2
$\begingroup$

This question has two parts: a question about a specific expression and a question about a family of expressions. In what follows I will omit all constants of integration.

If we integrate force with respect to time we get momentum: $\int F \, \operatorname{d}\!t = mv$. If an object accelerates along a line then we can find its acceleration at any given point and write force as a function of distance. Doing so, and integrating gives kinetic energy (or work done): $\int F \, \operatorname{d}\!x = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$.

I decided to try the same thing with power using the definition $P = Fv$. When I integrated with respect to time I got, as expected, $\frac{1}{2}mv^2$ which is work done. If an object accelerates along a line then we can measure the power at regular distances and write power as a function of distance. Then we may integrate power with respect to distance: $$\int P \, \operatorname{d}\!x = \int mav \, \operatorname{d}\!x = m\int\frac{\operatorname{d}\!v}{\operatorname{d}\!t}v\, \operatorname{d}\!x = m\int\frac{\operatorname{d}\!x}{\operatorname{d}\!t}\frac{\operatorname{d}\!v}{\operatorname{d}\!x}v\,\operatorname{d}\!x = m\int v^2\operatorname{d}\!v = \tfrac{1}{3}mv^3$$

Here is the first question: What is $\frac{1}{3}mv^3$? Does it have a name? How can I understand it conceptually?

Here is the second question: Momentum is $mv$, kinetic energy is $\frac{1}{2}mv^2$, this new quantity $\frac{1}{3}mv^3$ has turned up. It seems that $\frac{1}{k}mv^k$ for positive whole numbers $k$ plays a role. These can all be combined into one power series. Provided $v$ is very small, we have

$$mv + \tfrac{1}{2}mv^2 + \tfrac{1}{3}mv^3 + \cdots + \tfrac{1}{k}mv^k + \cdots \equiv m\ln\left(\frac{1}{1-v}\right)$$

Do the expressions $\frac{1}{k}mv^k$ have any general meaning; and does this logarithmic expression have any use? (I realise that the units in the sum are all different.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BMS, He mentioned that he knows they're all in different units, but he's wondering if that expression demonstrates any physical relationship as far as motion is concerned in classical mechanics - in which case I am not sure. Having a number of various units, I can't say that I think so. However he does pose an interesting question. $\endgroup$ – Signus Sep 19 '13 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Signus Indeed he did; missed that. As far is attempting to interpret $\frac{1}{3}mv^3$, you may want to try interpreting the quantity $P\,dx$. Power is strongly linked with a time derivative, so this may be a bit difficult, though interesting! $\endgroup$ – BMS Sep 19 '13 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ @BMS, that it is. When I think of power I begin to think of impulse because it is the average force over time $J = \int_{{t}_{1}}^{{t}_{2}} F dt$. $\endgroup$ – Signus Sep 19 '13 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Signus Your edit was incorrect: the integral of power w.r.t. time is work done, as I originally said. Power is measured in J/s. Power x Time = Work. $\endgroup$ – Fly by Night Sep 19 '13 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ @FlybyNight, Indeed, I was trying to explore the possible relation with impulse and power to evaluate $\frac{1}{3}mv^{3}$ considering that $J = \frac{N}{s}$ and $W = \frac{N*m}{s}$ $\endgroup$ – Signus Sep 19 '13 at 19:30
2
$\begingroup$

Comments to the question (v2): OP's observation can be summarized as follows.

  1. In $D$ dimensions: Let $g=g(v^2)$ be a function of the square $v^2$ of the speed $v=|{\bf v}|$. Let $G=G(v^2)$ be a primitive integral (aka. antiderivative or indefinite integral) of $g$, i.e. $G^{\prime}(v^2) = g(v^2)$. Then in analogy with the work-energy theorem for a non-relativistic particle with mass $m$, one has $$\int_{{\bf r}_i}^{{\bf r}_f} \! g(v^2)~ {\bf F}\cdot {\rm d}{\bf r} ~=~\int_{t_i}^{t_f} \! g(v^2)~ m\frac{{\rm d}{\bf v}}{{\rm d}t}\cdot{\bf v}~ {\rm d}t ~=~\frac{m}{2}\int_{t_i}^{t_f} \! g(v^2)~ \frac{{\rm d}(v^2)}{{\rm d}t}{\rm d}t$$ $$~=~\frac{m}{2}\int_{v_i^2}^{v_f^2} \! g(v^2) ~ {\rm d}(v^2) ~=~\frac{m}{2} G(v_f^2) -\frac{m}{2} G(v_i^2). $$ The standard work-energy theorem corresponds to $g(v^2)=1$ and $G(v^2)=v^2$. OP's first non-standard example corresponds to $g(v^2)=v$ and $G(v^2)=\frac{2}{3}v^3$.

  2. In $D=1$ dimension: We use boldface to denote signed 1D quantities, i.e. vectors in 1D. Let $h=h({\bf v})$ be a function of the 1D velocity ${\bf v}$. Let $H=H({\bf v})$ be a primitive integral of ${\bf v}h({\bf v})$, i.e. $H^{\prime}({\bf v}) = {\bf v}h({\bf v})$. Then the generalized work-energy theorem read $$\int_{{\bf x}_i}^{{\bf x}_f} \! h({\bf v})~{\bf F}~{\rm d}{\bf x} ~=~\int_{t_i}^{t_f} \! h({\bf v})~ m\frac{{\rm d}{\bf v}}{{\rm d}t} {\bf v} ~{\rm d}t$$ $$~=~m\int_{{\bf v}_i}^{{\bf v}_f} \! H^{\prime}({\bf v})~{\rm d}{\bf v} ~=~m H({\bf v}_i)-m H({\bf v}_f). $$ The standard work-energy theorem corresponds to $h({\bf v})=1$ and $H({\bf v})=\frac{1}{2}{\bf v}^2$. OP's first non-standard example corresponds to $h({\bf v})={\bf v}$ and $H({\bf v})=\frac{1}{3}{\bf v}^3$.

I don't know if the above generalizations of the work-energy theorem have a name, though. Usually these generalizations are not needed in order to solve a physical problem. I speculate that similar observations might be useful in integrable systems to keep track of an infinite hierarchy of higher conservation laws.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why have a function of $v^2$ and not just $v$? $\endgroup$ – Fly by Night Sep 19 '13 at 18:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fly by Night: A function of $v^2$ can easily be converted to a function of speed $v\geq 0$, and vice-versa, so there is no loss of generality. Moreover, it makes the formula simpler. Plus it eliminates any confusion between the use of speed $v$ versus velocity ${\bf v}$. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 19 '13 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ The fact that the expression involves $v^3$ means that it is sign dependent, and hence direction dependent. Just as momentum ($mv$) is direction dependent and is a vector in higher dimensions and kinetic energy ($\frac{1}{2}mv^2$) is not direction dependent and is a scalar in higher dimensions, it seems that $\frac{1}{3}mv^3$ might be more than a scalar, perhaps a vector and perhaps a tensor. $\endgroup$ – Fly by Night Sep 20 '13 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Fly by Night: I agree that in 1D there exists a signed version, cf. new update. I leave it to you and others to make sense of such a construction in higher dimensions. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 20 '13 at 19:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Fly by Night: Please note that the answer only talks about ${\bf v}^3$ in 1D. So the velocity ${\bf v}\in \mathbb{R}$, and the cube ${\bf v}^3\in \mathbb{R}$ makes sense. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 20 '13 at 21:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.