Is Acceleration of Acceleration a Valid Concept in Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chocolatesheep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of "acceleration of acceleration," questioning whether it is a valid idea in physics. It presents a scenario involving an asteroid being pulled toward Earth, where both its speed and acceleration change as it approaches. The idea is that understanding this change could provide more accurate calculations of the asteroid's speed over time, especially when acceleration is not constant. The conversation also touches on the terminology of higher derivatives, such as "jerk," and emphasizes the use of differential equations and computational methods for solving motion problems. Overall, the concept raises interesting points about the complexities of motion and the importance of considering variable acceleration in physics.
chocolatesheep
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone.

I was wondering about this.
If the position of an object changes in time, the object has velocity.
If the velocity of an object changes in time, the object is accelerating (decelerating)
If the acceleration of an object changes in time, could we hypothetically have acceleration of acceleration.

I have this scenario in my head:
An asteroid is at rest, far away from earth. The Earth starts dragging the asteroid towards it. The asteroid will accelerate towards Earth ever so slightly (since gravity depends on distance)
The closer it gets to earth, not only will it go faster, but it will also accelerate faster.
So we will have the change of acceleration in time:
a\prime = \lim_{\Delta t\to\ 0}\frac{\Delta a}{\Delta t}

So acceleration of acceleration would be in \frac{m}{s^3} or rather \frac{\frac{m}{s^2}}{s} if it appeals more.

Would this be useful? We could calculate the exact acceleration in any given moment as opposed to having the average acceleration.
But that's beside the point since we could always calculate the exact acceleration if we know how far it is from a planet.

But if we needed to know the exact speed of the asteroid after let's say 20 hours, we would get an incorrect answer if we treated the acceleration as if it were constant.

So a_1 = a_0 \pm a\prime t
so if a_0 = 0 then a_1 = a\prime t

and if v_1 = v_0 \pm at
and if v_0 = 0 then v_1 = at

=> v_1 = a\prime t^2 if the object is starting to move from rest

Does any of this make sense?
Waiting for someone to point out a flaw in this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't read through but a' is called the "jerk".
 
After "jerk", the next three derivitives are affectionately known as "snap", "crackle" and "pop".

Ordinarily one does not attack these kinds of problems by looking at higher and higher order derivitives though. Instead one writes down a differential equation that relates, for instance, acceleration to velocity and position.

One can use differential calculus to attempt to solve such an equation, reducing it to a form that expresses position as a function of time.

Failing that, there are computational methods (such as Runge Kutta) that generate approximate solutions by running a kind of simulation and advancing stepwise. Such approaches often treat the second derivitive (acceleration) as a variable and work in part by estimating its average value over the duration of each small step.

This sounds similar to what you are talking about.
 
You can do a simple experiment to 'feel' this when braking your automobile.

As you get it almost stopped, lighten pressure on the brake so you don't slam back into seat when it stops, instead making a gradual approach to rest.

Acceleration with a negative sign is the force pushing you forward. Your passengers will appreciate your awareness of and attention to "jerk".
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top