Putting it all together (calc and physics)

  • Thread starter Thread starter LT72884
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between calculus and physics, particularly in understanding motion through kinematic equations. The user expresses confusion about how to connect the position function P(t) with the kinematic equation Vfx^2 = Vix^2 + 2a(delta x) used to find acceleration. It is clarified that this kinematic equation can be derived from calculus by integrating the acceleration function, which is the second derivative of position. The user seeks a deeper understanding of these relationships rather than just applying formulas. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of connecting calculus concepts to physical motion for better comprehension.
LT72884
Messages
335
Reaction score
49
Ello all. Ok so I am excited. i am taking my first ever physics class, calc based. SO I am trying to relate things from calc to physics because i am some what confused.

In calc we learned that if you have P(t)= t^2 + 5t +6

this is a position function. You plug in time (t) and it will give heght P(t) back. I also know if oyu take the deriv of said function and then plug in time (t), you get velocity. Take second deriv and plug in time (t) if applicable and you get acceleration in m/s^2

thats all fine and cool. but now I am given some wacked out equations

for example. i was sked to find acceleration of an ice skater after she hits a rough patch of ice. I got the answer right because it is just plug and chug, however, i don't like plug and chug. i want to know what's going on

the equation i used was

Vfx^2=Vix^2+2a(delta x)

my question is this. is the above equation a second deriv of some funky P(t) function? How is the above equation related to derivs? How did they come up with said equation. my book does not say, it just gives the equation.

im trying to relate the equation to calculs so i can understnad this better.

i do know that with position vs time graphs, where are looking at measurements of velocity, and with velocity vs time graphs, we are looking at measurments of acceleration.

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top