- #1

- 22

- 2

And vectors can't have negative magnitudes, right?

Then why is leftward velocity considered

**negative**in 1D kinematics? It just seems off to me.

Same with acceleration, and pretty much _every vector in all of physics._

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter enter
- Start date

In summary, in 2D kinematics, velocities and other vectors can have negative values in terms of direction, even though their magnitudes are always positive. This is because in two dimensions, there are infinitely many direction vectors, and the decomposition of a vector into a direction and a magnitude is unique. The use of negative values in representing direction allows for a more accurate representation of the vector in a given coordinate system.

- #1

- 22

- 2

And vectors can't have negative magnitudes, right?

Then why is leftward velocity considered

Same with acceleration, and pretty much _every vector in all of physics._

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

- 11,218

- 12,688

Yes and yes.enter said:So, velocity is a vector, right?

And vectors can't have negative magnitudes, right?

The components of a vector can be negative. The magnitude is the (positive) square root of the sum of the squares of the components. Which means that the magnitude of your 1d vector, with its one component, is ##\sqrt{v_x^2}##, which is positive.enter said:Then why is leftward velocity considerednegativein 1D kinematics?

How would you represent velocities in the opposite direction if you didn't use signed numbers?enter said:It just seems off to me.

Same with acceleration, and pretty much _every vector in all of physics._

- #3

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 15,691

- 4,606

Yesenter said:So, velocity is a vector, right?

YesAnd vectors can't have negative magnitudes, right?

Because it is a (cartesian)Then why is leftward velocity considerednegativein 1D kinematics?

If you stand next to a canal with the canal on your right hand side and jump 1 m sideways you can either stay dry or get very wet. But -1 m to the right and you stay dry. There is a difference between 'how far you jump' (always non-negative) and 'how far you jump in a given direction'.It just seems off to me.

Yes. And very useful. If you take two jumps of 1 m each you can end up at the point you started. Apparently you can not simply add magnitudes, but you can add vectors.Same with acceleration, and pretty much _every vector in all of physics._

- #4

- 22

- 2

Ibix said:Yes and yes.

The components of a vector can be negative. The magnitude is the (positive) square root of the sum of the squares of the components. Which means that the magnitude of your 1d vector, with its one component, is ##\sqrt{v_x^2}##, which is positive.

How would you represent velocities in the opposite direction if you didn't use signed numbers?

So, in 2D kinematics, velocities must have two signs, one for each component. (Translation: I still don't understand.)BvU said:Yes

Yes

Because it is a (cartesian)componentof a vector, not a vector.

If you stand next to a canal with the canal on your right hand side and jump 1 m sideways you can either stay dry or get very wet. But -1 m to the right and you stay dry. There is a difference between 'how far you jump' (always non-negative) and 'how far you jump in a given direction'.

Yes. And very useful. If you take two jumps of 1 m each you can end up at the point you started. Apparently you can not simply add magnitudes, but you can add vectors.

- #5

Mentor

- 14,604

- 8,905

If I'm moving northwards, the NS component of my velocity is positive and the EW component is zero. If I'm moving westwards, the EW component is negative and the NS component is zero. If the NS component and the EW component are both positive, then I'm moving generally towards the northeast; but if the NS component is negative and the EW component is positive I'm moving generally towards the southeast.enter said:So, in 2D kinematics, velocities must have two signs, one for each component. (Translation: I still don't understand.)

- #6

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,228

- 6,921

The relevant concept is not "sign", it is "direction".enter said:So, in 2D kinematics, velocities must have two signs, one for each component. (Translation: I still don't understand.)

A "direction vector" (also known as "unit vector") is a vector whose magnitude is 1. Any vector can be expressed as the product of a direction vector and a non-negative scalar.

For any vector (other than the zero vector), the decomposition into a direction and a scalar magnitude is unique. There is only one direction associated with the vector.

In one dimension, there are two direction vectors: Expressed as 1-tuples, they are (1) and (-1). In this special case, the notions of "sign" and of "direction" coincide.

