Instantaneous velocity doesn't actually exist?

In summary: Absolutely not. Average velocity is displacement/time; instantaneous velocity is rate of change of dispalcement with respect to time.also, since i am already making a post--is the difference between average speed and average velocity just that average speed is the absolute value of average velocity?thanks in advanceNo! Average speed is distance travelled/time; average velocity is displacement/time.In summary, instantaneous velocity is an approximation of average velocity.
  • #1
Jacobo
7
0
can anyone verify my thought process here?

so, instantaneous velocity is like average velocity in that it is a slope between two points on a graph of position as a function of time

but the two points in a problem with instantaneous velocity are made to be extremely close, almost the same point in fact (a derivative)

so in the end, our result for instantaneous velocity is really just an approximation (as are all derivatives)

is this right? it seems to have some philosophical implications that we don't get an exact identity...

also, since i am already making a post--is the difference between average speed and average velocity just that average speed is the absolute value of average velocity?

thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No instantaneous velocity does exist in the way in which you are referencing. The whole idea of calculus is the idea of convergence. As you shrink your interval to a smaller and smaller value it does converge, exactly, to a value -- that value, in this example, is the instantaneous velocity.
 
  • #3
Jacobo said:
can anyone verify my thought process here?

so, instantaneous velocity is like average velocity in that it is a slope between two points on a graph of position as a function of time
absolutely not. Average velocity is displacement/time; instantaneous velocity is rate of change of dispalcement with respect to time.
also, since i am already making a post--is the difference between average speed and average velocity just that average speed is the absolute value of average velocity?

thanks in advance
No! Average speed is distance travelled/time; average velocity is displacement/time. If you travel from A to B, a distance of 10 m, in 2 seconds, and then back again from B to A, in 2 seconds, your average speed is 20/4 = 5m/s. Your average velocity is 0 , since you haven't displaced from your original position.
 
  • #4
Feldoh said:
No instantaneous velocity does exist in the way in which you are referencing. The whole idea of calculus is the idea of convergence. As you shrink your interval to a smaller and smaller value it does converge, exactly, to a value -- that value, in this example, is the instantaneous velocity.

thanks for the reply--but doesn't a limit never actually get to the value (for example, in a limit where x-->a, x never actually equals a?) you can have a graph where the limit is x approaching 5, but for the value of 5 the function f(x) can be anything, like 113 (i think)
 
  • #5
PhanthomJay said:
absolutely not. Average velocity is displacement/time; instantaneous velocity is rate of change of dispalcement with respect to time.

ok, but isn't the way to calculate the rate of change of displacement with respect to time to use the derivative of the slope (dx/dt), conceptually minimizing the distance between the two points to almost zero?
 
  • #6
Yes, correct. I don't think you were totally wrong. You can liken average velocity and instantaneous velocity because they have the same definition, that is, the rate of change of displacement with respect to time. Only in the latter, the slope must be taken as an infinitesimal change in displacement divided by an infinitesimal change in time.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
novop said:
Yes, correct. I don't think you were totally wrong. You can liken average velocity and instantaneous velocity because they have the same definition, that is, the rate of change of displacement with respect to time.
That is incorrect. They do not have the same definition. Average velocity is final displacement/time. Instantaneous velocity is the rate of change of displacement with respect to time (ds/dt). Suppose a particle moves in a straight line easterly 10 meters at constant a speed of 5m/s. So it takes 2 seconds to travel the 10 m. Its instantaneous velocity at t=2 seconds is 5m/s east. It's average velocity over that time is also 5 m/s east. In this case, they are the same.

But suppose that particle is moving in a straight line easterly and accelerating at a constant rate of 1m/s^2 as it travels, starting from rest. Its instantaneous velocity after say 2 seconds is v=at = (1)(2) = 2m/s (exactly) east, and it will have traveled s =1/2at^2 = 2 m east in that time. (Note that ds/dt = at, it's instantaneous velocity). But its average velocity over that period is final displacement/time = 2/2 = 1 m/s east. They are not the same.
 
