Sorry for my bluntness, but what the actual hell is hapening in this proof of $K=frac{mv^2}{2}$?!











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I'm reading Mark Levi's Classical Mechanics. Here:




enter image description here




I am confused at what is happening in that proof. First an indefinite integral becomes a definite one, with a different variable of integration. And then, there are functions $F,v$ of $t$ which are soon replaced with $ma$ and $v$. I guess that in the next step, we use that $a=frac{dv}{dt}$ and I guess:



$$int_{0}^{T}ma , v, dt = m int_{0}^{T} frac{dv}{dt} , v, dt$$



But this seems to suggest that when I have $frac{dv}{dt}v$, I can pull the $v$ out of the $dv$ and indeed:



$$frac{dv}{dt}v=1v=v quad quad quad quad quad quad frac{d}{dt}v^2=2v$$



From which we can correct by multiplying by $1/2$. I took lectures in calculus and physics but never saw this kind of manipulations before. I have two questions:




  • What is actually happening in there? I guess I've been able to guess some of the stuff but I'm a bit confused when the functions $F(t),v(t)$ disappear and are replaced by $ma,v$ respectively. Does this mean that F(t) is a constant function with value $ma$? Also, what is the meaning of the indefinite integral that equals the definite integral? Also, we end up by integrating something that is rewritten as a derivative and then, not integrating at all?!


  • What do I need to study to see this kinds of manipulations? Differential equations? It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts. I believe I also have the right to get crazy.











share|cite|improve this question




















  • 6




    "It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts." AKA calculus done by a physicist.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 28 at 11:02










  • @ArnaudD. Yes, I forgot to suggest/ask if this is some kind of physical interpretation.
    – Billy Rubina
    Nov 28 at 11:11








  • 2




    I will give some details on an answer below, but Arnaud's comment sums it up, it's just physic quantities elaborated in a not-so-rigorous way.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:12










  • Your own formulas are wrong, you did not use the chain rule $$frac{dv(t)^2}{dt}= 2v(t)frac{dv(t)}{dt}.$$ The rest is trivial.
    – gammatester
    Nov 28 at 11:12






  • 2




    There is a consistent way of manipulating differentials, which (1) obeys all the differentiation laws, and (2) makes sense under integral sign. So, $dx = v dt$ simply reflects the fact that velocity $v$ is the time-derivative of position $x$, i.e. $v = frac{dx}{dt}$, and $v , dv = frac{1}{2}d(v^2)$ simply means that $va = vfrac{dv}{dt}$ equals the derivative $frac{1}{2}frac{d(v^2)}{dt}$. Mathematically they can be formalized in various ways, such as Riemann-Stieltjes integral or integration of differential 1-forms.
    – Sangchul Lee
    Nov 28 at 11:59

















up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I'm reading Mark Levi's Classical Mechanics. Here:




enter image description here




I am confused at what is happening in that proof. First an indefinite integral becomes a definite one, with a different variable of integration. And then, there are functions $F,v$ of $t$ which are soon replaced with $ma$ and $v$. I guess that in the next step, we use that $a=frac{dv}{dt}$ and I guess:



$$int_{0}^{T}ma , v, dt = m int_{0}^{T} frac{dv}{dt} , v, dt$$



But this seems to suggest that when I have $frac{dv}{dt}v$, I can pull the $v$ out of the $dv$ and indeed:



$$frac{dv}{dt}v=1v=v quad quad quad quad quad quad frac{d}{dt}v^2=2v$$



From which we can correct by multiplying by $1/2$. I took lectures in calculus and physics but never saw this kind of manipulations before. I have two questions:




  • What is actually happening in there? I guess I've been able to guess some of the stuff but I'm a bit confused when the functions $F(t),v(t)$ disappear and are replaced by $ma,v$ respectively. Does this mean that F(t) is a constant function with value $ma$? Also, what is the meaning of the indefinite integral that equals the definite integral? Also, we end up by integrating something that is rewritten as a derivative and then, not integrating at all?!


  • What do I need to study to see this kinds of manipulations? Differential equations? It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts. I believe I also have the right to get crazy.











share|cite|improve this question




















  • 6




    "It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts." AKA calculus done by a physicist.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 28 at 11:02










  • @ArnaudD. Yes, I forgot to suggest/ask if this is some kind of physical interpretation.
    – Billy Rubina
    Nov 28 at 11:11








  • 2




    I will give some details on an answer below, but Arnaud's comment sums it up, it's just physic quantities elaborated in a not-so-rigorous way.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:12










  • Your own formulas are wrong, you did not use the chain rule $$frac{dv(t)^2}{dt}= 2v(t)frac{dv(t)}{dt}.$$ The rest is trivial.
    – gammatester
    Nov 28 at 11:12






  • 2




    There is a consistent way of manipulating differentials, which (1) obeys all the differentiation laws, and (2) makes sense under integral sign. So, $dx = v dt$ simply reflects the fact that velocity $v$ is the time-derivative of position $x$, i.e. $v = frac{dx}{dt}$, and $v , dv = frac{1}{2}d(v^2)$ simply means that $va = vfrac{dv}{dt}$ equals the derivative $frac{1}{2}frac{d(v^2)}{dt}$. Mathematically they can be formalized in various ways, such as Riemann-Stieltjes integral or integration of differential 1-forms.
    – Sangchul Lee
    Nov 28 at 11:59















up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
down vote

favorite











I'm reading Mark Levi's Classical Mechanics. Here:




enter image description here




I am confused at what is happening in that proof. First an indefinite integral becomes a definite one, with a different variable of integration. And then, there are functions $F,v$ of $t$ which are soon replaced with $ma$ and $v$. I guess that in the next step, we use that $a=frac{dv}{dt}$ and I guess:



$$int_{0}^{T}ma , v, dt = m int_{0}^{T} frac{dv}{dt} , v, dt$$



But this seems to suggest that when I have $frac{dv}{dt}v$, I can pull the $v$ out of the $dv$ and indeed:



$$frac{dv}{dt}v=1v=v quad quad quad quad quad quad frac{d}{dt}v^2=2v$$



From which we can correct by multiplying by $1/2$. I took lectures in calculus and physics but never saw this kind of manipulations before. I have two questions:




