Putting non-Calculus Physics problems in Calculus form

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between calculus and non-calculus methods in solving physics problems, particularly from the perspective of a sophomore Physics major. The individual notes a preference for calculus-based problems, suggesting that understanding how non-calculus methods derive from calculus can enhance problem-solving skills. They propose that converting non-calculus information into a calculus-friendly format could simplify solutions. The conversation highlights techniques for transforming standard equations into their calculus forms, emphasizing the importance of recognizing terms like "average" that signal the use of derivatives or integrals. Additionally, the discussion touches on the concept of function reconstruction, mentioning tools like Microsoft Excel that can help model real data with equations. The overall sentiment is that mastering both calculus and non-calculus approaches is beneficial for a deeper understanding of physics.
zk3381
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
I'm a sophomore Physics major currently taking Mechanics, and I recently noticed something when I was going over some homework. I am really good at Calculus, and I noticed I tend to do way better on the calculus based problems (i.e. work, finding force from potential energy etc) than some of the problems that don't involve calculus. So that got me thinking, has anyone ever had the idea of taking information in problems that don't necessarily require calculus to solve them and putting them in some form where you can use calculus (which, for people like me, would make them much easier)? Anyway, I had this thought and wanted to know if anyone else thought of the same thing and what they did.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Knowing both ways is helpful. I think knowing how the non-calculus methods are derived from the calculus methods are absolutely beneficial. In general knowing how the less complex methods are derived from the more complex methods is an incredibly valuable and necessary skill. It's one that can and should be learned.

I would say if you're more comfortable with the calculus form of what you're working with then derive how the non-calculus form comes from what you're used to. It will help you in the long run!
 
I actually feel the same as you. Anywhere you find the word "average", you should immediately know that you can use a derivative or integral over there. As a general rule, replace the ##t## with ##dt## and s with ##ds## (distance) while adding d's to the non-constant variables and you'll convert a standard equation to the calculus form. For example, certain introductory books say that the average force exerted on a collision is given by ##F=m\frac {Δv}{Δt}##. Now ##m## is a constant, and if add the d's to the non-constants, I get ##F=m\frac{dv}{dt}##, which is the calculus form of the equation (the example is too simplistic, but you can apply it to more complex equations using the fact that ##d(a+b)=da +db## and ##d(ab)=da×db##). This process essentially applies to almost all kinematic and dynamic equation and is invaluable too in removing any "approximation" in your answer (although most mechanics problems are mathematical models which "approximately" represent a real life scenario).
 
I guess what I'm saying is if there is any way to take the information you are given in a general physics problem and turn it into a function you can differentiate or integrate (if that is applicable for the situation)? I mean, in the questions that do have functions in them, they had to get them somewhere (I doubt they are arbitrary). Does that make sense to anyone?
 
zk3381 said:
I guess what I'm saying is if there is any way to take the information you are given in a general physics problem and turn it into a function you can differentiate or integrate (if that is applicable for the situation)? I mean, in the questions that do have functions in them, they had to get them somewhere (I doubt they are arbitrary). Does that make sense to anyone?
Are you talking about how to find a function which models real data? If yes, then there are multiple software such as Microsoft Excel which enable you to construct a function which "fits" the given data. By taking Excel as an example, you enter the relevant data onto the spreadsheet, highlight it and make a graph. You can then add a trend line, and Excel will automatically produce an equation which fits the data as much as possible (you can select if you want it to be logarithmic, exponential or a polynomial of a particular degree [higher degrees allow the equation to represent the data better]). In fact, this is a complete branch of mathematics called function reconstruction, and you can be sure that the guys who gave you the equations representing data trends when there were no computer software of this sort really racked their brains :smile:
 
Yeah essentially. They say give you a question on, for example, angular motion and they tell you that the initial angular velocity is x rads/s and it is accelerating/decelerating at a constant whatever rad/s^2. I'm interested in how to take that information and turn it into a function, say (obviously this is wrong but its just an example) y=omega*t+alpha*t^2 or whatever. Obviously knowing how to use kinematics and whatever they tell you in the textbook is the most important thing, but this is more something that I'm just interested in during my spare time (not that I have much of that).
 
TL;DR Summary: What topics to cover to safely say I know arithmetic ? I am learning arithmetic from Indian NCERT textbook. Currently I have finished addition ,substraction of 2 digit numbers and divisions, multiplication of 1 digit numbers. I am moving pretty slowly. Can someone tell me what topics to cover first to build a framework and then go on in detail. I want to learn fast. It has taken me a year now learning arithmetic. I want to speed up. Thanks for the help in advance. (I also...
Hi community My aim is to get into research about atoms, specifically, I want to do experimental research that explores questions like: 1. Why do Gallium/Mercury have low melting points 2. Why are there so many exceptions and inconsistencies when it comes to explaining molecular structures / reaction mechanisms in inorganic and organic chemistry 3. Experimental research about fundamental Quantum Mechanics, such as the one being followed by Hiroshima university that proved that observing...
guys i am currently studying in computer science engineering [1st yr]. i was intrested in physics when i was in high school. due to some circumstances i chose computer science engineering degree. so i want to incoporate computer science engineering with physics and i came across computational physics. i am intrested studying it but i dont know where to start. can you guys reccomend me some yt channels or some free courses or some other way to learn the computational physics.

Similar threads

Back
Top