
Physics Physics Forum 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
March 4th, 2015, 10:44 PM  #1 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2015 From: Auckland, NZ Posts: 7 Thanks: 0  Scalar Products, Derivatives and Unit Vectors
In my text there is a section on Conservation of Energy of a Point Mass. Starting with Newton's Second Law as: F = ma = m dv/dt = mg Gravitational field close to Earth is approximately gz, where z is the unit vector on the zaxis. m dv/dt = mgz Then take the scalar (dot) product of both sides mv . dv/dt =  mgv . z Now the book jumps (with a simple "This equation can be simplified") to d/dt 1/2 mv . v = d/dt (1/2 mv^2) = mg dz/dt and I'm trying to shake the rust off a brain which hasn't worked with this type of math since the late 90s by filling in the gaps over which the book jumps. I know what's happening on the left, but the right side has me scratching my head. If I recall correctly, change in position z relative to time is v, so dz/dt = v But then I don't know where that z goes. Is it just that it somehow drops out with a value of 1 since it is the unit vector? Am I just wrong that we can simply say dz/dt = v? Do we actually need to retain that z so it should it be dz/dt = v . z? What is the importance of that unit vector z in operational terms (I know what it means  giving the direction of the action without affecting the value  I just don't quite get how it operates)? Is it something to do with dot products giving a scalar value? I'm sure I'll slap my head when someone points out how simple the answer is but I can take it. Last edited by Ben Hunto; March 4th, 2015 at 10:47 PM. 
March 5th, 2015, 02:57 AM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,166 Thanks: 738 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions 
If $\displaystyle v = v(t)$, then using implicit differentiation, $\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{2}mv^2\right) = mv \frac{dv}{dt}$. So the reverse logic is applied to simplifying your LHS. Also, z is a unit vector, which means that it always has a magnitude of 1. Therefore, it should only be used to indicate direction. This implies $\displaystyle \frac{dz}{dt} = 0$. A new scalar variable should be used, such as h, where $\displaystyle v = \frac{dh}{dt} \cdot z$ Then integrating both sides with respect to $\displaystyle t$ will yield $\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} mv^2 = mg \Delta h$ where we have removed the unit vectors representing up and all quantities are scalars. 
March 5th, 2015, 04:10 AM  #3  
Member Joined: Jan 2015 From: USA Posts: 61 Thanks: 6  Quote:
mv . dv/dt =  mgv . z Let's call $\displaystyle V_\parallel$ the part of V that's inline with F, and $\displaystyle V_\perp$ the part that isn't inline with F. We get a scalar, $\displaystyle V_\parallelF$ d/dt 1/2 mv . v = d/dt (1/2 mv^2) Same scalar. v . d/dt 1/2 mv + (d/dt 1/2 mv) . v = v . m dv/dt = $\displaystyle V_\parallelF$ I suppose they put the dz/dt (not dz/dt) there as a reminder that this scalar represents something in the z direction. I can see how you'd be confused by it. It doesn't make sense.  

Tags 
derivatives, products, scalar, unit, vectors 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Scalar vectors : need help in proving  rnck  Applied Math  4  September 14th, 2012 08:25 AM 
The Perpendicular Unit Vectors i and j  bilano99  Calculus  2  February 8th, 2012 02:49 PM 
2 unit vectors dot product  onako  Linear Algebra  2  September 23rd, 2010 09:48 AM 
Differentiating Vectors and Gradient of a Scalar Field?  cypher  Linear Algebra  3  June 29th, 2010 02:40 PM 
orthogonal unit vectors  hrc  Linear Algebra  6  March 3rd, 2008 02:59 PM 