Discover the Truth About Speed and Direction in Classical Physics

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter omin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Direction Speed
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions and conceptual distinctions between speed and velocity in classical physics. Participants explore whether speed should be considered to have a directional component or if it is strictly a scalar quantity, while velocity is defined as a vector quantity that includes direction.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that speed inherently has a directional component, suggesting that speed is magnitude in a specific direction (e.g., the x direction), while velocity encompasses magnitude in multiple directions (x, y, z).
  • Others assert that speed is a non-negative scalar quantity, defined as the magnitude of velocity, which is a vector that includes direction.
  • A participant questions the idea that speed can exist without direction, using the example of an object moving in the y direction at 5 m/s to challenge the notion that speed can be directionless.
  • Some contributions emphasize that velocity is defined as a vector quantity, while speed is strictly a scalar, leading to confusion when redefining these terms.
  • There are discussions about the nature of magnitude and direction, with some participants proposing that a line is necessary for direction to exist, while others argue that certain magnitudes, like temperature, do not require direction.
  • Participants express concern that redefining established terms like speed could lead to misunderstandings in communication within the physics community.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus among participants regarding the definitions of speed and velocity. Multiple competing views remain, with some insisting on traditional definitions while others propose alternative interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various definitions and conventions in physics, but there are unresolved assumptions about the nature of direction and magnitude, as well as the implications of redefining terms.

omin
Messages
187
Reaction score
1
Many physics books imply that in classical physics speed has no direction component. This is usually implied first by not describing speed having a direction component. Secondly, velocity is described by stating that speed is the maginitude of velocity, plus a direction component. I think this is misleading.

Speed is and has direction. Speed is magnitude in the x direction. Velocity is merely magnitude in the x, y, z direction.

What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Speed is a non-negative scalar.
 
omin said:
Speed is and has direction. Speed is magnitude in the x direction. Velocity is merely magnitude in the x, y, z direction.
Where did you get this idea? What if something was moving at 5 m/s in the y direction---by your idea it would have no speed?

By definition speed differs from velocity. Speed is "how fast"; velocity is "how fast and in what direction".
 
No, velocity is a vector be definition. Its magnitude is sqrt ( x^2 +y ^2 +z^2). Its velocity has components in the x,y,z direction, not magnitudes. Speed is by definition, sqrt ( x^2 +y ^2 +z^2), or, the magnitude of the velocity.

Speed is not in the x direction. Speed is a combination of the direction of the three coordinates, x,y, and z. The only time speed is in the x direction is if that's the only direction of movement.
 
By convention and definition, velocity is the vectory quantity (which obviously gives direction) and speed is a scalar quantity (the magnitude of the velocity vector).

You are certainly free to come up with your own definitions. Just expect much confusion when it comes time to discussing things with other physicists. It will also likely get you very quickly dismissed by those scientists as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
 
Doc Al said:
Where did you get this idea? What if something was moving at 5 m/s in the y direction---by your idea it would have no speed?



If you say in the y direction only, then it only moves in the y direction. That would be perfect vertical on the coordinate plane. Zero in the x direction and zero in the z direction. But of course, it would need to be exaxty over your head, because anyone stand around you would have relative x and z coordinates forced upon them.

Doc Al said:
By definition speed differs from velocity. Speed is "how fast"; velocity is "how fast and in what direction".

A magnitude needs a line. A line suggests direction in one dimension. The direction is along itself. One point, indefinite is zero dimension. Any point along the line is zero dimension. Because a point is indefinent, it cannot have direction. But, the line that is between two points is one dimension. Once the line comes to be, direction then manifests and I think is the line.

When a tourist asks me about a place nearby that I can point to with my hand, I point in a linear direction. Directions couldn't be understood with a single dimensionless point, but a line between points. From my extended arm and point of tip of finger to the object the tourists seeks, I manifest the line. I gave the tourist direction(s). I gave them a line.
 
A magnitude does not need a line. For example,,temperature can increase and decrease in magnitude but has no defined direction ,, it is a chacteristic at a given point.

