆y.

Then dx/dy = lim ∆+x/∆y = lim ∆-x/∆y

and d2x/dy2 = lim ∆(dx/dy))/∆y

= lim (∆+x - ∆-x)/(∆y)2

(and, by comparison, (dx/dy)2 = dx/dy = lim (∆x)/(∆y)2, which is not the same :wink:)

For example, if x = yn,

then ∆+x = nyn-1∆y + (1/2)n(n-1)yn-2(∆y)2 + …,

and ∆-x = nyn-1∆y - (1/2)n(n-1)yn-2(∆y)2 + …,

so dx/dy = lim ∆+x/∆y = lim ∆-x/∆y = nyn-1,

and d2x/dy2 = lim (∆+x - ∆-x)/(∆y)2 = n(n-1)yn-2 :smile:


Hi tiny-tim You have been very helpful. I didn't have the correct understanding of d at all.
I thought it was simply the total change in whatever it was applied to ,irrespective of whatever function it was used in. I.e. Simply the total interval. The distance represented by dx as the difference between two specific coordinate x's.
I think your explication has made it clear but I guess time will tell.
Thanks for your responce and friendly greeting :smile:
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top