Is Zero Acceleration Indicative of Zero Speed?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between speed and acceleration in physics, specifically addressing the misconception that zero acceleration implies zero speed. The user initially confuses the integration of angular motion equations, leading to the erroneous conclusion that constant speed must be zero when acceleration is zero. The correct interpretation is that zero acceleration indicates constant speed, which can be non-zero. The equations for rectilinear motion are clarified, emphasizing the importance of understanding derivatives and integrals in calculating velocity and position from acceleration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic calculus, specifically derivatives and integrals.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of speed, velocity, and acceleration in physics.
  • Knowledge of angular motion versus rectilinear motion.
  • Ability to interpret and manipulate equations of motion.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relationship between derivatives and integrals in motion equations.
  • Learn about rectilinear motion equations and their applications in physics.
  • Explore the concept of constants of integration in motion problems.
  • Review angular motion equations and their differences from rectilinear motion.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching motion concepts, and anyone seeking to clarify the relationship between speed and acceleration in both angular and rectilinear contexts.

robothito
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hello this is my first post here.

I have studied quite maths and physics when I was young and I was quite good about it but now I am stucked by a very very basic question so much that I feel like a fool and I am even ashamed to be asking it here but I would very much appreciate if someone help me

My problem is with speed and acceleration. I am reading now a paper on this and I am trying to understand what it says

Homework Equations



ω(t)=∫ω.τ= ω.t

The Attempt at a Solution


Now I know (or at least remember) that Δω/Δt=ω. right? Acceleration is the change of speed. So far so good. If my acceleration is 0 then the change of speed is 0 too, (meaning the speed is constant) ,. Makes sense.
If I apply integration to Δω and Δt then I suppose I get something like the equation above...

but that blew me up... in the equation above, if ω. is 0 (accel is 0) then ω(t)=0 right? that doesn't make sense! because speed is not 0!

What in my line of reasoning is a mistake?

I know it must be the most foolish question but Please help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
robothito said:

Homework Statement


Hello this is my first post here.

I have studied quite maths and physics when I was young and I was quite good about it but now I am stucked by a very very basic question so much that I feel like a fool and I am even ashamed to be asking it here but I would very much appreciate if someone help me

My problem is with speed and acceleration. I am reading now a paper on this and I am trying to understand what it says

Homework Equations



ω(t)=∫ω.τ= ω.t

The Attempt at a Solution


Now I know (or at least remember) that Δω/Δt=ω. right? Acceleration is the change of speed. So far so good. If my acceleration is 0 then the change of speed is 0 too, (meaning the speed is constant) ,. Makes sense.
If I apply integration to Δω and Δt then I suppose I get something like the equation above...

but that blew me up... in the equation above, if ω. is 0 (accel is 0) then ω(t)=0 right? that doesn't make sense! because speed is not 0!

What in my line of reasoning is a mistake?

I know it must be the most foolish question but Please help

I don't know where you found the equation in section 2, but it's meaningless. It's not in the proper form for an integral anyway.

In most physics work, angular motion and rectilinear motion are analyzed separately, even though the basic equations for each type of motion are similar in structure.

For rectilinear motion, which is motion in a straight line, we are dealing with the position of a body, call this s(t); its velocity, v(t); and its acceleration, a(t). All of these properties of the body, namely position, velocity, and acceleration, are functions of time, which is why the '(t)' is used.

Now, the velocity of a body is the change of its position with respect to time, just like the acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time.

We indicate these changes by using derivatives like so:

##v(t)=\frac{d\,s(t)}{dt}## and ##a(t) = \frac{d\,v(t)}{dt}##

If we know the position of a body as a function of time, we can calculate its velocity and acceleration using the equations above. Further, if the velocity is constant, this implies that the acceleration is zero, since a constant velocity does not change with respect to time. Ditto for the position of a body. If position does not change, then velocity is zero since there is no movement.

But what if we know only the acceleration of the body and we want to calculate its velocity and find its position? Then, we work backwards, like so:

##v(t) = \int a(t) \,dt + C_1## and

##s(t) = \int v(t) \,dt + C_1 ⋅ t + C_2##

The constants of integration, C1 and C2, can be worked out if we know some extra details about the initial motion of the body, namely its initial velocity and initial position.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K