The derivative of Kinetic Energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivative of kinetic energy, specifically how to correctly differentiate the expression (1/2)mv² with respect to time and distance. Participants explore different approaches and interpretations of calculus in the context of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant initially suggests that the derivative of kinetic energy with constant mass can be simplified using the power rule, leading to the expression (1/2)m(2v).
  • Another participant points out that the first reference takes the derivative with respect to velocity, while Feynman's reference differentiates with respect to time, necessitating the use of the chain rule.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of differentiating kinetic energy with respect to distance, leading to a connection with acceleration and force, suggesting a deeper relationship between kinetic and potential energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to differentiate kinetic energy using different rules depending on the variable of differentiation (time vs. velocity vs. distance). However, there is no consensus on the implications of these derivatives or the best approach to take.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about mass being constant and the dependency of velocity on time. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity in the context of derivatives in physics.

Appleton
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
From my very limited knowledge of calculus I would have thought that if mass is assumed constant d/dt (1/2mv^2) = 1/2m2v. This seems to be corroborated by one website http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05008.htm and seems to follow the general rule d/dt (x^n) = nx^(n-1)
However in the Feynman lectures (Volume 1 13-1 (13.2)) http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Opca%20Fizika/Feynman%20Lectures%20on%20Physics/Vol%201%20Ch%2013%20-%20Work%20and%20Potential%20Energy%201.pdf he states that if mass is assumed constant d/dt (1/2mv^2) = 1/2m2v(dv/dt).
Could someone help explain what I have most likely misunderstood?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums.
Appleton said:
From my very limited knowledge of calculus I would have thought that if mass is assumed constant d/dt (1/2mv^2) = 1/2m2v. This seems to be corroborated by one website http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05008.htm and seems to follow the general rule d/dt (x^n) = nx^(n-1)
However in the Feynman lectures (Volume 1 13-1 (13.2)) http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Opca%20Fizika/Feynman%20Lectures%20on%20Physics/Vol%201%20Ch%2013%20-%20Work%20and%20Potential%20Energy%201.pdf he states that if mass is assumed constant d/dt (1/2mv^2) = 1/2m2v(dv/dt).
Could someone help explain what I have most likely misunderstood?
Your expression is incorrect and does not agree with either reference.

You should note that in the first reference you quote, they are taking the derivative with respect to velocity, whilst in the second Feynman is taking the derivative with respect time time. In the former case you can indeed simply apply the "power rule". However, in the latter case because v depends on time, in the latter case, you need to use the chain rule in conjunction with the power rule.

Simply put, the first reference finds the rate of change of kinetic energy with respect to velocity. Whilst, the second the reference find the rate of change of kinetic energy with respect to time.

Does that make sense?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I understand what I have overlooked now, thanks
 
Incidentally, the interesting derivative of kinetic energy is with respect to distance, not time. If you take d/dx (mv2/2) = mv dv/dx, and you note that v dv/dx = a if you imagine the curve v(x) and want the "a" at some "x", then we have:
d/dx (mv2/2) = ma = F = -d/dx V
where V is potential energy for a force F that can be written that way (a "conservative" force). This is entirely the basis of the concept of potential energy to track the changes in kinetic energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K