Why are these 2 derivatives not treated the same?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bluestar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivatives
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the differentiation of two equations, specifically equations (5.35) and (5.36) from Emanuele Curotto's book "Stochastic Simulations of Clusters: Quantum Methods in Flat and Curved Spaces." In equation (5.35), the constant term drops out during differentiation, resulting in F_L = n²h²/μr³. Conversely, in equation (5.36), the constant remains, yielding F_C = -e²/(4πε₀r²). Participants clarify that constants can be factored out during differentiation, which explains the differing treatment of constants in these equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically differentiation techniques.
  • Familiarity with physical constants such as e², π, and ε₀.
  • Knowledge of the mathematical representation of forces in physics.
  • Ability to interpret equations from advanced texts in quantum mechanics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review differentiation rules, particularly for constants and power functions.
  • Study the implications of constants in physical equations, focusing on electromagnetism.
  • Explore the derivation of force equations in classical and quantum mechanics.
  • Investigate the significance of dimensional analysis in physics equations.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism and quantum mechanics, as well as educators teaching calculus and its applications in physical sciences.

bluestar
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
In equation (5.35) the constant drops out when the derivative with respect to r is taken. However, in equation (5.36) the constant does not drop out. Does anybody know why?

Equation (5.35)
<br /> F_L=-\frac {d}{dr}\left(\frac {n^2h^2}{2\mu r^2}\right)=\frac{n^2h^2}{\mu r^3}<br />


Equation (5.36)
<br /> F_C=-\frac{d}{dr}\left(-\frac {e^2 }{4\pi \epsilon_0 r}\right)=-\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}<br />



The equation can be found in context at the following link, which should take you to page 173, equation (5.35) & (5.36) is found on page 172.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FnQ...page&q&f=false

Stochastic Simulations of Clusters: Quantum Methods in Flat and Curved Spaces By Emanuele Curotto
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you see why

\frac {d}{dr} ( \frac {1} {r^2} ) = - \frac {2} {r^3}

and

\frac {d}{dr} ( \frac {1} {r} ) = - \frac {1} {r^2}
 
Wow, it has been a long time since I have performed a derivative.

Yep, I think I understand.
Does any constant goes to 1. Then what ever power r is raised to becomes a constant and then the r is raised to the next higher (lower) power.

Is this example correct?
<br /> \frac {d}{dr} ( \frac {1} {5r^\left(-4\right)} ) = - \frac {1} {\left(1\right)4r^\left(-5\right)}<br />


Athough in your example the r^2 in the denoninator put a 2 constant in the numberator. This I don't understand.
<br /> \frac {d}{dr} ( \frac {1} {r^2} ) = - \frac {2} {r^3}<br />


Although in the book this equation
<br /> F_C=-\frac{d}{dr}\left(-\frac {e^2 }{4\pi \epsilon_0 r}\right)=-\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}<br />

should be:


<br /> F_C=-\frac{d}{dr}\left(-\frac {e^2 }{4\pi \epsilon_0 r}\right)=-\frac{e^2}{\left(1\right)\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}<br />
 
i'm going to use quick reply instead of taking the time to tex it.

this may help: look at the 1/r as being r^-1 instead. when you take the derivative of something simple like that, you take the exponent (-1) and multiply that to the front then subtract one on the exponent so (-1) becomes (-2).

so d/dr of r^(-1) is -(1)r^(-2) aka -1/r^2

now for the stuff above:

just take all that negative e squared over 4 pi epsilon-0 out since they aren't being acted upon with calculus ... and you have all that times the derivative of 1/r ... and we know from above that the derivative of 1/r is -1/r^2 ... so when you take the negative of that (where Fc wrote -d/dr) you'll have positive 1/r^2 still multiplied by all the junk in front ... yielding what the book has.

hope that helps ... go E&M ... and calculus!
 
Thanks bpatrick, your tip to factor out the unaffected variables will be quite useful.
I checked some other references also and everything is starting to come back and clear up; however, I have one persistent question about equation (5.36)
Equation (5.36)

<br /> F_C=-\frac{d}{dr}\left(-\frac {e^2 }{4\pi \epsilon_0 r}\right)=-\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}<br />

I understand when evaluating the derivative all constants go to 1 thus the 4 in the denominator went to 1. So, what I don’t understand is where the new 4 came from in the denominator as shown in the book. Anyway, here is what I get.

<br /> F_c = (-1) (-\frac{(e^2)}{(\pi \epsilon_0)}) <br /> \frac{d}{dr} (\frac{1}{4r}) <br /> = (-1) (-\frac {e^2 }{\pi \epsilon_0 }) (\frac{ 1}{ (1) (r^2)})<br /> = (\frac {e^2 }{\pi \epsilon_0 }) (\frac{1}{r^2})<br />

So where did the 4 come from AND why did the sign change?
 
bluestar said:
Thanks bpatrick, your tip to factor out the unaffected variables will be quite useful.
I checked some other references also and everything is starting to come back and clear up; however, I have one persistent question about equation (5.36)
Equation (5.36)

<br /> F_C=-\frac{d}{dr}\left(-\frac {e^2 }{4\pi \epsilon_0 r}\right)=-\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}<br />

I understand when evaluating the derivative all constants go to 1 thus the 4 in the denominator went to 1. So, what I don’t understand is where the new 4 came from in the denominator as shown in the book. Anyway, here is what I get.

<br /> F_c = (-1) (-\frac{(e^2)}{(4\pi \epsilon_0)}) <br /> \frac{d}{dr} (\frac{1}{r}) <br /> = ??<br />

So where did the 4 come from AND why did the sign change?

You can factor out all constants too (done in original tex). In your case, 1/4.

Fc = (-1)[-e2/(4πε0)] d/dr (1/r)

The sign should have changed because you can factor a negative one from (-1)[-e2/(4πε0)] = (-1)(-1)[e2/(4πε0)] = [e2/(4πε0)]
 
Did not know about factoring out the constants; however, it presents a problem.

It doesn’t seem right that the derivative can have 2 solutions.
This:
<br /> F_C=-\left(-\frac {e^2 }{4\pi \epsilon_0 }\right) \frac{d}{dr} \frac{-1}{r}<br /> =-\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}<br />

Or this:
<br /> F_C=- \left(-\frac{e^2}{\pi \epsilon_0 } \right) \frac{d}{dr} \frac{-1}{4r} =-\frac{e^2}{\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}<br />
 
What?! \frac{d}{dr}[-r^{-1}]=r^{-2}
And \frac{d}{dr}[-\frac{1}{4}r^{-1}]=\frac{1}{4}r^{-2}
You leave the coefficients alone when you differentiate or integrate.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
575