In two dimensions, there are infinitely many direction vectors. Graphically, they form a circle with radius 1 centered at the origin. Expressed as 2-tuples, they are (x,y) where ##\sqrt{x^2+y^2} = 1##

In three dimensions, there are infinitely many direction vectors. Graphically, they form a spherical shell with radius 1 centered at the origin. Expressed as 3-tuples, they are (x,y,z) where ##\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2} = 1##

- #7

- 22

- 2

Ohh, now it clicked! Thanks! I got confused by what Ibix said and understood it as sign and not direction.jbriggs444 said:The relevant concept is not "sign", it is "direction".

A "direction vector" (also known as "unit vector") is a vector whose magnitude is 1. Any vector can be expressed as the product of a direction vector and a non-negative scalar.

For any vector (other than the zero vector), the decomposition into a direction and a scalar magnitude is unique. There is only one direction associated with the vector.

In one dimension, there are two direction vectors: Expressed as 1-tuples, they are (1) and (-1). In this special case, the notions of "sign" and of "direction" coincide.

In two dimensions, there are infinitely many direction vectors. Graphically, they form a circle with radius 1 centered at the origin. Expressed as 2-tuples, they are (x,y) where ##\sqrt{x^2+y^2} = 1##

In three dimensions, there are infinitely many direction vectors. Graphically, they form a spherical shell with radius 1 centered at the origin. Expressed as 3-tuples, they are (x,y,z) where ##\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2} = 1##

By the way, when would we say that a velocity is negative in _2D space_?

- #8

- 23,034

- 5,556

- #9

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 10,548

- 2,320

enter said:So, in 2D kinematics, velocities must have two signs, one for each component. (Translation: I still don't understand.)

Yes (if you use x,y co-ordinates to specify the direction).

The direction component can be specified many different ways, for example a ships navigator might refer to a vector as "3 miles north west". Using that co-ordinate system the direction component doesn't have a sign.

In the 1D example you could use Left and Right to define the direction of your vectors and then they wouldn't have a sign either. Personally I think that would make the maths harder.

A sum like

3 + (-4) - (-7) = ?

becomes

3 Right + 4 Left - 7 Left = ?

- #10

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,228

- 6,921

I would never say that a velocity is negative in 2D space. I would only say that a velocity is negative if the 2D space were somehow reduced to a 1D space.enter said:By the way, when would we say that a velocity is negative in _2D space_?

A few examples:

If a fly is buzzing around a pasture, I would not refer to its velocity as either positive or negative.

If a car is driving down a road I could note the direction the car is pointing and use that to impute "forward" and "backward" directions, associate positive with forward and negative with backward and refer to its the velocity as positive or negative. In this case the 2D space has been reduced to a 1D space.

If the same car were sliding sideways on an icy lake, I would not refer to its velocity as either positive or negative.

- #11

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,228

- 6,921

Of course using coordinates means that one needs a coordinate system to nail down the sign conventions.CWatters said:Yes (if you use x,y co-ordinates to specify the direction).

The direction component can be specified many different ways, for example a ships navigator might refer to a vector as "3 miles north west". Using that co-ordinate system the direction component doesn't have a sign.

In one dimension there are only two possible sign conventions. In two dimensions, there are infinitely many "two sign" conventions. One for every choice of rotation angle for the coordinate system. [Times two if one is picky].

- #12

- 22

- 2

The reason that I asked this was that I got 4-5 wrong answers while practicing 1D kinematics, all of them about negative velocities. Should I worry about negativity in velocities while practicing/applying 2D/3D kinematics? From what I understood from your reply is that I shouldn'tjbriggs444 said:I would never say that a velocity is negative in 2D space. I would only say that a velocity is negative if the 2D space were somehow reduced to a 1D space.

A few examples:

If a fly is buzzing around a pasture, I would not refer to its velocity as either positive or negative.

If a car is driving down a road I could note the direction the car is pointing and use that to impute "forward" and "backward" directions, associate positive with forward and negative with backward and refer to its the velocity as positive or negative. In this case the 2D space has been reduced to a 1D space.

If the same car were sliding sideways on an icy lake, I would not refer to its velocity as either positive or negative.

P.S. Wow, this place is more active than I thought.

- #13

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,228

- 6,921

Personally, I got through introductory physics without worrying much about sign conventions and allowed intuition do its work. It always seemed clear in which direction various effects would act and I could adjust signs as needed to obtain the correct result.enter said:The reason that I asked this was that I got 4-5 wrong answers while practicing 1D kinematics, all of them about negative velocities. Should I worry about negativity in velocities while practicing/applying 2D/3D kinematics? From what I understood from your reply is that I shouldn't(except for reduction to 1D space), but I'm not sure so I wanted to clarify.

