Is velocity the derivative of distance?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter clm222
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Velocity is definitively the derivative of distance in a one-dimensional context, as established by the equation dD/dt = v. The discussion highlights the relationship between distance, velocity, and acceleration, specifically through the equations D = vt + D_i and t = √(D/4.9), where 4.9 represents half of Earth's gravitational acceleration (g = 9.8 m/s²). The conversation also touches on modern physics teaching methods that emphasize the time derivative of momentum (F = dp/dt) over traditional kinematic equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically derivatives and integrals
  • Familiarity with classical mechanics concepts, including distance, velocity, and acceleration
  • Knowledge of gravitational acceleration (g = 9.8 m/s²)
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relationship between derivatives and integrals in calculus
  • Explore classical mechanics, focusing on Newton's laws of motion
  • Learn about momentum and its conservation principles in physics
  • Investigate modern teaching methods in introductory physics courses
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators in mathematics and science, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of motion and calculus.

clm222
Hello. Apparently (according to one of my math textbooks) if you want to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a distance, given constant acceleration, the equation is thus:
[tex]t=\sqrt{\frac{D}{4.9}}[/tex]
Where: t=time D=distance
I recongnized "4.9" has half of Earth's Gravitational Field Strength, "9.8". Giving us the formula:
[tex]t=\sqrt{\frac{D}{(\frac{g}{2})}}[/tex]
Since "g" can be treated as acceleration, we get:
[tex]t=\sqrt{\frac{D}{(\frac{a}{2})}}[/tex]

I asked a teacher of mine who has a general interest in science, he said this was true, but after that, he didnt know.

My question is whether or not velocity can be thought of as the deriviative of distance (in a one dimensional context). The reason why I'm asking this is because the above equation rearranges into this: [itex]D=\frac{g{t^2}}{2}[/itex]

This looks awefully like a second antiderviative of acceleration in respect to time. I thought about it and considerd the fact that the first antiderivative of acceleration is velocity. That got me thinking, why would you integrate velcoty? Well a basic algebriac equation says that the product of velocity and time gives you distance traveled, assuming velocity is constant. Given constant velocity, the antiderivative of velocity is velocity by time. Since velocity is not constant, we must find the velocity by anti-differentiating the acceleration, then anti-differentiate that, giving us the equation above.

I thought about my idea and figured that if velocity is positive, distance would increase, if velocity was negative, the distance would decrease. If the velocity was negative you would be moving back towards the place you started. If it was positive, you would be moving away, thus increasing distance. If the distance was negative, you would be behind the place you started.

I came up with this (which looks like the more well known D=vt) [itex]D(t)=vt+{D_i}[/itex]
(Di=initial distance)
I also tried integrating velcoity, which gave me a logical answer.

If I'm right:
[tex]\frac{dD}{dt}=v[/tex]

Is this correct? please correct any mistakes I may have made, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, this is the standard way of talking about the velocity of objects. Given [itex]D = D(t)[/itex], [itex]dD/dt[/itex] is the velocity, and [itex]d^2D/dt^2 = a[/itex], the acceleration.

It sounds like you have a good familiarity with calculus and are just discovering how this is related to classical physics. Consider this:

[tex]F = \frac{dp}{dt}[/tex]

Force is the time derivative of momentum. This is a modern expression of Newton's laws---or a general statement of conservation of momentum in the absence of forces.

I know nowadays some college intro physics courses are trying to teach mechanics using just that expression of Newton's laws, rather than the traditional approach of teaching [itex]d = d_0 + vt + \frac{1}{2} at^2[/itex] out of nothing and such.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K