  • What is actually happening in there? I guess I've been able to guess some of the stuff but I'm a bit confused when the functions $F(t),v(t)$ disappear and are replaced by $ma,v$ respectively. Does this mean that F(t) is a constant function with value $ma$? Also, what is the meaning of the indefinite integral that equals the definite integral? Also, we end up by integrating something that is rewritten as a derivative and then, not integrating at all?!


  • What do I need to study to see this kinds of manipulations? Differential equations? It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts. I believe I also have the right to get crazy.











share|cite|improve this question















I'm reading Mark Levi's Classical Mechanics. Here:




enter image description here




I am confused at what is happening in that proof. First an indefinite integral becomes a definite one, with a different variable of integration. And then, there are functions $F,v$ of $t$ which are soon replaced with $ma$ and $v$. I guess that in the next step, we use that $a=frac{dv}{dt}$ and I guess:



$$int_{0}^{T}ma , v, dt = m int_{0}^{T} frac{dv}{dt} , v, dt$$



But this seems to suggest that when I have $frac{dv}{dt}v$, I can pull the $v$ out of the $dv$ and indeed:



$$frac{dv}{dt}v=1v=v quad quad quad quad quad quad frac{d}{dt}v^2=2v$$



From which we can correct by multiplying by $1/2$. I took lectures in calculus and physics but never saw this kind of manipulations before. I have two questions:




  • What is actually happening in there? I guess I've been able to guess some of the stuff but I'm a bit confused when the functions $F(t),v(t)$ disappear and are replaced by $ma,v$ respectively. Does this mean that F(t) is a constant function with value $ma$? Also, what is the meaning of the indefinite integral that equals the definite integral? Also, we end up by integrating something that is rewritten as a derivative and then, not integrating at all?!


  • What do I need to study to see this kinds of manipulations? Differential equations? It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts. I believe I also have the right to get crazy.








calculus classical-mechanics






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 28 at 18:59

























asked Nov 28 at 10:58









Billy Rubina

10.3k1458134




10.3k1458134








  • 6




    "It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts." AKA calculus done by a physicist.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 28 at 11:02










  • @ArnaudD. Yes, I forgot to suggest/ask if this is some kind of physical interpretation.
    – Billy Rubina
    Nov 28 at 11:11








  • 2




    I will give some details on an answer below, but Arnaud's comment sums it up, it's just physic quantities elaborated in a not-so-rigorous way.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:12










  • Your own formulas are wrong, you did not use the chain rule $$frac{dv(t)^2}{dt}= 2v(t)frac{dv(t)}{dt}.$$ The rest is trivial.
    – gammatester
    Nov 28 at 11:12






  • 2




    There is a consistent way of manipulating differentials, which (1) obeys all the differentiation laws, and (2) makes sense under integral sign. So, $dx = v dt$ simply reflects the fact that velocity $v$ is the time-derivative of position $x$, i.e. $v = frac{dx}{dt}$, and $v , dv = frac{1}{2}d(v^2)$ simply means that $va = vfrac{dv}{dt}$ equals the derivative $frac{1}{2}frac{d(v^2)}{dt}$. Mathematically they can be formalized in various ways, such as Riemann-Stieltjes integral or integration of differential 1-forms.
    – Sangchul Lee
    Nov 28 at 11:59
















  • 6




    "It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts." AKA calculus done by a physicist.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 28 at 11:02










  • @ArnaudD. Yes, I forgot to suggest/ask if this is some kind of physical interpretation.
    – Billy Rubina
    Nov 28 at 11:11








  • 2




    I will give some details on an answer below, but Arnaud's comment sums it up, it's just physic quantities elaborated in a not-so-rigorous way.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:12










  • Your own formulas are wrong, you did not use the chain rule $$frac{dv(t)^2}{dt}= 2v(t)frac{dv(t)}{dt}.$$ The rest is trivial.
    – gammatester
    Nov 28 at 11:12






  • 2




    There is a consistent way of manipulating differentials, which (1) obeys all the differentiation laws, and (2) makes sense under integral sign. So, $dx = v dt$ simply reflects the fact that velocity $v$ is the time-derivative of position $x$, i.e. $v = frac{dx}{dt}$, and $v , dv = frac{1}{2}d(v^2)$ simply means that $va = vfrac{dv}{dt}$ equals the derivative $frac{1}{2}frac{d(v^2)}{dt}$. Mathematically they can be formalized in various ways, such as Riemann-Stieltjes integral or integration of differential 1-forms.
    – Sangchul Lee
    Nov 28 at 11:59










6




6




"It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts." AKA calculus done by a physicist.
– Arnaud D.
Nov 28 at 11:02




"It looks like calculus but with more "freedom", fireworks and stunts." AKA calculus done by a physicist.
– Arnaud D.
Nov 28 at 11:02












