Skip to main content

Mechanics I: Distance Traveled along a 1-D path

I ran into a rather abstruse question in today's first mechanics recitation.  The question gave the one dimensional position of a particle with respect to time as

$x = 10 - 4t + 2t^3$

It then asked for the distance traveled by the particle between t = 0 and t = 2.  The suggested answer, (from the prof in charge of TAs), was to plot the trajectory of the particle, thereby demonstrating the distance and displacement were different.  Here's the plot:


The idea is that you can see that the particle travelled form 10 to 8 and then back to 18, so the total distance is more than the displacement from 10 to 18 i.e. 8.

The question came up as to how to do this to get the exact answer.  Here goes

What we want to do is add up all the small, (read infinitesimal), distances travelled by the particle between time 0 and time 2.  The phrases, 'adding up', and infinitesimal provide the tip off that we'll do an integral, so:

Getting to the Integral the better way with the chain rule
Since we want to add up all the little pieces of distance that the particle traveled, we want something like:

$distance = \int_{t = 0}^{t = 2} dx$

which is all fine and jolly except we have $dx$ and integration limits in time.  I'd like my integration variable to be the same as the variable that describes the limits of the integral.  To get an expression for dx in terms of dt, we can use the chain rule, taking the total derivatives of both sides of

$x = 10 - 4t + 2t^3$

We arrive at:

$1dx = \left(-4+6t^2\right)dt$

Notice that I took the derivative of each side using the chain rule.  The derivative of $x$ is the derivative of the outside with respect to x, $1$, times the derivative of the variable inside, $dx$. The same things works out for each expression that contains $t$.

The not nearly as good way of looking at getting to dx in terms of dt
Let's do a substitution of variables.  From the original position expression we can get, (by taking a derivative with respet to time),

$$ \dfrac{dx}{dt} = -4 + 6t^2$$

Being the lazy physicists that we are, we multiply both sides by $dt$ to get:

$$ dx = \left(-4 + 6t^2\right) dt$$

Now, On with the derivative
The next big thing to keep in mind is that we need to add up all distances the same regardless of their directions, (the negative vs. the positive x direction).  To achieve this, we can either take the absolute value of dx, or we can use a trick I like better which is to square dx and then take its square root.  I prefer this because when I start dealing with two or more dimensions, I'll already have the Pythagorean theorem.  In other words when I say, 

$$\sqrt{dx^2}$$

I'm thinking

$$\sqrt{dx^2 + dy^2}$$

but in this problem, since we're in one dimension, $$dy = 0$$

To illustrate why we have to use either the absolute value, or the square root of the square, here's our expression for $dx$ vs time without the absolute value/square root:




With the absolute value or the square root/square combination we get the following:


Notice in the first plot, dx goes negative for a while.  This will be counted as negative distance traveled when we integrate.  Since we want to know the total distance traveled, no matter which direction, we need to use the expression shown in the second plot where the 'negative direction' distance has been flipped positive by the absolute value.

Here's a diagram that might help make more sense of the how we're going to sum distance. Notice that the red arrow moves in the backwards direction, but we still count it as posititive distance covered.



In any event, we wind up with the integral

$$distance = \int_{t = 0}^{t = 2}  \sqrt{\left(4 + 6t^2\right)^2} dt$$

Performing this integral in Sage gives:

$12.35$ which is larger than the displacement of $8$ and slightly larger than our initial estimate from the plot of about $12.$

Coming soon, the Sage code here on the page...

The Promised Sage Code

Plot the position vs. time

Show the graph of dx/dt vs. time with all distance positive

More to come...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cool Math Tricks: Deriving the Divergence, (Del or Nabla) into New (Cylindrical) Coordinate Systems

The following is a pretty lengthy procedure, but converting the divergence, (nabla, del) operator between coordinate systems comes up pretty often. While there are tables for converting between common coordinate systems, there seem to be fewer explanations of the procedure for deriving the conversion, so here goes!

What do we actually want?

To convert the Cartesian nabla



to the nabla for another coordinate system, say… cylindrical coordinates.



What we’ll need:

1. The Cartesian Nabla:



2. A set of equations relating the Cartesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinates:



3. A set of equations relating the Cartesian basis vectors to the basis vectors of the new coordinate system:



How to do it:

Use the chain rule for differentiation to convert the derivatives with respect to the Cartesian variables to derivatives with respect to the cylindrical variables.

The chain rule can be used to convert a differential operator in terms of one variable into a series of differential operators in terms of othe…

The Valentine's Day Magnetic Monopole

There's an assymetry to the form of the two Maxwell's equations shown in picture 1.  While the divergence of the electric field is proportional to the electric charge density at a given point, the divergence of the magnetic field is equal to zero.  This is typically explained in the following way.  While we know that electrons, the fundamental electric charge carriers exist, evidence seems to indicate that magnetic monopoles, the particles that would carry magnetic 'charge', either don't exist, or, the energies required to create them are so high that they are exceedingly rare.  That doesn't stop us from looking for them though!

Keeping with the theme of Fairbank[1] and his academic progeny over the semester break, today's post is about the discovery of a magnetic monopole candidate event by one of the Fairbank's graduate students, Blas Cabrera[2].  Cabrera was utilizing a loop type of magnetic monopole detector.  Its operation is in concept very simpl…

Unschooling Math Jams: Squaring Numbers in their own Base

Some of the most fun I have working on math with seven year-old No. 1 is discovering new things about math myself.  Last week, we discovered that square of any number in its own base is 100!  Pretty cool!  As usual we figured it out by talking rather than by writing things down, and as usual it was sheer happenstance that we figured it out at all.  Here’s how it went.

I've really been looking forward to working through multiplication ala binary numbers with seven year-old No. 1.  She kind of beat me to the punch though: in the last few weeks she's been learning her multiplication tables in base 10 on her own.  This became apparent when five year-old No. 2 decided he wanted to do some 'schoolwork' a few days back.

"I can sing that song... about the letters? all by myself now!"  2 meant the alphabet song.  His attitude towards academics is the ultimate in not retaining unnecessary facts, not even the name of the song :)

After 2 had worked his way through the so…