Basic question about basic concept: proportionality

Click For Summary
Understanding proportionality in physics involves recognizing how acceleration relates to force. Acceleration directly proportional to the square of force means that doubling the force results in quadrupling the acceleration. Conversely, if acceleration is directly proportional to the square root of force, it implies that to double the acceleration, one must quadruple the force. The discussion also touches on various scenarios involving different relationships between force and acceleration, emphasizing the complexity of deriving equations from experimental data. Overall, grasping these concepts is essential for interpreting physical laws accurately.
Ontophile
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
This is not homework. I'm reading a physics for laypeople book and I'm trying to wrap my head around something that other people obviously have little or no trouble understanding.

I understand what it means when someone says that a body's acceleration is directly proportional to the magnitude of the impressed force. It means that if you apply one more unit of force, you'll get one more unit of acceleration out of it. Double the force applied, double the resulting acceleration; triple the force, triple the acceleration.

What I don't understand is what to imagine when someone says that something is directly proportional to the square of something, or directly proportional to the square root of something. Is being "directly proportional to the square root" of something the same as being "inversely proportional to the square" of something?

1) Suppose we lived in a universe in which a body's acceleration was directly proportional to the square of the impressed force. What would that mean? Would it mean that if I doubled the impressed force, I'd quadruple the resulting acceleration? Or would it mean that if I wanted to double the acceleration, I'd have to quadruple the impressed force?

2) Likewise, say a body's acceleration was directly proportional to the square root of the impressed force. What would that mean?

3) Suppose that tripling the impressed force yielded 6 times the acceleration, and that quadrupling the force yielded 8 times the acceleration. What sort of proportional relationship would that be?

4) Suppose that adding 1 unit of force yielded 1 unit of acceleration, and that adding 2 units of force yielded 1.5 units of acceleration, and that adding 3 units of force yielded 1.8333... units of acceleration, and that adding 4 units of force yielded 2.08333... units of accceleration. What sort of proportional relationship would that be?

5) Suppose that adding 1 unit of force yielded 1 unit of acceleration, and that adding 2 units of force yielded 1.5 units of acceleration, but that adding 3 units of force yielded 1.75 units of acceleration, and that adding 4 units of force yielded 1.875 units of acceleration. What sort of proportional relationship would that be?

Thanks in advance for your help...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
'Directly proportional' is a verbal description for the algebraic equation:
y = ax,
in which y is said to be directly proportional to x.

Otoh, if you see the expression
y=ax+b,
you would say that y is proportional to x - i.e it gets bigger as x gets bigger but will not equal zero when x is zero. 'Directly' means there is no extra 'constant' term (b).

If you say that y is directly proportional to x2, that would be written as
y=ax2

or, if y is directly proportional to root x, then

y=a√x

Using the maths may bring on the pains but is nicely precise and you can tap it into your calculator if you know the numbers.

If you want to find the equation for some process by looking at some measured results, that is a bit harder because you, effectively, have to try to 'solve' an equation for which there is not always a simple solution or a simple expression to show the relationship. Scientists are always being presented with this sort ofd problem and sometimes there are horrific sums needed to produce a formula.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K