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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiation of two equations from a physics context, specifically focusing on why constants behave differently when taking derivatives. Participants examine equations (5.35) and (5.36) from a referenced text, exploring the implications of constants in differentiation and the resulting expressions for force.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why a constant drops out in equation (5.35) but not in equation (5.36).
  • Another participant provides derivative calculations for functions involving powers of r, suggesting that the exponent is multiplied by the coefficient and decreased by one.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the treatment of constants in derivatives, particularly regarding the appearance of a constant in the denominator in equation (5.36).
  • Some participants discuss factoring out constants during differentiation, with varying interpretations of how this affects the resulting expressions.
  • There is a suggestion that the sign changes during differentiation may be related to how constants are factored out, leading to different forms of the same derivative.
  • One participant expresses concern about the validity of having two different expressions for the same derivative, questioning the consistency of the results.
  • Another participant emphasizes that coefficients should remain unchanged during differentiation, reinforcing the need for clarity in handling constants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the treatment of constants in the differentiation process, with multiple competing views on how to approach the derivatives of the given equations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific behavior of constants in these contexts.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding assumptions about the treatment of constants and the application of differentiation rules. Participants express uncertainty about the implications of factoring constants and how this affects the final expressions derived from the equations.

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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
598
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K