What is the Difference Between ∫X.dY and ∫Y.dX in Physical Applications?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the differences between the integrals ∫X.dY and ∫Y.dX in physical contexts, emphasizing that ∫X.dY relates to area bounded by the curve and the Y-axis, while ∫Y.dX relates to the area bounded by the curve and the X-axis. It highlights that in physical applications, such as calculating work, ∫F.dX represents force multiplied by displacement, whereas ∫X.dF does not yield the same physical interpretation. The conversation also touches on pressure-volume work, noting that ∫p.dv is meaningful as work done, while the significance of ∫v.dp remains unclear. The participants agree that without proper definitions of X and Y, the integrals lack physical meaning. Overall, the discussion underscores the importance of context and definitions in interpreting these mathematical expressions in physical applications.
transparent
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
What is the difference between ∫X.dY and ∫Y.dX in the physical world? I know what the difference is in pure mathematics. ∫X.dY represents the are bounded by the curve and the Y axis while ∫Y.dX represents the area bounded by the curve and the X axis. But I am unable to translate this into physical situations.

For example when we are doing ∫F.dX, we are calculating force multiplied by displacement for very small displacements and then adding them all up. Similarly ∫X.dF should mean that we are multiplying the displacement of the particle for a very small change in F with that small change. Should they not mean the same thing and give the same result? Yet only the first is called the work done. One other example that I can think of is that of pressure-volume work. ∫p.dv is the work done. I can't even think of what ∫v.dp means. What does it mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
X and Y are arbitrary variables. If you do not define them, the integrals are meaningless.

I can't even think of what ∫v.dp means
Integrate the volume for a pressure change. If volume is a function of pressure, this is possible (I am not sure if there is a useful physical interpretation for that).
 
transparent said:
For example when we are doing ∫F.dX, we are calculating force multiplied by displacement for very small displacements and then adding them all up.
Correct.

Similarly ∫X.dF should mean that we are multiplying the displacement of the particle for a very small change in F with that small change.
No. we are multiplying "the displacement of the particle", not "the displacement of the particle for a very small change in F". In other words, "the displacement from origin", not "the small change in displacement".

I can't even think of what ∫v.dp means. What does it mean?
If you write down a mathematical formula "at random", usually it doesn't mean anything physically.
 
AlephZero said:
Correct.


No. we are multiplying "the displacement of the particle", not "the displacement of the particle for a very small change in F". In other words, "the displacement from origin", not "the small change in displacement".

That makes sense. But ∫v.dp should mean something since dH=dU+pdV+Vdp. Here dU is the change in internal energy and pdV is the work done. What is Vdp?
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...

Similar threads

Back
Top