@ArnaudD. Yes, I forgot to suggest/ask if this is some kind of physical interpretation.
– Billy Rubina
Nov 28 at 11:11






@ArnaudD. Yes, I forgot to suggest/ask if this is some kind of physical interpretation.
– Billy Rubina
Nov 28 at 11:11






2




2




I will give some details on an answer below, but Arnaud's comment sums it up, it's just physic quantities elaborated in a not-so-rigorous way.
– Rebellos
Nov 28 at 11:12




I will give some details on an answer below, but Arnaud's comment sums it up, it's just physic quantities elaborated in a not-so-rigorous way.
– Rebellos
Nov 28 at 11:12












Your own formulas are wrong, you did not use the chain rule $$frac{dv(t)^2}{dt}= 2v(t)frac{dv(t)}{dt}.$$ The rest is trivial.
– gammatester
Nov 28 at 11:12




Your own formulas are wrong, you did not use the chain rule $$frac{dv(t)^2}{dt}= 2v(t)frac{dv(t)}{dt}.$$ The rest is trivial.
– gammatester
Nov 28 at 11:12




2




2




There is a consistent way of manipulating differentials, which (1) obeys all the differentiation laws, and (2) makes sense under integral sign. So, $dx = v dt$ simply reflects the fact that velocity $v$ is the time-derivative of position $x$, i.e. $v = frac{dx}{dt}$, and $v , dv = frac{1}{2}d(v^2)$ simply means that $va = vfrac{dv}{dt}$ equals the derivative $frac{1}{2}frac{d(v^2)}{dt}$. Mathematically they can be formalized in various ways, such as Riemann-Stieltjes integral or integration of differential 1-forms.
– Sangchul Lee
Nov 28 at 11:59






There is a consistent way of manipulating differentials, which (1) obeys all the differentiation laws, and (2) makes sense under integral sign. So, $dx = v dt$ simply reflects the fact that velocity $v$ is the time-derivative of position $x$, i.e. $v = frac{dx}{dt}$, and $v , dv = frac{1}{2}d(v^2)$ simply means that $va = vfrac{dv}{dt}$ equals the derivative $frac{1}{2}frac{d(v^2)}{dt}$. Mathematically they can be formalized in various ways, such as Riemann-Stieltjes integral or integration of differential 1-forms.
– Sangchul Lee
Nov 28 at 11:59












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Well, this probably belongs more to Physics Stack Exchange, but :



The notation of the problem considers that a constant force $F$ is applied to a particle. By Newton's law, we know that $sum F = ma Rightarrow F = ma$ since $F$ is the only force applied to the particle and $ma$ is a stable constant, since $F$ is constant as well. Note that constant acceleration implies varying speed with time.



If you denote by $F(t)$ a function for $F$, then of course since $F$ is stable, then $F(t) := F = ma$.



For moving objects, the quantity of work/time (power) is integrated along the trajectory of the point of application of the force. Thus, at any instant, the rate of the work done by a force (measured in joules/second, or watts) is the scalar product of the force (a vector), and the velocity vector of the point of application. This scalar product of force and velocity is known as instantaneous power. Just as velocities may be integrated over time to obtain a total distance, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, the total work along a path is similarly the time-integral of instantaneous power applied along the trajectory of the point of application.



Now, note that work is the result of a force on a point that follows a curve $X$, with a velocity $v$, at each instant. The small amount of work $δW$ that occurs over an instant of time $mathrm{d}t$ is calculated as :



$$delta W = Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v} mathrm{d}t$$



If the force is always directed along this line, and the magnitude of the force is $F$, then :



$$W = int_C Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = int mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v}mathrm{d}t$$



where $mathbf{F} cdot mathbf{v}$ is the inner product of the vectors of force and velocity and $mathbf{x}$ is the vector of space. But since we are working on a simple one dimensional problem, it is rather simplified on their one and only coordinate, with respect to time :



$$W= int F(t)cdot v(t)mathrm{d}t =int Fcdot v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



Since we are interested for a work calculation in-between two events, let time $t=0$ be the starting event and time $t=T$ the final event, thus :



$$W_T = int_0^T Fv(t)mathrm{d}t = int_0^T mav(t)mathrm{d}t$$



But, it also is



$$F = m a = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}$$



since acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Thus, finally integrating :



$$W_T = int_0^T m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



Now, note that :



$$frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t}= 2v(t)frac{mathrm{d}v(t)}{mathrm{d}t}$$



Then, our integral becomes :



$$W_T = frac{1}{2} int_0^T m frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t} mathrm{d}t = frac{1}{2}Big[mv^2(t)Big]_0^T $$



Applying the initial values of $v(t)$ now, since the particle was still at $t=0$ with $v(0) = 0$ and it has speed $v$ at time $t=T$, thus $v(T) = v$, one yields the final result.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I don't like asking things on physics.se. They have a weird rule that "questions must be 'useful' for all users of the site" and it seems that "useful" means "vague nerdy talk about fancy modern physics we barely know anything about". This question there would probably yield 10 downvotes + some complaining in the comments, meanwhile a question such as "(In Texan accent) If Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive inside the box, how come we don't throw that shit into the sun to see what happens?" would be considered the work of genius...
    – Billy Rubina
    Nov 28 at 11:40








  • 1




    @BillyRubina I can safely say that this made my day !
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:51


















up vote
1
down vote













Remember Newton's Law



$$
F = m a = mfrac{{rm d}^2 x}{{rm d}t^2} = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}
$$



