Why is \frac{1}{2}at^2 used in this equation instead of at^2?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Esran
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equation for distance traveled under constant acceleration, specifically why the term \(\frac{1}{2}at^2\) is used instead of \(at^2\). Participants explore the mathematical and conceptual foundations of this equation, touching on integration, average velocity, and graphical interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest integrating the equation \(v = v_0 + at\) with respect to time to derive the distance formula.
  • Others describe the graphical representation of velocity as a straight line, indicating that the area under the curve represents distance, leading to the conclusion that the area of a triangle (representing the change in velocity) contributes to the \(\frac{1}{2}\) factor.
  • One participant proposes a substitution using another constant acceleration equation, leading to the same distance formula, but does not clarify the origin of the \(\frac{1}{2}\).
  • Another participant explains that the average velocity during the time interval is necessary for calculating distance, emphasizing that the average velocity is half the final velocity when starting from rest.
  • Some participants express confusion about the derivation and the role of average velocity, with one noting that using average velocity requires careful consideration of the definitions involved.
  • A later reply questions the assumption that average velocity can be simply calculated from endpoint velocities without considering the nature of acceleration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for the \(\frac{1}{2}\) factor in the context of average velocity and the graphical interpretation of acceleration. However, there remains some disagreement and confusion regarding the derivation and implications of the equation, with multiple perspectives presented without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include unresolved mathematical steps and the dependence on the assumption of constant acceleration. The distinction between average and instantaneous velocity is also noted as a critical factor in understanding the derivation.

Esran
d=v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2

Why is it \frac{1}{2}at^2? Why not at^2 instead? I know that the reason is probably pretty obvious, but I'm having trouble finding it.

Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Integrate v=v_0 + a t with respect to t.
 
Esran said:
d=v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2

Why is it \frac{1}{2}at^2? Why not at^2 instead? I know that the reason is probably pretty obvious, but I'm having trouble finding it.

Thanks for your help.

In case you haven't had integration yet, try this.

Since a is constant, you can graph v in the t,v plane as a straight line slanting up from t=0, v=v0 to some generic point t=t, v=at. Drop a vertical from there and run a horizontal line from the initial point; you have a right triangle and the area of that triangle is the distance made good. But what is the area of a triangle? It is the base (elapsed time=t) times 1/2 the altitude (change in v). But the change in v is at - v0, therefore the distance is given by your formula. Draw the picture.
 
Last edited:
I think its a simple substitution using another constant acceleration equation.

v=v_0 + a t

V^2 = V_0^2 + 2ad

V=\sqrt{V_0^2 + 2ad} sub. into the first equation

\sqrt{V_0^2 + 2ad} = V_0 + at Square both sides

V_0^2 + 2ad = V_0^2 + 2V_0at + a^2t^2 simplify and divide both sides by 2a

d=v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2
 
Last edited:
a is the acceleration, which is the change of the velocity per second. You started with velocity v_{start} = v_0, so at the end after t seconds the velocity is:
v_{end} = v_0 + at

The average velocity during these t seconds was:

\frac{v_{start} + v_{end}}{2} = \frac{v_0 + v_0 + at}{2} = \frac{2v_0 + at}{2} = v_0 + \frac{1}{2}at

To get the distance traveled during this time you have to multiply this by the time:
d=(v_0 + \frac{1}{2}at)t = v_0t + \frac{1}{2}at^2
 
I tried proving this. If you integrate, it is easy. But I tried it the old fashioned way and I am getting the same problem as Esran.
What I did was I had 2 equations to work with. a = (v - vo) / t, and v = d/t

a = ((d/t) - vo)/t
at = (d/t) - vo
at + vo = dt
at^2 + volt = d
where does the 1/2 come in?
 
Nenad said:
I tried proving this. If you integrate, it is easy. But I tried it the old fashioned way and I am getting the same problem as Esran.
What I did was I had 2 equations to work with. a = (v - vo) / t, and v = d/t

a = ((d/t) - vo)/t
at = (d/t) - vo
at + vo = dt
at^2 + volt = d
where does the 1/2 come in?

