Vectors and their derivative proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that the dot product of the first derivative of a position vector, denoted as r(t) = (x(t), y(t), z(t)), and its second derivative equals zero. The participants establish that if the dot product of the first derivative with itself equals one, then taking the time derivative of this expression leads to the conclusion that the dot product of the first and second derivatives must be zero. This is confirmed using the product rule for derivatives, resulting in the equation 2 * dot(r, d^2r/dt^2) = 0.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus and derivatives
  • Familiarity with the concept of dot products
  • Knowledge of the product rule for differentiation
  • Basic understanding of position vectors in three-dimensional space
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the product rule in vector calculus
  • Explore the properties of dot products in physics and engineering contexts
  • Learn about the geometric interpretation of derivatives in motion
  • Investigate the implications of curvature and acceleration in vector functions
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are interested in vector calculus and its applications in motion analysis.

brunette15
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
The question suggests that r(t) = (x(t),y(t),z(t)) is a position vector along some curve where t goes from negative to positive infinity. Now suppose t has been chosen so that 1 = the dot product of dr/dt and dr/dt. Show that 0 = the dot product of dr/dt and d^2r/dt^2.

I have attempted to expand the dot products then regroup them but I am having a bit of trouble with this :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
brunette15 said:
The question suggests that r(t) = (x(t),y(t),z(t)) is a position vector along some curve where t goes from negative to positive infinity. Now suppose t has been chosen so that 1 = the dot product of dr/dt and dr/dt. Show that 0 = the dot product of dr/dt and d^2r/dt^2.

I have attempted to expand the dot products then regroup them but I am having a bit of trouble with this :(

Hi brunette15! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

Let's denote $\dot r = \d r t$ and $\ddot r = \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}$.
This is a common notation to denote time derivatives.

Then we have:
$$\dot r \cdot \dot r = 1\tag 1$$
and we want to prove that:
$$\dot r \cdot \ddot r \overset{?}{=} 0$$

What do you get if you take the derivative of $(1)$?
That is:
$$\frac{d}{dt}(\dot r \cdot \dot r)$$
(Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
Hi brunette15! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

Let's denote $\dot r = \d r t$ and $\ddot r = \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}$.
This is a common notation to denote time derivatives.

Then we have:
$$\dot r \cdot \dot r = 1\tag 1$$
and we want to prove that:
$$\dot r \cdot \ddot r \overset{?}{=} 0$$

What do you get if you take the derivative of $(1)$?
That is:
$$\frac{d}{dt}(\dot r \cdot \dot r)$$
(Wondering)

Thanks IlikeSerena! I am still struggling to see a connection. Would $$\frac{d}{dt}(\dot r \cdot \dot r)$$ just equal 0 then?
 
I like Serena said:
Hi brunette15! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

Let's denote $\dot r = \d r t$ and $\ddot r = \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}$.
This is a common notation to denote time derivatives.

Then we have:
$$\dot r \cdot \dot r = 1\tag 1$$
and we want to prove that:
$$\dot r \cdot \ddot r \overset{?}{=} 0$$

What do you get if you take the derivative of $(1)$?
That is:
$$\frac{d}{dt}(\dot r \cdot \dot r)$$
(Wondering)

Thankyou! I am still struggling to see a connection however... :/
 
brunette15 said:
Thanks IlikeSerena! I am still struggling to see a connection. Would $$\frac{d}{dt}(\dot r \cdot \dot r)$$ just equal 0 then?

Yes. (Nod)

brunette15 said:
Thankyou! I am still struggling to see a connection however... :/

The product rule for derivatives says:
$$\d {} x (f(x) \cdot g(x)) = f'(x)g(x) + f(x)g'(x)$$

Similarly we can expect that:
$$\d {} t (\mathbf{\dot r} \cdot \mathbf{\dot r}) = \mathbf{\ddot r} \cdot \mathbf{\dot r} + \mathbf{\dot r} \cdot \mathbf{\ddot r} = 2 \mathbf{\dot r} \cdot \mathbf{\ddot r} = 0$$
which is what we need to prove.

That leaves showing that this is actually the case. (Thinking)
 
I like Serena said:
Yes. (Nod)
The product rule for derivatives says:
$$\d {} x (f(x) \cdot g(x)) = f'(x)g(x) + f(x)g'(x)$$

Similarly we can expect that:
$$\d {} t (\mathbf{\dot r} \cdot \mathbf{\dot r}) = \mathbf{\ddot r} \cdot \mathbf{\dot r} + \mathbf{\dot r} \cdot \mathbf{\ddot r} = 2 \mathbf{\dot r} \cdot \mathbf{\ddot r} = 0$$
which is what we need to prove.

That leaves showing that this is actually the case. (Thinking)

Thankyou so much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K