12

I'm studying kinematics with varying acceleration. To calculate the displacement from the acceleration you have to integrate the acceleration with respect to t, then integrate that with respect to t, this time with limits.

I've been writing this:

But it looks a little messy. Is there a better way?

The notation on this webpage is good but seems to be aimed at having a) limits on both integrals (for me the inner integral is indefinite) and b) different variables - in differentiating with respect to t both times.

MJD
  • 67,568
  • 43
  • 308
  • 617
Tim
  • 570
  • 5
    But a definite integral of an indefinite integral has a big problem: it depends on the chosen primitive. Indeed, suppose that $F'(x)=f(x)$. Then $$\int_a^b\left(\int f\right)dx=\int_a^b (F(x)+C)dx=C(b-a)+\int_a^bF(x)dx$$ Are you sure that this is what you want? – ajotatxe Jan 05 '17 at 12:56
  • 19
    as an aside, are you writing on a slab of marble? – costrom Jan 05 '17 at 14:09
  • 4
    @costrom regrettably no, it's an old whiteboard. – Tim Jan 05 '17 at 14:11
  • The notation should express your calculation. And the calculation depends on input data. If you want the notation verified, state your problem explicitly, namely: how the acceleration is defined in your problem. Is it a function of time $a(t)$ (e.g. in a rocket, where the thrust is given as a function on time)? Or is it a function of position $a(x)$ (e.g. in a cart, rolling free on an convex track between two hills)? – CiaPan Jan 05 '17 at 15:59
  • Why is your integrand $t^2$? You should have $\int \int a; dt ; dt$ – Ross Millikan Jan 05 '17 at 15:59
  • @CiaPan a=t^2.. – Tim Jan 05 '17 at 16:00
  • @RossMillikan as above, a=t^2 – Tim Jan 05 '17 at 16:01
  • If it was a pure mathematics, it would be OK. If it is kinematics, it is absurd. The expression $t^2$ is a physical quantity 'time squared', different from the acceleration, which is 'length divided by time squared'. – CiaPan Jan 06 '17 at 19:46
  • @CiaPan We were told that the value of acceleration a at time t seconds was t^2 metres per seconds squared. – Tim Jan 06 '17 at 19:47
  • I see. But $t$ is apparently a time, not a pure real number. And time has a unit 'second', you need some coefficient to get $m/s^2$ from $s^2$. – CiaPan Jan 06 '17 at 20:54
  • @CiaPan No, it simply means at time 1s the acceleration is 1 ms^-2, at 2s the acceleration is 4ms^-2 (and for all real numbers). – Tim Jan 06 '17 at 20:55
  • So at $1{,}000$ milliseconds an acceleration is ...$1{,}000{,}000$ millimeters per second squared? Or $1{,}000{,}000$ meters per second squared? – CiaPan Jan 06 '17 at 21:03
  • @CiaPan Well as 1000 milliseconds = 1 second, it would be 1 metre per second squared, which is 1000 millimetres per second squared. So neither of your options. – Tim Jan 06 '17 at 21:11
  • So how is it squared? Your squaring works with one, specially chosen set of units only. Which means you first divide time by a unit of $1,s$, then you square a pure number to finally give it a new unit by multiplying the result by $1,m/s^2$. Which is essentially just multiplying $t^2$ by $1,m/s^4$. – CiaPan Jan 06 '17 at 21:33

6 Answers6

18

No, there is no better notation - the double-integral notation is standard. However, the way you've written it is problematic. Notice that when you do an indefinite integral, you get a $+c$ at the end. This is a constant, so when integrated again we have $+ct$. Evaluating from $2$ to $5$, this gives a $+3c$ at the end of your answer - which you really don't want, since your answer should be a number.

In a double integral, the inner integral should a) always be definite and b) be with respect to a different variable than the outer integral. In your case, recall that velocity is not the indefinite integral of acceleration - it's $v_0 + \int_0^ta(s)ds$, where $t$ is the time. So what you want is $\int_2^5\int_0^ts^2dsdt$.

This distinction between $s$ and $t$ is important - without it, you'll run into ambiguities as to which $t$ each $dt$ applies to.

  • Sorry I'm a little confused here. The limit of t on the inner integral - what number is it? – Tim Jan 05 '17 at 12:58
  • 3
    @Tim It's not a number, it's a variable. But treat it the same way as you would a number: $\int_0^ts^2ds = (\frac{1}{3}s^3)|^t_0 = \frac{1}{3}t^3 - \frac{1}{3}0^3 = \frac{1}{3}t^3$. There's no problem with having a variable as one of your bounds of integration - in fact, this should remind you of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which uses a very similar integral. – Reese Johnston Jan 05 '17 at 13:00
  • okay ta. Last question- s is just a variable, yes? Nothing to do with the s used for displacement? – Tim Jan 05 '17 at 13:05
  • 2
    @Tim Right - I just chose $s$ because it's next to $t$ in the alphabet, and it's still supposed to represent time. – Reese Johnston Jan 05 '17 at 13:06
  • 3
    @Tim Use a tau (or capital T or whatever) as in $\int_2^5 \int_0^t \tau^2 \mathrm{d}\tau\mathrm{d}t$ if $s$ is too confusing. It is understood as $\int_2^5 \left( \int_0^t \tau^2 \mathrm{d}\tau \right) \mathrm{d}t$ (iterated integral). – Jeppe Stig Nielsen Jan 05 '17 at 15:42
5