The rest is just a change of variables, assuming that $x = x(t)$ and $x(0) = 0$



$$
W = int_0^x F(x){rm d}x = int_0^t F(t)frac{{rm d}x}{{rm d}t}{rm d}t = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt}
$$



Now make a second change of variables $v = v(t)$, and again assume $v(0) = 0$, so that



$$
W = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt} = mint_0^v v {rm d}v = frac{1}{2}mv^2
$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I don't really agree with that. The initial case of $F mathrm{d}x$ becoming an integration over time stems from the inner product case of work and it's definition.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:16










  • @Rebellos So what is the part you don't agree on? that is explicitly written in there $W = ...$
    – caverac
    Nov 28 at 11:18












  • IMO this is OK, except that you use the same symbols as upper bounds and integration variables. +1
    – gammatester
    Nov 28 at 11:21












  • It is okay, but the OP is asking for en elaboration to what is happening with the definition of integrals, how did $x$ become $t$ (time) etc, which can be elaborately explained via the initial definition of work, which is indeed the path integral of the inner product, which then simplifies and so on.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:26










  • @Rebellos I don't believe see the ned to over-complicate it, the problem is clearly in one dimension. As for the change from $x$ to $t$, again, it is just a change of variables
    – caverac
    Nov 28 at 11:31


















up vote
1
down vote













Divide the time up into little chunks of time $t_i$, writing $Delta t$ for $t_{i+1} - t_i$. The work done between a small time gap $t_i$ and $t_i + Delta t$ is the force applied during that time times the distance. Assuming that $Delta t$ is sufficiently small that the force and velocity is approximately constant during one time gap, we get that the work during the time gap is approximated by
$$
F(t_i) * (text{distance between position at time } t_i text{ and at time } t_{i+1}) = F(t_i)v(t_i)Delta t.
$$

Adding these all up and taking the limit as $Delta t$ goes to zero explains why the work is given by the second integral in the chain of equalities (the first, written without bounds, is just physicist-shorthand).



Now $F(t) = m*v'(t)$ is the usual formula for force (assume the mass remains constant as the force is applied). So we have
$$
int_0^T m v'(t)v(t) dt.
$$

Since $frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) = 2v(t)v'(t)$ by the chain rule, this is
$$
frac{m}{2} int_0^T frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) dt,
$$

and the result follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017010%2fsorry-for-my-bluntness-but-what-the-actual-hell-is-hapening-in-this-proof-of-k%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Well, this probably belongs more to Physics Stack Exchange, but :



    The notation of the problem considers that a constant force $F$ is applied to a particle. By Newton's law, we know that $sum F = ma Rightarrow F = ma$ since $F$ is the only force applied to the particle and $ma$ is a stable constant, since $F$ is constant as well. Note that constant acceleration implies varying speed with time.



    If you denote by $F(t)$ a function for $F$, then of course since $F$ is stable, then $F(t) := F = ma$.



    For moving objects, the quantity of work/time (power) is integrated along the trajectory of the point of application of the force. Thus, at any instant, the rate of the work done by a force (measured in joules/second, or watts) is the scalar product of the force (a vector), and the velocity vector of the point of application. This scalar product of force and velocity is known as instantaneous power. Just as velocities may be integrated over time to obtain a total distance, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, the total work along a path is similarly the time-integral of instantaneous power applied along the trajectory of the point of application.



    Now, note that work is the result of a force on a point that follows a curve $X$, with a velocity $v$, at each instant. The small amount of work $δW$ that occurs over an instant of time $mathrm{d}t$ is calculated as :



    $$delta W = Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v} mathrm{d}t$$



    If the force is always directed along this line, and the magnitude of the force is $F$, then :



    $$W = int_C Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = int mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v}mathrm{d}t$$



    where $mathbf{F} cdot mathbf{v}$ is the inner product of the vectors of force and velocity and $mathbf{x}$ is the vector of space. But since we are working on a simple one dimensional problem, it is rather simplified on their one and only coordinate, with respect to time :



    $$W= int F(t)cdot v(t)mathrm{d}t =int Fcdot v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Since we are interested for a work calculation in-between two events, let time $t=0$ be the starting event and time $t=T$ the final event, thus :



    $$W_T = int_0^T Fv(t)mathrm{d}t = int_0^T mav(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    But, it also is



    $$F = m a = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}$$



    since acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Thus, finally integrating :



    $$W_T = int_0^T m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Now, note that :



    $$frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t}= 2v(t)frac{mathrm{d}v(t)}{mathrm{d}t}$$



    Then, our integral becomes :



    $$W_T = frac{1}{2} int_0^T m frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t} mathrm{d}t = frac{1}{2}Big[mv^2(t)Big]_0^T $$



    Applying the initial values of $v(t)$ now, since the particle was still at $t=0$ with $v(0) = 0$ and it has speed $v$ at time $t=T$, thus $v(T) = v$, one yields the final result.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      I don't like asking things on physics.se. They have a weird rule that "questions must be 'useful' for all users of the site" and it seems that "useful" means "vague nerdy talk about fancy modern physics we barely know anything about". This question there would probably yield 10 downvotes + some complaining in the comments, meanwhile a question such as "(In Texan accent) If Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive inside the box, how come we don't throw that shit into the sun to see what happens?" would be considered the work of genius...
      – Billy Rubina
      Nov 28 at 11:40








    • 1




      @BillyRubina I can safely say that this made my day !
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:51















    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Well, this probably belongs more to Physics Stack Exchange, but :



    The notation of the problem considers that a constant force $F$ is applied to a particle. By Newton's law, we know that $sum F = ma Rightarrow F = ma$ since $F$ is the only force applied to the particle and $ma$ is a stable constant, since $F$ is constant as well. Note that constant acceleration implies varying speed with time.



