Distance-Time Graphs: Negative Gradient Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter KellyOsbourne
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graphs
AI Thread Summary
Distance-time graphs cannot have a negative gradient because distance is a scalar quantity, meaning speed is always non-negative. In contrast, position-time graphs can show a negative gradient, which indicates negative velocity as they represent displacement, a vector quantity. The confusion arises from misinterpreting distance-time graphs as position-time graphs, where the latter can depict movement back towards the starting point. The graph referenced in the discussion was deemed incorrect for suggesting negative speed. Understanding the distinction between distance and displacement is crucial for interpreting these graphs accurately.
KellyOsbourne
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I was told by my teacher that the definition for distance is just "the amount of ground covered", and that displacement is "the distance in a particular direction". I was looking at some distance-time graphs online and I saw that towards the later stage of the journey in some of the graphs, the gradient of the distance-time graph was negative. Their explanation for the negative gradient was that the object was moving towards the starting position. I do not understand that. Even if the object is moving towards the starting position, it is still covering "ground" and it would go up, right? And the gradient of a distance-time graph is the speed, and I didn't think there was anything called negative speed. I know about negative velocity, but negative speed? Please clear this for me! I want to know how the gradient of a distance-time graph can be negative, when distance is just the "ground" covered.

This could be a very stupid question :$ But I am sometimes very blind to the obvious. Please help! :)

Thank you a lot in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KellyOsbourne said:
I was told by my teacher that the definition for distance is just "the amount of ground covered", and that displacement is "the distance in a particular direction". I was looking at some distance-time graphs online and I saw that towards the later stage of the journey in some of the graphs, the gradient of the distance-time graph was negative. Their explanation for the negative gradient was that the object was moving towards the starting position. I do not understand that. Even if the object is moving towards the starting position, it is still covering "ground" and it would go up, right? And the gradient of a distance-time graph is the speed, and I didn't think there was anything called negative speed. I know about negative velocity, but negative speed? Please clear this for me! I want to know how the gradient of a distance-time graph can be negative, when distance is just the "ground" covered.

This could be a very stupid question :$ But I am sometimes very blind to the obvious. Please help! :)

Thank you a lot in advance!
Welcome to Physics Forums.

I distance-time graph cannot have a negative gradient, since as you say distance (and hence speed) is a scalar quantity. However, a position/displacement time graph can have a negative gradient since position/displacement is a vector quantity.

On a distance-time graph the gradient represents the speed, which is always non-negative. However, on a position-time graph, the gradient represents the velocity, which can be negative.

Could you provide a link to the graphs with the negative gradient, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are position-time graphs.
 
Hootenanny said:
Welcome to Physics Forums.

I distance-time graph cannot have a negative gradient, since as you say distance (and hence speed) is a scalar quantity. However, a position/displacement time graph can have a negative gradient since position/displacement is a vector quantity.

On a distance-time graph the gradient represents the speed, which is always non-negative. However, on a position-time graph, the gradient represents the velocity, which can be negative.

Could you provide a link to the graphs with the negative gradient, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are position-time graphs.

Thank you so much! Yes, that's what I thought :)
Here is the link:
http://www.golfranger.co.uk/speed.html

Please tell me if I made a mistake in interpreting whether it was a distance-time graph or a displacement-time graph, and how I can distinguish between the two.
Again, thanks so much :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KellyOsbourne said:
Thank you so much! Yes, that's what I thought :)
Here is the link:
http://www.golfranger.co.uk/speed.html

Please tell me if I made a mistake in interpreting whether it was a distance-time graph or a displacement-time graph, and how I can distinguish between the two.
Again, thanks so much :)
The graph shown on that page is clearly incorrect. The negative gradient of the red curve indicates a negative speed, which is impossible.

Is your school hosting this website?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hootenanny said:
The graph shown on that page is clearly incorrect. The negative gradient of the red curve indicates a negative speed, which is impossible.

Is your school hosting this website?

Thank you, I thought I was going bonkers!
Umm, no, my school's not hosting it. I just ran across it when I was looking for information to prepare a poster for school.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top