This does not quite make sense to me, due to $$ \int t^2 \,dt = \frac 13 t^3 + C $$ Your integral just gives $$ \int_2^5 \int_t \tau^2 \, d\tau\, dt = \frac 1{12} (5^4 - 2^4) + 3C $$ for some arbitrary $C$, hence the result is just any(!) number. The result $23$ is as fine as $\pi$, just different and equally justified choices of $C$.

So I'd stick to an double integral with limits, so variable limits on the inner one. It is misleading to use the same integration variable twice, the standard way around is to use a "look-alike" variable name, for example the corresponding greek letter. So, a possibility is to write $$ \int_2^5 \left(u + \int_0^t \tau^2 \,d\tau\right) \, dt $$ where $u$ is the initial velocity. And if you want to stick to indefinite limits, I'd write $$ \int_2^5 \int_t \tau^2 \,d\tau \, dt $$

martini
  • 86,011
  • 1
    C here is equal to the initial velocity, or u. – Tim Jan 05 '17 at 12:59
  • So you have an initial velocity? This makes your integral a definite one! Just replace $\int_t \tau^2 ,d\tau$ by $u + \int_0^t \tau^2 , d\tau$ then. – martini Jan 05 '17 at 13:00
1

You want to write $F(t) = \int t^{2}\text{d}t$. This is equal to:

$F(t) = F(0) + \int_{0}^{t}s^{2}\text{d}s$ provided the expression is defined at $t=0$.

Then, you could write:

$$x = \int_{2}^{5}\left(F(0)+\int_{0}^{t}s^{2}\text{d}s\right)\text{d}t$$

In your case, you probably want $F(0)$ to be your initial velocity $v_{0}$. Hence, the above integral is:

\begin{align*} x &= \int_{2}^{5}\left(F(0)+\int_{0}^{t}s^{2}\text{d}s\right)\text{d}t\\ &= \int_{2}^{5}\left(v_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}s^{2}\text{d}s\right)\text{d}t\\ &= \int_{2}^{5}\left(v_{0} + \left[\frac{s^{3}}{3}\right]_{0}^{t}\right)\text{d}t\\ &= \int_{2}^{5}\left(v_{0} + \frac{t^{3}}{3}\right)\text{d}t\\ &= \left[v_{0}t + \frac{t^4}{12}\right]_{2}^{5}\\ &= v_{0}(5-2) + \frac{5^4}{12} - \frac{2^4}{12}\\ &= 3 v_{0} + \frac{609}{12} \end{align*}

(Corrected after TonyK's comment: I added the numbers instead of subtracting them).

1

But a definite integral of an indefinite integral has a big problem: it depends on the chosen primitive. Indeed, suppose that $F'(x)=f(x)$. Then $$\int_a^b\left(\int f\right)dx=\int_a^b (F(x)+C)dx=C(b-a)+\int_a^bF(x)dx$$ Are you sure that this is what you want?

ajotatxe
  • 66,849
1

You should have $\int \int a\; dt \; dt$, then the limits should be the same-both the start and end times of the acceleration. It can be confusing to use $t$ as the dummy variable and also to use the same dummy variable in both integrals. If we want the position as a function of time $t$ starting from $t_0$ with position $s_0$ and velocity $v_0$ we can use $\tau$ and $\tau'$ as dummy variables and we would get $$\int_{t_0}^t \int_{t_0}^{\tau'} \tau^2\; d\tau \; d\tau'=\int_{t_0}^t\left.\left(\frac 13\tau^3\right)\right|_{t_0}^{\tau'}\;d\tau'\\ =\int_{t_0}^t\frac 13(\tau'^3-t_0^3)\; d\tau'\\ =\frac 1{12}\tau'^4|_{t_0}^t-t_0(t-t_0)\\ =\frac 1{12}(t^4-t_0^4)-t_0(t-t_0)$$

Ross Millikan
  • 383,099
0

If it was a pure mathematics, it would be OK. If it is kinematics, i.e. physics, it is absurd. In physics you need to track the physical quantities denoted by every expression and keep them consistent to make a reasonable calculations.

The expression $t^2$ is a physical quantity 'time squared', different from the acceleration's 'length divided by time squared'; the latter has an SI unit $m/s^2$ while the former is in $s^2$.

You need at least some constant $q$ in $m/(s^4)$ for a double integration $\int\int q t^2 \,dt\,dt$ to make any sense. And then, as others said, you need to carefully define limits of integration.

