Blog Entries: 47
Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help

## calculus based physics Vs. algebra based physics

 Quote by Defennnder Curriculum for high school or college? Calculus is an essential mathematical tool for just about every scientific, engineering field. And why don't require it when just about every student in high school is going to have to learn calculus anyway, unless they've chosen to major in the arts and literature?
Some high schools don't require physics [unfortunately]... and, if it is offered, it won't be calculus-based since calculus would be taught in the senior year, if at all. (If the high-school follows a "physics-first" curriculum, it certainly won't be calculus-based.)

Now for college...
I agree calculus is essential for science and engineering... but, as you've observed, not for a major in the arts and literature.... although it does help round out a student in a liberal arts institution. In addition, I would guess that there are more non-science majors than science-majors in college. So, there is a need for an algebra-based class.... although in an ideal scientifically-minded world there would only be a calculus-based one.

I was at one school that had three levels of introductory calculus-based physics... for bio and premed majors, for chem majors, and for physics and math majors. I guess that school saw the need to give the appropriate attention depending on the needs of the student, as well as the resources to devote to it. In a similar way, some schools will have algebra-based and calculus-based intended for less- and more-scientific majors.
 Recognitions: Science Advisor This discussion highlights one of the main difficulties in professional training and education. Because science is constantly advancing, it takes longer and longer to gain mastery of the relevant material. Also, it leads to increasingly narrow specialization by practicioners. Most of what I have to say is for the US educational system- the European system is different, and AFAIK, students are tracked into professional/vocational programs at a very early age. So, why not teach calculus in high school? Two main reasons- first, the teachers are not sufficiently trained in the material. Second, why teach it? Given that a tiny fraction of K-12 students go into fields requiring proficiency in calculus/physics, especially as compared to say, having proficiency in the english language (or a foreign language!). What's the difference between calculus based Physics I and non-calculus based Physics I? Primarily conceptual. For both classes, students are expected to memorize certain formulas and are expected to plug-and-chug to solve problems. Using calculus allows for a simpler way of introducing time-dependent things (and later, spatially dependent things), at the cost of having to learn a whole new block of irrelevant math: I can't speak for anyone else, but I stopped doing "delta-epsilon" proofs and all that nonsense freshman year. Personally, I think science curricula in K-12 needs an overhaul, and undergraduate Physics programs are also in need of an overhaul. Both are outdated products of the 60s and 70s.

 Quote by Defennnder Curriculum for high school or college? Calculus is an essential mathematical tool for just about every scientific, engineering field. And why don't require it when just about every student in high school is going to have to learn calculus anyway, unless they've chosen to major in the arts and literature?
My high school didn't require us to take calculus (I did anyway, apparently I was a year ahead of everybody or something). The "regular" track ended with trig.

Anyway, the physics was basic algebra-based physics.

F = ma, my mass is 5kg and my acceleration is 4 meters per second per second. What force is being applied?

Stuff like that.

 Quote by Defennnder Why do educators still teach algebra-based physics when they could simply teach the calculus mathematics first, then afterwards go straight to calculus-based physics? It saves the trouble of having to memorise equations when doing algebra-based physics.
I don't think there's any more equations to remember. The constant acceleration equations are used so often in introductory physics, calculus or not, that it's useful to remember it anyway. I don't think there's much more to remember.
 To echo what others have said, there hardly is a difference. It makes some things easier to do, but all in all, it reduces to algebra. You might get problems with varying work, and have to integrate, or look at a graph and find the area under the line (usually the lines make triangles, so don't really need calculus) or do some derivatives to find maximum values, so not much a difference. It manly gives you different ways to do problems.
 To really udnerstand physics, i think you have to understand calculus, but calculs largley came from physics so they are intertwined. Just about all physics equations are dervied with some help from calculus. It allows for more realistic problems to be solved, but as far as high school physics, you dont really need it.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by D H It can be derived from $d^2x/dt^2 = a$, which in turn is a consequence of Newton's second law.
Say what? That's the definition of acceleration. How does it follow from Newton's second law?

 Quote by D H I just dusted off my very old Halliday and Resnick, copyright 1966, and they certainly went well beyond algebra-based physics. Here are a few topics in which calculus played an integral role: Work as a line integral; the rocket equation; coupled, damped, and forced harmonic oscillators; simple fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Moreover, many topics which are presented as givens in pre-calculus physics are derived in that ancient version of Halliday and Resnick; e.g., Kepler's laws of motion. Has the Halliday, Resnick, and Walker text dumbed things down since I went to school back in the stone age?

Sorry, I know this is off topic- but this sounds like a really nice book (Halliday et al.), do you have any idea where I could get the book? And, for that matter, would you recommend it?
 as someone stupid enough to sign up for courses without checking to see if they'll actually go towards my degree (i know, i'm a ****ing idiot) and thus ending up taking both algebra and calculus based physics, i can tell you that there's not a hell of a lot of difference. you learn all the same concepts and equations: in my experience there was absolutely nothing new that i picked up in calc based physics. the classes only varied in that the prof spent more time going over the whys and hows of the equations and how they worked (a lot of which derived from calculus, like s=a/2(t^2)+vi(t)+si ). that's the way it is at my college at least, there could be huge differences at other schools but in my experience there was virtually no difference. IMO, you could take a class in algebra based physics, take a calculus course afterwards, and be just as well off as someone who took both calc-based physics and calculus itself at the same time (hell, you could be better off: calculus makes a hell of a lot more sense when you're learning it if you already know a thing or two about velocity and acceleration)
 Calculus based physics sounds easier.

 Quote by Tom Mattson Say what? That's the definition of acceleration. How does it follow from Newton's second law?
I don't know much about cal. based physics but, I'm guessing it comes from 1/2 a^2 +m

 Quote by Hydrargyrum I don't know much about cal. based physics but, I'm guessing it comes from 1/2 a^2 +m
That makes absolutely no sense. And the units don't match up either.

Mentor
 Quote by Tom Mattson Say what? That's the definition of acceleration. How does it follow from Newton's second law?
I think D H is talking about this version of Newton's second law $$F=\frac{d(mv)}{dt}$$. I'm not sure how $\ddot{x}=a$ comes from this though; perhaps I'm missing something!
 Basically with calculus we are able to expand upon the ideas presented with an algebraic approach to physics. Not only can the algebraic equations be derived using calculus but there are some cases where it is much more practical (and easier) to use calculus. For instance say we wanted to find a velocity of a function at a certain time, with only knowing it's position at any given time. Without calculus the best we can do is approximate this. But since a velocity is just a change in position, if we find the change in position over an infinitely small time interval we can find the actual velocity of an object. This would be an example of differentiation. An example of integral calculus would be something like this. Say you have a rigid rod and you wanted to calculate the force of gravity the rod exerts on another object at sometime. Well to do this we need to chop the rod up into finitely small parts and find the force for all of these parts, then sum them together to get the total force. Without calculus goodluck summing up the force of an infinite number of pieces of a rod. Also you can have differential equations (Just shows how a particular function is changing) and you might want to calculate a value of the function at a particular point. A good example of this would be a spring that is dampened.
 algebra based physics is what pre med students take calc based physics is what science/engineering majors take. simple as that.

 Quote by awvvu That makes absolutely no sense. And the units don't match up either.
Oh the plus should be a x and the m should be a v. I just did some basic antidifferentiation.

 Similar discussions for: calculus based physics Vs. algebra based physics Thread Forum Replies Academic Guidance 13 Academic Guidance 2 Academic Guidance 8 Academic Guidance 1 Introductory Physics Homework 2