  • #8
Jacobo said:
but the two points in a problem with instantaneous velocity are made to be extremely close, almost the same point in fact (a derivative)

so in the end, our result for instantaneous velocity is really just an approximation (as are all derivatives)
You misunderstand: a derivative is an exact, single-point slope of a curve - in this case, an instantaneous velocity. That's one of the main points of a derivative. You can see that once you've calculated a derivative, you have a new equation in which you enter one "x" value.
thanks for the reply--but doesn't a limit never actually get to the value...
Yes, but a derivative doesn't have any limits in it!
 
  • #9
PhanthomJay said:
But suppose that particle is moving in a straight line easterly and accelerating at a constant rate of 1m/s^2 as it travels, starting from rest. Its instantaneous velocity after say 2 seconds is v=at = (1)(2) = 2m/s (exactly) east, and it will have traveled s =1/2at^2 = 2 m east in that time. (Note that ds/dt = at, it's instantaneous velocity). But its average velocity over that period is final displacement/time = 2/2 = 1 m/s east. They are not the same.

But if you were to find the slope of the displacement vs time curve at the point t=2 seconds and you took dx to be infinitely small, and also dt to be infinitely small, you would also get 2m/s. You can arrive at the correct answer for instantaneous velocity using the concept of a slope... so in that sense you can liken them. But they certainly don't have the same definition, I don't know why I said that.
 
  • #10
Jacobo said:
thanks for the reply--but doesn't a limit never actually get to the value (for example, in a limit where x-->a, x never actually equals a?) you can have a graph where the limit is x approaching 5, but for the value of 5 the function f(x) can be anything, like 113 (i think)

No. The result is exact. The simplest example I can think of is that .9+.09.+.009... is exactly equal to 1. This can be proven using mathematical induction.

Regarding the OP, I think you are confusing an integral with a derivative.
 
  • #11
ok, i think i have a new but related question about this topic--when you take the derivative (dx/dt) and you let t-->0, doesn't the change in distance also end up going to 0? i know I'm misunderstanding something but it just seems like shrinking a value to almost nothing--how does it help?
 
  • #12
oh, and rebound I'm not sure i understand why it's an exact value--isn't the idea to work with two points that are extremely close together so a curve looks like a line? but we're still working with slopes and spaces between two points, right? unless t actually = 0, which is not only undefined but also what I'm confused about in my above post...
 
  • #13
Jacobo said:
ok, i think i have a new but related question about this topic--when you take the derivative (dx/dt) and you let t-->0, doesn't the change in distance also end up going to 0? i know I'm misunderstanding something but it just seems like shrinking a value to almost nothing--how does it help?
Yes, the change in distance is negligible, but once you divide it by the negligible change in time, the result can be very big. For example 0.000000001 / 0.0000000008 is 1.25.
 
  • #14
Interesting thought but a little late. Zeno of Elea, born about 490 BC was the first to discuss this idea.

From Wikipedia:
In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in anyone instant of time, for the arrow to be moving it must either move to where it is, or it must move to where it is not. However, it cannot move to where it is not, because this is a single instant, and it cannot move to where it is because it is already there. In other words, in any instant of time there is no motion occurring, because an instant is a snapshot. Therefore, if it cannot move in a single instant it cannot move in any instant, making any motion impossible.
 
  • #15
ok, yes i see! but what is the resolution of Zeno's paradox? in one of Feynman's lectures (using the other example in which Achilles can run 10 times as fast as the tortoise but he can never catch the tortoise) he says "although there are an infinite number of steps (in the argument) to the point at which Achilles reaches the tortoise, it doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of time."

I sense that the answer is in there, I'm just not sure what it means...
 
  • #16
Jacobo said:
ok, yes i see! but what is the resolution of Zeno's paradox? in one of Feynman's lectures (using the other example in which Achilles can run 10 times as fast as the tortoise but he can never catch the tortoise) he says "although there are an infinite number of steps (in the argument) to the point at which Achilles reaches the tortoise, it doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of time."

I sense that the answer is in there, I'm just not sure what it means...

There is no paradox.
A "snapsot" removes a fundamental component of reality... time, from flowing.
As such, the total system is not perceived correctly. Thus invalid, and can portend rather bizarre conceptual results which do not fit reality at all.
 