The error comes in because you let v=d/t, which is not the instantaneous velocity, but rather the AVERAGE velocity since v isn't a constant (there is an "a", remember?).

Zz.
 
ohh, k , thanx
 
Esran said:
d=v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2

Why is it \frac{1}{2}at^2? Why not at^2 instead? I know that the reason is probably pretty obvious, but I'm having trouble finding it.

Thanks for your help.

Self Adjoint explained the math to it.

The reason behind it is this. Acceleration is fow fast your velocity is increasing. If you started out from rest and accelerated at 10 m/s^2, you would be traveling 10 m/s after one second. But you didn't travel 10 m/s for the entire second. You were traveling 0 m/s at time 0, 1 m/s after .1 seconds, 2 m/s after .2 seconds, etc. Your average velocity was 5 m/s (1/2 your acceleration).

This continues on even after the first second, except now you're starting at 10 m/s and reach 20 m/s by the end of the 2nd second. In other words, your average velocity for the 2nd second is 15 m/s. You total distance, so far, is 20 meters (5 meters the first second and 15 meters the 2nd second). You can keep going on second by second like this. The 1/2 a accounts for the non-constant velocity while the t^2 accounts for the accumulating distance from second to second.
 
  • #10
Yeah back when I was a freshmen and just started physics I wondered what was up with that equation. Since I learned a little calculus I understand.
 
  • #11
I vote BobG has having the best answer.
 
  • #12
its good, but i like gerben's better
 
  • #13
gerben said:
a is the acceleration, which is the change of the velocity per second. You started with velocity v_{start} = v_0, so at the end after t seconds the velocity is:
v_{end} = v_0 + at

The average velocity during these t seconds was:

\frac{v_{start} + v_{end}}{2} = \frac{v_0 + v_0 + at}{2} = \frac{2v_0 + at}{2} = v_0 + \frac{1}{2}at

To get the distance traveled during this time you have to multiply this by the time:
d=(v_0 + \frac{1}{2}at)t = v_0t + \frac{1}{2}at^2

While this proof works, it should be noted that the "average velocity during these t seconds was \frac{v_{start} + v_{end}}{2}" is a consequence of the acceleration being constant. Recall that "average velocity" means "time-weighted average of the velocities", not merely a straight average of the velocities at the endpoints. Indeed, following the definitions
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> v_{avg}<br /> &amp;\equiv\frac{x_f-x_0}{t_f-t_0}\\<br /> &amp;=\frac{\left[x_0+v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2\right]-x_0}{\left[ t \right]}\\&amp;=v_0+\frac{1}{2}at \\<br /> &amp;= v_0+\frac{1}{2}\left( v_f-v_0 \right) = \frac{1}{2}\left(v_f+v_0 \right) <br /> \end{align *}<br />

In some texts, the above expression for average velocity as one-half the sum of initial and final velocities is justified by drawing a velocity-vs-time graph and essentially arguing that the area under the red curve is equal to the area under the green curve. Of course, the area under the red curve is the displacement gained over the interval: the lower rectangle has area v_0 t and the triangle (with height v_f-v_0=at) has area \frac{1}{2} (at) t:

<br /> \begin{picture}(100,100)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,0){\vector(1,0){100}}<br /> \put(0,0){\vector(0,1){100}} <br /> \put(0,30){\textcolor{red}{\line(3,1){100}}}<br /> \put(0,30){\textcolor{red}{v{\scriptsize \textcolor{red}{0} }}}<br /> \put(0,47){\textcolor{green}{\line(1,0){100}}} <br /> \put(0,50){\textcolor{green}v{\scriptsize \textcolor{green}{avg}}} <br /> \put(0,30){\line(1,0){100}} <br /> \put(100,64){\line(0,-1){64}}<br /> \put(0,64){\textcolor{red}{v{\scriptsize \textcolor{red}{f} }}}<br /> \put(95,0){t}<br /> \end{picture}<br />
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
352
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K