    If you denote by $F(t)$ a function for $F$, then of course since $F$ is stable, then $F(t) := F = ma$.



    For moving objects, the quantity of work/time (power) is integrated along the trajectory of the point of application of the force. Thus, at any instant, the rate of the work done by a force (measured in joules/second, or watts) is the scalar product of the force (a vector), and the velocity vector of the point of application. This scalar product of force and velocity is known as instantaneous power. Just as velocities may be integrated over time to obtain a total distance, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, the total work along a path is similarly the time-integral of instantaneous power applied along the trajectory of the point of application.



    Now, note that work is the result of a force on a point that follows a curve $X$, with a velocity $v$, at each instant. The small amount of work $δW$ that occurs over an instant of time $mathrm{d}t$ is calculated as :



    $$delta W = Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v} mathrm{d}t$$



    If the force is always directed along this line, and the magnitude of the force is $F$, then :



    $$W = int_C Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = int mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v}mathrm{d}t$$



    where $mathbf{F} cdot mathbf{v}$ is the inner product of the vectors of force and velocity and $mathbf{x}$ is the vector of space. But since we are working on a simple one dimensional problem, it is rather simplified on their one and only coordinate, with respect to time :



    $$W= int F(t)cdot v(t)mathrm{d}t =int Fcdot v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Since we are interested for a work calculation in-between two events, let time $t=0$ be the starting event and time $t=T$ the final event, thus :



    $$W_T = int_0^T Fv(t)mathrm{d}t = int_0^T mav(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    But, it also is



    $$F = m a = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}$$



    since acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Thus, finally integrating :



    $$W_T = int_0^T m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Now, note that :



    $$frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t}= 2v(t)frac{mathrm{d}v(t)}{mathrm{d}t}$$



    Then, our integral becomes :



    $$W_T = frac{1}{2} int_0^T m frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t} mathrm{d}t = frac{1}{2}Big[mv^2(t)Big]_0^T $$



    Applying the initial values of $v(t)$ now, since the particle was still at $t=0$ with $v(0) = 0$ and it has speed $v$ at time $t=T$, thus $v(T) = v$, one yields the final result.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      I don't like asking things on physics.se. They have a weird rule that "questions must be 'useful' for all users of the site" and it seems that "useful" means "vague nerdy talk about fancy modern physics we barely know anything about". This question there would probably yield 10 downvotes + some complaining in the comments, meanwhile a question such as "(In Texan accent) If Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive inside the box, how come we don't throw that shit into the sun to see what happens?" would be considered the work of genius...
      – Billy Rubina
      Nov 28 at 11:40








    • 1




      @BillyRubina I can safely say that this made my day !
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:51













    up vote
    3
    down vote










    up vote
    3
    down vote









    Well, this probably belongs more to Physics Stack Exchange, but :



    The notation of the problem considers that a constant force $F$ is applied to a particle. By Newton's law, we know that $sum F = ma Rightarrow F = ma$ since $F$ is the only force applied to the particle and $ma$ is a stable constant, since $F$ is constant as well. Note that constant acceleration implies varying speed with time.



    If you denote by $F(t)$ a function for $F$, then of course since $F$ is stable, then $F(t) := F = ma$.



    For moving objects, the quantity of work/time (power) is integrated along the trajectory of the point of application of the force. Thus, at any instant, the rate of the work done by a force (measured in joules/second, or watts) is the scalar product of the force (a vector), and the velocity vector of the point of application. This scalar product of force and velocity is known as instantaneous power. Just as velocities may be integrated over time to obtain a total distance, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, the total work along a path is similarly the time-integral of instantaneous power applied along the trajectory of the point of application.



    Now, note that work is the result of a force on a point that follows a curve $X$, with a velocity $v$, at each instant. The small amount of work $δW$ that occurs over an instant of time $mathrm{d}t$ is calculated as :



    $$delta W = Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v} mathrm{d}t$$



    If the force is always directed along this line, and the magnitude of the force is $F$, then :



    $$W = int_C Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = int mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v}mathrm{d}t$$



    where $mathbf{F} cdot mathbf{v}$ is the inner product of the vectors of force and velocity and $mathbf{x}$ is the vector of space. But since we are working on a simple one dimensional problem, it is rather simplified on their one and only coordinate, with respect to time :



    $$W= int F(t)cdot v(t)mathrm{d}t =int Fcdot v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Since we are interested for a work calculation in-between two events, let time $t=0$ be the starting event and time $t=T$ the final event, thus :



    $$W_T = int_0^T Fv(t)mathrm{d}t = int_0^T mav(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    But, it also is



    $$F = m a = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}$$



    since acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Thus, finally integrating :



    $$W_T = int_0^T m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Now, note that :



    $$frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t}= 2v(t)frac{mathrm{d}v(t)}{mathrm{d}t}$$



    Then, our integral becomes :



    $$W_T = frac{1}{2} int_0^T m frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t} mathrm{d}t = frac{1}{2}Big[mv^2(t)Big]_0^T $$



    Applying the initial values of $v(t)$ now, since the particle was still at $t=0$ with $v(0) = 0$ and it has speed $v$ at time $t=T$, thus $v(T) = v$, one yields the final result.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Well, this probably belongs more to Physics Stack Exchange, but :



    The notation of the problem considers that a constant force $F$ is applied to a particle. By Newton's law, we know that $sum F = ma Rightarrow F = ma$ since $F$ is the only force applied to the particle and $ma$ is a stable constant, since $F$ is constant as well. Note that constant acceleration implies varying speed with time.