  • #17
Zeno talked about several paradoxes. The arrow paradox in post #14 is distinct from the Achilles and tortoise paradox in post #15. The key thing to remember about any paradox (philosophical paradoxes in particular) is that if the paradox deduces that the impossibility of some event that obviously does occur, the problem lies in the thinking that led to the deduction rather than the obvious event.

The resolution to the arrow paradox, "In other words, in any instant of time there is no motion occurring, because an instant is a snapshot," is non sequitur, or in less polite terms, utter BS.

The resolution to the Achilles versus tortoise paradox is that Zeno did not comprehend that an infinite sum can converge to a finite value. That shouldn't be too surprising given that the necessary mathematics to understand that concept didn't exist in Zeno's time.
 
  • #18
Jacobo said:
oh, and rebound I'm not sure i understand why it's an exact value--isn't the idea to work with two points that are extremely close together so a curve looks like a line? but we're still working with slopes and spaces between two points, right? unless t actually = 0, which is not only undefined but also what I'm confused about in my above post...

russ_watters said:
You misunderstand: a derivative is an exact, single-point slope of a curve - in this case, an instantaneous velocity. That's one of the main points of a derivative. You can see that once you've calculated a derivative, you have a new equation in which you enter one "x" value. Yes, but a derivative doesn't have any limits in it!
I really can't answer your question any better than this without teaching you calculus from scratch.

[Edit] Sorry. Try this page though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus
 
Last edited:
  • #19
As I read somewhere, Zeno just missed discovering calculus. Instead of taking the lim ds/dt → 0, he went directly to dt = 0 and asked what is the difference between a moving arrow and a stationary arrow at one instant in time. That question wasn't answered until Einstein revealed that the moving arrow is slightly foreshortened.
 
  • #20
ok i think I'm with it, finally. infinite sum, finite value. thank you all for the insight
 
  • #21
Does quantum mechanics also explain Zeno's paradox, in that the smallest instant of time is actually a snapshot of the arrow in two incredibly slightly different places, and the next instant of time collapses the wave function into the new position?

I don't have that much knowledge of quantum physics though, so maybe my pop culture familiarity just sounds like it explains it.
 
  • #22
Zeno's paradox is not a paradox.
Removing critical aspects of the natural physics involved in thought experiments does not prove the thought experiment. The experiment, as such, becomes invalid.
Zeno removed/altered time considerations.
This does not happen in reality.
Zeno was wrong.
 
  • #23
You don't need either quantum mechanics or relativity to explain the snapshot paradox. It's just an invalid logical step. Just because no motion can occur in a single instant, it doesn't mean that no motion can occur at all.

Another way to look at it is to argue that a snapshot captures not only the position of each particle, but also its velocity at that moment. So even though no actual motion takes place within the snapshot, there is a value in the snapshot associated with each particle that specifies how fast and in which direction it was moving at the time. This approach is actually pretty common in modern physics (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, statistical mechanics, etc.); we say that the state of a system at a given time is specified by the positions and velocities (or equivalently positions and momenta) of all the particles in the system at that time. Or in quantum mechanics, we say that the state of the system is specified by a wavefunction, which encodes information about the positions and momenta of all particles.
 

1. What is instantaneous velocity?

Instantaneous velocity is defined as the velocity of an object at a specific moment in time. It is the rate of change of an object's position with respect to time at a given instant.

2. Why doesn't instantaneous velocity exist?

Instantaneous velocity is a concept used in physics, but it does not have a physical existence as it cannot be measured in real-time. Instead, it is an idealized concept that describes the behavior of objects at a specific moment in time.

3. Can we measure instantaneous velocity?

No, we cannot measure instantaneous velocity as it requires measuring an object's position and time at the same instant, which is not possible with current technology. We can only calculate average velocity over a specific time interval.

4. How is average velocity different from instantaneous velocity?

Average velocity is the total displacement of an object divided by the total time taken, while instantaneous velocity is the velocity at a specific moment in time. Average velocity is an approximation of instantaneous velocity over a specific time interval.

5. Why is instantaneous velocity important?

Instantaneous velocity is important in physics because it helps us understand the behavior of objects at a specific moment in time. It is also used in calculus to calculate other important physical quantities such as acceleration and force.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
778
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
940
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Mechanics
Replies
1
Views
553
Replies
21
Views
16K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
440
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
49
Views
3K
Back
Top