Positive Acceleration: Is Slowing Down in Negative Direction Considered?

AI Thread Summary
Positive acceleration refers to an increase in velocity, but it can occur even when an object is moving in the negative direction. When an object slows down while moving negatively, the calculated acceleration can still be positive, indicating a change in speed rather than direction. The relationship between acceleration and velocity depends on their directional alignment: if they are in the same direction, speed increases; if opposite, speed decreases. It is essential to consider acceleration and velocity as vectors, focusing on their directions rather than solely on positive or negative values. Understanding these concepts clarifies that positive acceleration does not always equate to speeding up in a conventional sense.
cvc121
Messages
61
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I was always told that positive acceleration means that an object is always speeding up. However, I am starting to question this. I know that if an object is speeding up in the positive direction, the acceleration is positive. However, if an object is slowing down in the negative direction, the calculated acceleration will be positive, even though the object is slowing down. If an object is slowing down in the negative direction, is this considered positive acceleration.?

For example, in the graph below (please ignore the area calculations), the object experiences positive acceleration during 0-2s and 10-12s. Is the object also experiencing positive acceleration during 8-10s?

Thanks! All help is very much appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • 20151014_183346[1].jpg
    20151014_183346[1].jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 529
Physics news on Phys.org
cvc121 said:
For example, in the graph below (please ignore the area calculations), the object experiences positive acceleration during 0-2s and 10-12s. Is the object also experiencing positive acceleration during 8-10s?
Sure. You can easily determine the sign of the acceleration by looking at the slope of the velocity-time graph. After all, acceleration = Δv/Δt.
 
Consider the point t=10s. The acceleration is positive (Positive slope) however just before t=10 the velocity is negative and slows to zero at t=10. After t=10 the velocity is positive and increasing. So the speed can be either Increasing, decreasing or zero when you have positive acceleration.
 
We should not get fixated on the signs, which depend on the choice of coordinate system The correct statements, independent of how you draw your coordinate system, are: (1) If the velocity and acceleration are in the same direction, the speed increases. (2) If they are in opposite directions, the speed decreases. (3) If the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity, the velocity changes direction without change in speed.
 
  • Like
Likes CWatters
You can consider that usually the positive direction is chosen as the direction of the motion (or direction of velocity). If this is the case, a positive acceleration will correspond to speeding up and negative acceleration to slowing down. Some intro textbooks may keep this convention and so they will tell this "rule".
But it is not a general statement, as you were already told.
 
The main thing to understand is that acceleration and velocity are vectors, which means they have a magnitude and a direction, so for both quantities it is better to look at the direction in 3-space rather than positive or negative, which assumes a one dimensional situation.
 
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...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top