    If you denote by $F(t)$ a function for $F$, then of course since $F$ is stable, then $F(t) := F = ma$.



    For moving objects, the quantity of work/time (power) is integrated along the trajectory of the point of application of the force. Thus, at any instant, the rate of the work done by a force (measured in joules/second, or watts) is the scalar product of the force (a vector), and the velocity vector of the point of application. This scalar product of force and velocity is known as instantaneous power. Just as velocities may be integrated over time to obtain a total distance, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, the total work along a path is similarly the time-integral of instantaneous power applied along the trajectory of the point of application.



    Now, note that work is the result of a force on a point that follows a curve $X$, with a velocity $v$, at each instant. The small amount of work $δW$ that occurs over an instant of time $mathrm{d}t$ is calculated as :



    $$delta W = Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v} mathrm{d}t$$



    If the force is always directed along this line, and the magnitude of the force is $F$, then :



    $$W = int_C Fmathrm{d}mathbf{x} = int mathbf{F}cdot mathbf{v}mathrm{d}t$$



    where $mathbf{F} cdot mathbf{v}$ is the inner product of the vectors of force and velocity and $mathbf{x}$ is the vector of space. But since we are working on a simple one dimensional problem, it is rather simplified on their one and only coordinate, with respect to time :



    $$W= int F(t)cdot v(t)mathrm{d}t =int Fcdot v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Since we are interested for a work calculation in-between two events, let time $t=0$ be the starting event and time $t=T$ the final event, thus :



    $$W_T = int_0^T Fv(t)mathrm{d}t = int_0^T mav(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    But, it also is



    $$F = m a = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}$$



    since acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time. Thus, finally integrating :



    $$W_T = int_0^T m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v(t)mathrm{d}t$$



    Now, note that :



    $$frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t}= 2v(t)frac{mathrm{d}v(t)}{mathrm{d}t}$$



    Then, our integral becomes :



    $$W_T = frac{1}{2} int_0^T m frac{mathrm{d}v(t)^2}{mathrm{d}t} mathrm{d}t = frac{1}{2}Big[mv^2(t)Big]_0^T $$



    Applying the initial values of $v(t)$ now, since the particle was still at $t=0$ with $v(0) = 0$ and it has speed $v$ at time $t=T$, thus $v(T) = v$, one yields the final result.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 28 at 11:25









    Rebellos

    13.9k31243




    13.9k31243








    • 1




      I don't like asking things on physics.se. They have a weird rule that "questions must be 'useful' for all users of the site" and it seems that "useful" means "vague nerdy talk about fancy modern physics we barely know anything about". This question there would probably yield 10 downvotes + some complaining in the comments, meanwhile a question such as "(In Texan accent) If Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive inside the box, how come we don't throw that shit into the sun to see what happens?" would be considered the work of genius...
      – Billy Rubina
      Nov 28 at 11:40








    • 1




      @BillyRubina I can safely say that this made my day !
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:51














    • 1




      I don't like asking things on physics.se. They have a weird rule that "questions must be 'useful' for all users of the site" and it seems that "useful" means "vague nerdy talk about fancy modern physics we barely know anything about". This question there would probably yield 10 downvotes + some complaining in the comments, meanwhile a question such as "(In Texan accent) If Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive inside the box, how come we don't throw that shit into the sun to see what happens?" would be considered the work of genius...
      – Billy Rubina
      Nov 28 at 11:40








    • 1




      @BillyRubina I can safely say that this made my day !
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:51








    1




    1




    I don't like asking things on physics.se. They have a weird rule that "questions must be 'useful' for all users of the site" and it seems that "useful" means "vague nerdy talk about fancy modern physics we barely know anything about". This question there would probably yield 10 downvotes + some complaining in the comments, meanwhile a question such as "(In Texan accent) If Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive inside the box, how come we don't throw that shit into the sun to see what happens?" would be considered the work of genius...
    – Billy Rubina
    Nov 28 at 11:40






    I don't like asking things on physics.se. They have a weird rule that "questions must be 'useful' for all users of the site" and it seems that "useful" means "vague nerdy talk about fancy modern physics we barely know anything about". This question there would probably yield 10 downvotes + some complaining in the comments, meanwhile a question such as "(In Texan accent) If Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive inside the box, how come we don't throw that shit into the sun to see what happens?" would be considered the work of genius...
    – Billy Rubina
    Nov 28 at 11:40






    1




    1




    @BillyRubina I can safely say that this made my day !
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:51




    @BillyRubina I can safely say that this made my day !
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:51










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Remember Newton's Law



    $$
    F = m a = mfrac{{rm d}^2 x}{{rm d}t^2} = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}
    $$



    The rest is just a change of variables, assuming that $x = x(t)$ and $x(0) = 0$



    $$
    W = int_0^x F(x){rm d}x = int_0^t F(t)frac{{rm d}x}{{rm d}t}{rm d}t = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt}
    $$



    Now make a second change of variables $v = v(t)$, and again assume $v(0) = 0$, so that



    $$
    W = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt} = mint_0^v v {rm d}v = frac{1}{2}mv^2
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I don't really agree with that. The initial case of $F mathrm{d}x$ becoming an integration over time stems from the inner product case of work and it's definition.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:16










    • @Rebellos So what is the part you don't agree on? that is explicitly written in there $W = ...$
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:18












    • IMO this is OK, except that you use the same symbols as upper bounds and integration variables. +1
      – gammatester
      Nov 28 at 11:21












