I How Does Real Analysis Justify Manipulation of Differential Elements in Physics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the work-kinetic energy theorem, specifically the relationship between work done and kinetic energy change. The initial steps involve expressing the integral of force in terms of velocity and position, leading to the equation that connects force and acceleration. A key question arises regarding the validity of switching between differentials, specifically d\vec{v} and d\vec{x}, in the context of integration. The conversation emphasizes the importance of parameterizing the curve and using time as a variable to define the line integral properly. Ultimately, the proof relies on the fundamental theorem of calculus to connect the work done to the change in kinetic energy.
aliens123
Messages
75
Reaction score
5
Suppose I wanted to prove the work-kinetic energy theorem. This means that I want to show that
\frac{1}{2}m( \vec {v}^2_f - \vec{v}^2_i)=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \vec{F} \cdot dx.

So, I go ahead and start on the right side:

\int_{x_1}^{x_2} (m \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}) \cdot dx = m \int_{x_1}^{x_2} (\frac{d\vec{x}}{dt}) \cdot dv=m \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \vec{v} \cdot dv=\frac{1}{2}m( \vec {v}^2_f - \vec{v}^2_i).

And I say that I am done. But my question is, how do we rigorously argue that the following step is valid?:
\int_{x_1}^{x_2} (m \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}) \cdot dx = m \int_{x_1}^{x_2} (\frac{d\vec{x}}{dt}) \cdot dv

In other words, if we were in a real analysis class, what would allow us to switch the d\vec{v} with the d\vec{x}, using just the formal definition of an integral? Intuitively if we think of these as representing infinitesimally small amounts which are multiplied, then obviously the multiplication is commutative. But this is not very satisfying. What role does the d\vec{x} actually play in the integral?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Doesn't this look like a partial integration to an analysis expert ?
[edit] never mind, just woke up.o:)o:)o:)
 
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog
aliens123 said:
Suppose I wanted to prove the work-kinetic energy theorem. This means that I want to show that
\frac{1}{2}m( \vec {v}^2_f - \vec{v}^2_i)=\int_{x_1}^{x_2} \vec{F} \cdot dx.

The first thing is to define what is meant by a line integral along a curve. First you have to parameterise the curve and in this case using time ##t## is the best option. By definition:

##\int_{C} \vec{F} \cdot \vec{dr} = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \vec{F}(\vec{r(t)}) \cdot \vec{r'(t)} dt##

Where ##\vec{r(t)}## is a parameterisation of the curve ##C##.

In this case we have:

##\vec{F}(\vec{r(t)}) \cdot \vec{r'(t)} = m \vec{r''(t)}\cdot \vec{r'(t)} = m(\frac12) \frac{d}{dt}(\vec{r'(t)} \cdot \vec{r'(t)}) = m(\frac12) \frac{d}{dt}(v^2(t))##

Hence:

##\int_{C} \vec{F} \cdot \vec{dr} = \frac12 m \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \frac{d}{dt}(v^2(t)) dt = \frac12 m (v^2(t_2) - v^2(t_1))##

The last integral is just an ordinary integral wrt ##t## and we can apply the fundamental theorem of calculus.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU and FactChecker
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...

Similar threads

Back
Top