When you are traveling in a circle at a constant speed, there is no "line" involved as your direction is constantly changing (meaning your velocity is changing) but there is no change in the magnitude(speed) you are traveling. Does that make it any more clear?
Speed is one component of velocity,,direction is the other component. Any change in either component is represented as acceleration.
 
omin said:
A magnitude needs a line. A line suggests direction in one dimension. The direction is along itself. One point, indefinite is zero dimension. Any point along the line is zero dimension. Because a point is indefinent, it cannot have direction. But, the line that is between two points is one dimension. Once the line comes to be, direction then manifests and I think is the line.
Sorry. I can't make any sense of that, or see the relevance to the distinction between speed and velocity.

Are you able to see the difference between these two statements?
(a) "The car is moving at 50 miles/hour"
(b) "The car is moving at 50 miles/hour east"
The first illustrates speed; the second, velocity.

When a tourist asks me about a place nearby that I can point to with my hand, I point in a linear direction. Directions couldn't be understood with a single dimensionless point, but a line between points. From my extended arm and point of tip of finger to the object the tourists seeks, I manifest the line. I gave the tourist direction(s). I gave them a line.
When giving directions to that tourist you are indicating a displacement, which is a vector quantity just like velocity. If, on the other hand, you just said "it's 1 mile away" you'd be giving the distance, a scalar quantity just like speed. Both displacement and distance are useful, but distinct, concepts.
 
OddThoughts said:
A magnitude does not need a line. For example,,temperature can increase and decrease in magnitude but has no defined direction ,, it is a chacteristic at a given point.

When you are traveling in a circle at a constant speed, there is no "line" involved as your direction is constantly changing (meaning your velocity is changing) but there is no change in the magnitude(speed) you are traveling. Does that make it any more clear?
Speed is one component of velocity,,direction is the other component. Any change in either component is represented as acceleration.

Temperature is commonly physically indicated by expansion or contraction of a substance in a cylindrical container. The cyclinder represent the an axis in which the magnitude moves along (one dimension). If the container where planer, then it would be a two dimensional magnitude. If the container were a sphere, such as a balloon, the magnitude would be in three dimensions.

You don't have a change in speed or direction. A change of direction is always a change in magnitude or a change in magnitude is always a change in direction. Direction is magnitude along one of the xyz axis', otherwise you couldn't say xy or z direction.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
omin said:
Temperature is commonly physically indicated by expansion or contraction of a substance in a cylindrical container. The cyclinder represent the an axis in which the magnitude moves along (one dimension). If the container where planer, then it would be a two dimensional magnitude. If the container were a sphere, such as a balloon, the magnitude would be in three dimensions.

You don't have a change in speed or direction. A change of direction is always a change in magnitude or a change in magnitude is always a change in direction. Direction is magnitude along one of the xyz axis', otherwise you couldn't say xy or z direction.

I think you have a very strange way of understanding what a "vector" is and what a "scalar" is. It appears that you a confusing the GRAPHICAL way to represent a vector (line length to represent the magnitude and it's orientation as a direction) with being an actual representation itself. You will have loads of problems, especially if you are going to be enrolling in more physics classes, if you continue to think this way.

Is there a reason why you are redefining "speed"? I mean, if I make up a word and define it in a certain way, what makes you think you can adapt my word and redefine it anyway you like? Everyone who has responded to your claim has disputed your understanding of what "speed" is. It is DEFINED as the scalar of the velocity. Period! You and I are not free to negotiate its definition and make up our own. It is how we communicate with each other by understanding and agreeting to the "pre-ordained" definitions of a set of words and phrases.

If you wish to adopt your definition, give it a different name. It certainly cannot use the word "speed", since that has a clear definition already (which everyone in this thread has adopted except you).

Zz.
 
  • #11
This is nonsense.
 

Similar threads

High School Thoughts about Galilean transformations
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad About centripetal acceleration
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad Acceleration in Newton's second law
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Has anyone measured the speed of light in one direction?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
Graduate Stressing Over Stress Tensor Symmetry in Navier-Stokes
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Viscosity Term in Navier-Stokes Equation
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Graduate Calc-based conceptual problem with centripetal motion
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Does a certainty in the position imply infinite variation in speed?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Simple lateral vehicle dynamics model
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Graduate Bernoulli, lift and cause & effect
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K