A distance $s$ travelled over time $T$ is an integral of a velocity over that time: $$s(T) = \int\limits_{t=T_0}^T v(t)\,dt $$ and a final position is an initial position $x_0=x(T_0)$ plus the distance: $$x(T) = x_0 + s(T)$$

Next, the velocity change over time follows from the acceleration, namely it's an integral of $a$: $$v(t) = v_0 + \int\limits_{\tau=T_0}^t a(\tau)\,d\tau$$ where $v_0=v(T_0)$ is the initial velocity.

Now plug $v(t)$ into the first equation: $$x(T) = x_0 + \int\limits_{t=T_0}^T \left(v_0 + \int\limits_{\tau=T_0}^t a(\tau)\,d\tau\right)\,dt $$

Add the acceleration definition and the integration expression is complete: $$x(T) = x_0 + \int\limits_{t=T_0}^T \left(v_0 + \int\limits_{\tau=T_0}^t q\tau^2\,d\tau\right)\,dt $$

Work it from inside out: $$\int q\tau^2\,d\tau = \frac 13 q\tau^3$$ so $$v(t) = v_0 + \int\limits_{\tau=T_0}^t q\tau^2\,d\tau = v_0 + \left[\frac 13q\tau^3\right]_{\tau=T_0}^t = v_0 + \frac q3(t^3-{T_0}^3)$$ then $$x(T) = x_0 + \int\limits_{t=T_0}^T \left(v_0 + \frac q3(t^3-{T_0}^3)\right)\,dt $$ $$= x_0 + \int\limits_{t=T_0}^T \left(v_0 + \frac q3 t^3- \frac q3 {T_0}^3\right)\,dt $$ $$= x_0 + \left[\frac q{12} t^4 + \left(v_0 - \frac q3 {T_0}^3\right)t\right]_{t=T_0}^T $$ $$= x_0 + \frac q{12} (T^4 - {T_0}^4) + \left(v_0 - \frac q3 {T_0}^3\right)(T-T_0) $$

Assuming your frame of reference has been chosen so that $x_0=0\,m$ and $v_0=0\,\frac ms$, the expression simplifies to $$x(T) = \frac q{12} (T^4 - {T_0}^4) - \frac q3 {T_0}^3 (T-T_0) $$ For $T=5\,s$ and $T_0=2\,s$: $$x(5\,s) = \frac q{12} ((5\,s)^4 - (2\,s)^4) - \frac q3 (2\,s)^3 (5\,s-2\,s) $$ $$ = \frac q{12} (625 - 16)s^4 - \frac q3 8\cdot 3\, s^4 $$ $$ = \left(\frac {625 - 16}{12} - 8\right)q\,s^4 $$ $$ = 42.75\, q\,s^4$$ If $q = 1\,\frac m{s^4}$, as I suppose from your attempt to write the double integral: $$ x(5\,s) = 42.75\,m$$

CiaPan
  • 13,884
  • By t^2, I mean the value of the acceleration is at any time t equal to t^2. – Tim Jan 06 '17 at 20:43
  • You can't define an acceleration as a square of time. It makes no sense, because they are different quantities. Similary you can't define a height as weight or luminance as volume. They may be proportional, but you always need a constant of proportionality so that the correlation does not depend on units. – CiaPan Jan 06 '17 at 21:19
  • Then you need to take it up with AQA, the company who create my course and exams. I do not understand your issue with this. For every moment t, measured in seconds, the value of a measured in metres per second squared is the value of t, squared. You can draw an acceleration time graph, and it plots a quadratic. – Tim Jan 06 '17 at 21:25
  • For an example exam question, see question 1 from this paper: http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-MM2B-QP-JUN13.PDF. The difference is they have defined $s$, displacement, in terms of $t$, but it's the same idea. By integrating $s$ twice ($d^2y\over{dx^2}$) I can find that $a = 42t$. – Tim Jan 06 '17 at 21:26
  • @Tim The problem is here: 'For every moment 't', measured in seconds...' So the whole description FAILS if you measure time in milliseconds or in months. Also if you measure acceleration in miles per day squared. – CiaPan Jan 06 '17 at 21:41
  • 1
    Which is why we do neither of those things. Is there a flaw in the question I linked? – Tim Jan 06 '17 at 21:42
  • THAT'S ABSURD! We do that all the time! We use SI, CGS, British imperial units, US units... We use nanometers and light years; grams and megatonnes. Anyway when you describe an accelerating car to predict when it arrives to some point, you should get consistent results, whether you use gram, shekel of ounce for mass, newton, dyne or pound-force for force, and second, hour or day for time. The same measure gets different numerical value in SI and CGS, but the value with the unit always reflects the actual quantity. Abandoning units makes analysis meaningless. – CiaPan Jan 07 '17 at 22:07
  • And no, in THAT question there is no flaw, because the authors explicitly name units. They say 'at time $t$ seconds, the displacement, $s$ meters, is given by $s=8t^3+15$' which implies $t$ and $s$ are just numbers, unit-less quantities. They never say one physical quantity equals another, different physical quantity (like 'acceleration equals time squared'). – CiaPan Jan 07 '17 at 22:07
  • so what's the issue here? Did I not make that clear in my comments? – Tim Jan 07 '17 at 23:21