I Instantaneous velocity - displacement and distance

Click For Summary
Instantaneous velocity is defined as the first derivative of displacement with respect to time and can also be expressed as the first derivative of distance with respect to time. While both definitions yield the same result in one-dimensional motion, they do not generally equate in multidimensional scenarios. The discussion highlights the importance of context, particularly in one-dimensional cases where signed distance from the origin represents position. Clarifying these distinctions is crucial for understanding the nuances of motion in physics.
adjurovich
Messages
119
Reaction score
21
Instantaneous velocity is defined as the first derivative of displacement with respect to time:

##\vec{v} = \dfrac{d \vec{r}}{dt}##
However, instantaneous velocity is also defined as the first derivative of function of distance with respect to time:

##v = \dfrac{ds}{dt}##
Why do these two different quantities result in the same thing? We can certainly find the distance traveled between two points if we know the displacement function, why?​
 
Physics news on Phys.org
adjurovich said:
Instantaneous velocity is defined as the first derivative of displacement with respect to time:

##\vec{v} = \dfrac{d \vec{r}}{dt}##
However, instantaneous velocity is also defined as the first derivative of function of distance with respect to time:

##v = \dfrac{ds}{dt}##
Says who and where? Except as a special case in a one-dimensional setting?

adjurovich said:
Why do these two different quantities result in the same thing?​
They do not. Not generally.
 
Orodruin said:
Says who and where? Except as a special case in a one-dimensional setting?


They do not. Not generally.
How would you explain it in “special” one dimensional case?
 
The (signed) distance from the origin is the position in one dimension.
 
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...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K