    • It is okay, but the OP is asking for en elaboration to what is happening with the definition of integrals, how did $x$ become $t$ (time) etc, which can be elaborately explained via the initial definition of work, which is indeed the path integral of the inner product, which then simplifies and so on.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:26










    • @Rebellos I don't believe see the ned to over-complicate it, the problem is clearly in one dimension. As for the change from $x$ to $t$, again, it is just a change of variables
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:31















    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Remember Newton's Law



    $$
    F = m a = mfrac{{rm d}^2 x}{{rm d}t^2} = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}
    $$



    The rest is just a change of variables, assuming that $x = x(t)$ and $x(0) = 0$



    $$
    W = int_0^x F(x){rm d}x = int_0^t F(t)frac{{rm d}x}{{rm d}t}{rm d}t = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt}
    $$



    Now make a second change of variables $v = v(t)$, and again assume $v(0) = 0$, so that



    $$
    W = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt} = mint_0^v v {rm d}v = frac{1}{2}mv^2
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I don't really agree with that. The initial case of $F mathrm{d}x$ becoming an integration over time stems from the inner product case of work and it's definition.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:16










    • @Rebellos So what is the part you don't agree on? that is explicitly written in there $W = ...$
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:18












    • IMO this is OK, except that you use the same symbols as upper bounds and integration variables. +1
      – gammatester
      Nov 28 at 11:21












    • It is okay, but the OP is asking for en elaboration to what is happening with the definition of integrals, how did $x$ become $t$ (time) etc, which can be elaborately explained via the initial definition of work, which is indeed the path integral of the inner product, which then simplifies and so on.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:26










    • @Rebellos I don't believe see the ned to over-complicate it, the problem is clearly in one dimension. As for the change from $x$ to $t$, again, it is just a change of variables
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:31













    up vote
    1
    down vote










    up vote
    1
    down vote









    Remember Newton's Law



    $$
    F = m a = mfrac{{rm d}^2 x}{{rm d}t^2} = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}
    $$



    The rest is just a change of variables, assuming that $x = x(t)$ and $x(0) = 0$



    $$
    W = int_0^x F(x){rm d}x = int_0^t F(t)frac{{rm d}x}{{rm d}t}{rm d}t = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt}
    $$



    Now make a second change of variables $v = v(t)$, and again assume $v(0) = 0$, so that



    $$
    W = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt} = mint_0^v v {rm d}v = frac{1}{2}mv^2
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Remember Newton's Law



    $$
    F = m a = mfrac{{rm d}^2 x}{{rm d}t^2} = m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t}
    $$



    The rest is just a change of variables, assuming that $x = x(t)$ and $x(0) = 0$



    $$
    W = int_0^x F(x){rm d}x = int_0^t F(t)frac{{rm d}x}{{rm d}t}{rm d}t = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt}
    $$



    Now make a second change of variables $v = v(t)$, and again assume $v(0) = 0$, so that



    $$
    W = int_0^t m frac{{rm d}v}{{rm d}t} v {rm dt} = mint_0^v v {rm d}v = frac{1}{2}mv^2
    $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 28 at 11:14









    caverac

    12.8k21028




    12.8k21028












    • I don't really agree with that. The initial case of $F mathrm{d}x$ becoming an integration over time stems from the inner product case of work and it's definition.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:16










    • @Rebellos So what is the part you don't agree on? that is explicitly written in there $W = ...$
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:18












    • IMO this is OK, except that you use the same symbols as upper bounds and integration variables. +1
      – gammatester
      Nov 28 at 11:21












    • It is okay, but the OP is asking for en elaboration to what is happening with the definition of integrals, how did $x$ become $t$ (time) etc, which can be elaborately explained via the initial definition of work, which is indeed the path integral of the inner product, which then simplifies and so on.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:26










    • @Rebellos I don't believe see the ned to over-complicate it, the problem is clearly in one dimension. As for the change from $x$ to $t$, again, it is just a change of variables
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:31


















    • I don't really agree with that. The initial case of $F mathrm{d}x$ becoming an integration over time stems from the inner product case of work and it's definition.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:16










    • @Rebellos So what is the part you don't agree on? that is explicitly written in there $W = ...$
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:18












    • IMO this is OK, except that you use the same symbols as upper bounds and integration variables. +1
      – gammatester
      Nov 28 at 11:21












    • It is okay, but the OP is asking for en elaboration to what is happening with the definition of integrals, how did $x$ become $t$ (time) etc, which can be elaborately explained via the initial definition of work, which is indeed the path integral of the inner product, which then simplifies and so on.
      – Rebellos
      Nov 28 at 11:26










    • @Rebellos I don't believe see the ned to over-complicate it, the problem is clearly in one dimension. As for the change from $x$ to $t$, again, it is just a change of variables
      – caverac
      Nov 28 at 11:31
















    I don't really agree with that. The initial case of $F mathrm{d}x$ becoming an integration over time stems from the inner product case of work and it's definition.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:16




    I don't really agree with that. The initial case of $F mathrm{d}x$ becoming an integration over time stems from the inner product case of work and it's definition.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:16












    @Rebellos So what is the part you don't agree on? that is explicitly written in there $W = ...$
    – caverac
    Nov 28 at 11:18






    @Rebellos So what is the part you don't agree on? that is explicitly written in there $W = ...$
    – caverac
    Nov 28 at 11:18














    IMO this is OK, except that you use the same symbols as upper bounds and integration variables. +1
    – gammatester
    Nov 28 at 11:21






