Does Reversing Time Affect Acceleration and Velocity in Classical Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter universal2013
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration Time
AI Thread Summary
Reversing time in classical physics affects velocity but not acceleration. Velocity, being first order in time, becomes negative when time is reversed, indicating a change in direction. In contrast, acceleration, which is second order in time, remains unchanged under time reversal. This means that while the laws of physics, particularly those describing forces, are invariant, the initial conditions such as velocity can differ. Understanding this distinction clarifies how motion is perceived when considering time's directionality.
universal2013
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello there, i have a question that confuses me a lot. Is there a difference between the way that we think about time in many classical physics concepts as if it goes to a negative number. For example, we have dv/dt and we can be sure if velocity increases with respect to time and respect to our inertial frame that the acceleration is non zero (positive or negative). If i plug -dt and i don't know if there is a such thing, velocity becomes negative and i can image the motion like a trajectory starts to reverse its motion. But in the dx^2/d^2t the acc doesn't change its sign. What does it mean? Could we think that if time goes to positive or negative, shouldn't it be the same ? Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
universal2013 said:
But in the dx^2/d^2t the acc doesn't change its sign. What does it mean? Could we think that if time goes to positive or negative, shouldn't it be the same ?
This is the correct one. Acceleration is second order in time: ##a=\frac{d^2}{dt^2}x##. So acceleration is unchanged under time reversal. And therefore force is also unchanged.

In contrast velocity is first order in time: ##v=\frac{d}{dt}x##. So velocity is reversed under time reversal.

That means that the laws of physics* (which describe the forces) are the same under time reversal, and what changes are some of the initial conditions.

*Excluding thermodynamics
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes universal2013
Imagine a particle moving towards the right and slowing down. Suppose you have a strobe light flashing at regular intervals of time. Each time the strobe light flashes it reveals the location of the particle. The dots in the following drawing show those locations:

upload_2018-10-15_11-16-15.png


Let's say the velocity is positive, which would make the acceleration negative. If you reverse time you see that the particle would move to the left, speeding up. Now the velocity is negative but the acceleration is also negative! Note that in both cases the acceleration is directed to the left, and so is the net force.

As @Dale says, the acceleration and the force are unchanged under time reversal.

Also, note that when you make ##dt## negative you are not necessarily making ##t## negative. That is, having time go backwards is not the same thing as time being negative.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-15_11-16-15.png
    upload_2018-10-15_11-16-15.png
    177 bytes · Views: 372
  • Like
Likes Dale and universal2013
Thanks for the answers!
 
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