Being able to fall back on a formal methodology to get the signs right is useful. @Chestermiller can give you far better advice than I in that regard.

Last edited:

- #14

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 10,548

- 2,320

enter said:The reason that I asked this was that I got 4-5 wrong answers while practicing 1D kinematics, all of them about negative velocities. Should I worry about negativity in velocities while practicing/applying 2D/3D kinematics? From what I understood from your reply is that I shouldn't(except for reduction to 1D space), but I'm not sure so I wanted to clarify.

P.S. Wow, this place is more active than I thought.

Its usually important to keep track of signs because they tell you about the direction.

In projectile motion problems (throwing or dropping rocks or firing cannons) it's good practice to define what you mean by positive. For example suppose the problem involves throwing a rock upwards at 45 degrees from the top of a cliff. Your answer might start with...

"I define the origin to be the top of the cliff, and up and right to be positive"

Then later if the answer has a positive horizontal component of velocity you know the rock is still moving to the right. If the vertical component of velocity is negative then you know it has stopped going up and is on the way down.

In some cases you have to solve a quadratic equation and the answer may have two values. For example that rock will be 2 meters above the launch point twice, once on the way up and once on the way down. A bit later it will be at -2m. Normally it's obvious which is the right answer but sometimes byou need to look at the sign of the velocity to work out which is the right point.

- #15

Science Advisor

- 12,137

- 3,352

It's important to keep these two apart, because sometimes the sign convention is not based on a coordinate system, but a diagram, in which (eventually opposite arrows) indicate the positive direction for each vector individually.jbriggs444 said:The relevant concept is not "sign", it is "direction".

- #16

Homework Helper

- 2,440

- 64

I am not sure why you think leftward velocity is negative. The choice of right or left for positive is completely up to you. Indeed, if you were analysing a situation where all motion is directed to the left, I would certainly define left as positive - only to remove most of the negative values from my work.enter said:

And vectors can't have negative magnitudes, right?

Then why is leftward velocity considerednegativein 1D kinematics? It just seems off to me.

Same with acceleration, and pretty much _every vector in all of physics._

It is the same with vertical motion. When analysing a case when a ball is thrown vertically up, and it eventually comes back down again, most people will define UP as positive and down as negative. When analysing a case where a rock is dropped from a bridge and falls into a river, we generally define DOWN as positive.

- #17

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 15,691

- 4,606

You should, yes.enter said:The reason that I asked this was that I got 4-5 wrong answers while practicing 1D kinematics, all of them about negative velocities.Should I worryabout negativity in velocities while practicing/applying 2D/3D kinematics? From what I understood from your reply is that I shouldn't(except for reduction to 1D space), but I'm not sure so I wanted to clarify.

Take the simple example F = mg that probably appears in these 4-5 'learning experiences'. In fact it should read $$ \vec F = m\vec g $$ and if you interpret that as ##F = mg\ \ ## which is a common notation for $$ |\vec F| = m | \vec g |\ , $$ you have basically thrown away the direction information with a 50% chance of error in 1D.

In a way, throwing away all direction info costs 50% in 1D, 75% in 2D and 87.5% in 3D .

As Peter says, you can make any choice, but once it's made you have to be consistent.

In many 1D exercises you naturally () assume up is positive. In such a case F = mg is true (it always is), but the interpretation ##\vec F_y = mg## is an error: ##\vec F_y## points upwards (which was chosen as positive 'direcetion) and ##\vec g_y## is

- #18

- 24,167

- 14,663

$$m \ddot{\vec{r}}=m \vec{g},$$

where ##\vec{g}=\text{const}## (in a good lecture the professor also discusses the range of applicability of this approximation to the full (Newton) gravitational force).

It's not more difficult to write an arrow over the symbols and make it correct than to sloppyly leave out the arrow, i.e., you can as simply solve the EoM. by integrating twice the vector equation wrt. time as you do it for the single-component equation and, additionally you have in one step all the cases:

$$\vec{r}(t)=\frac{1}{2} \vec{g} t^2 + \vec{v}_0 t + \vec{r}_0.$$

Share:

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 160

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 506

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 718

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 293

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 634

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 686

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 602

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 10K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 581

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 319