    IMO this is OK, except that you use the same symbols as upper bounds and integration variables. +1
    – gammatester
    Nov 28 at 11:21














    It is okay, but the OP is asking for en elaboration to what is happening with the definition of integrals, how did $x$ become $t$ (time) etc, which can be elaborately explained via the initial definition of work, which is indeed the path integral of the inner product, which then simplifies and so on.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:26




    It is okay, but the OP is asking for en elaboration to what is happening with the definition of integrals, how did $x$ become $t$ (time) etc, which can be elaborately explained via the initial definition of work, which is indeed the path integral of the inner product, which then simplifies and so on.
    – Rebellos
    Nov 28 at 11:26












    @Rebellos I don't believe see the ned to over-complicate it, the problem is clearly in one dimension. As for the change from $x$ to $t$, again, it is just a change of variables
    – caverac
    Nov 28 at 11:31




    @Rebellos I don't believe see the ned to over-complicate it, the problem is clearly in one dimension. As for the change from $x$ to $t$, again, it is just a change of variables
    – caverac
    Nov 28 at 11:31










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Divide the time up into little chunks of time $t_i$, writing $Delta t$ for $t_{i+1} - t_i$. The work done between a small time gap $t_i$ and $t_i + Delta t$ is the force applied during that time times the distance. Assuming that $Delta t$ is sufficiently small that the force and velocity is approximately constant during one time gap, we get that the work during the time gap is approximated by
    $$
    F(t_i) * (text{distance between position at time } t_i text{ and at time } t_{i+1}) = F(t_i)v(t_i)Delta t.
    $$

    Adding these all up and taking the limit as $Delta t$ goes to zero explains why the work is given by the second integral in the chain of equalities (the first, written without bounds, is just physicist-shorthand).



    Now $F(t) = m*v'(t)$ is the usual formula for force (assume the mass remains constant as the force is applied). So we have
    $$
    int_0^T m v'(t)v(t) dt.
    $$

    Since $frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) = 2v(t)v'(t)$ by the chain rule, this is
    $$
    frac{m}{2} int_0^T frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) dt,
    $$

    and the result follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Divide the time up into little chunks of time $t_i$, writing $Delta t$ for $t_{i+1} - t_i$. The work done between a small time gap $t_i$ and $t_i + Delta t$ is the force applied during that time times the distance. Assuming that $Delta t$ is sufficiently small that the force and velocity is approximately constant during one time gap, we get that the work during the time gap is approximated by
      $$
      F(t_i) * (text{distance between position at time } t_i text{ and at time } t_{i+1}) = F(t_i)v(t_i)Delta t.
      $$

      Adding these all up and taking the limit as $Delta t$ goes to zero explains why the work is given by the second integral in the chain of equalities (the first, written without bounds, is just physicist-shorthand).



      Now $F(t) = m*v'(t)$ is the usual formula for force (assume the mass remains constant as the force is applied). So we have
      $$
      int_0^T m v'(t)v(t) dt.
      $$

      Since $frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) = 2v(t)v'(t)$ by the chain rule, this is
      $$
      frac{m}{2} int_0^T frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) dt,
      $$

      and the result follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        Divide the time up into little chunks of time $t_i$, writing $Delta t$ for $t_{i+1} - t_i$. The work done between a small time gap $t_i$ and $t_i + Delta t$ is the force applied during that time times the distance. Assuming that $Delta t$ is sufficiently small that the force and velocity is approximately constant during one time gap, we get that the work during the time gap is approximated by
        $$
        F(t_i) * (text{distance between position at time } t_i text{ and at time } t_{i+1}) = F(t_i)v(t_i)Delta t.
        $$

        Adding these all up and taking the limit as $Delta t$ goes to zero explains why the work is given by the second integral in the chain of equalities (the first, written without bounds, is just physicist-shorthand).



        Now $F(t) = m*v'(t)$ is the usual formula for force (assume the mass remains constant as the force is applied). So we have
        $$
        int_0^T m v'(t)v(t) dt.
        $$

        Since $frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) = 2v(t)v'(t)$ by the chain rule, this is
        $$
        frac{m}{2} int_0^T frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) dt,
        $$

        and the result follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Divide the time up into little chunks of time $t_i$, writing $Delta t$ for $t_{i+1} - t_i$. The work done between a small time gap $t_i$ and $t_i + Delta t$ is the force applied during that time times the distance. Assuming that $Delta t$ is sufficiently small that the force and velocity is approximately constant during one time gap, we get that the work during the time gap is approximated by
        $$
        F(t_i) * (text{distance between position at time } t_i text{ and at time } t_{i+1}) = F(t_i)v(t_i)Delta t.
        $$

        Adding these all up and taking the limit as $Delta t$ goes to zero explains why the work is given by the second integral in the chain of equalities (the first, written without bounds, is just physicist-shorthand).



        Now $F(t) = m*v'(t)$ is the usual formula for force (assume the mass remains constant as the force is applied). So we have
        $$
        int_0^T m v'(t)v(t) dt.
        $$

        Since $frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) = 2v(t)v'(t)$ by the chain rule, this is
        $$
        frac{m}{2} int_0^T frac{d}{dt} v^2(t) dt,
        $$

        and the result follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 28 at 11:17









        hunter

        14k22437




        14k22437






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017010%2fsorry-for-my-bluntness-but-what-the-actual-hell-is-hapening-in-this-proof-of-k%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Basket-ball féminin

            Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...

            I want to find a topological embedding $f : X rightarrow Y$ and $g: Y rightarrow X$, yet $X$ is not...