Solving kinematic formula for t

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 731016
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Kinematic
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the kinematic equation ##d = v_it + 0.5at^2## for the variable t, specifically exploring whether it can be done without resorting to the quadratic formula. Participants are examining various methods and implications of solving quadratic equations in the context of kinematics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the possibility of solving the equation without the quadratic formula, with some suggesting completing the square as an alternative method. Questions arise about the equivalence of these methods and the reasoning behind avoiding the quadratic formula.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with multiple viewpoints being explored. Some participants provide insights into the relationship between completing the square and the quadratic formula, while others question the necessity of avoiding the formula altogether. Guidance on the implications of different methods has been shared, but no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on understanding the underlying principles of kinematic equations and the mathematical techniques involved. Participants are also considering the physical interpretations of the results, particularly in relation to projectile motion.

member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For ## d = v_it + 0.5at^2##, can we solve for t without using the quadratic formula?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can solve a quadratic equation by completing the square.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR and member 731016
PeroK said:
You can solve a quadratic equation by completing the square.
Oh true, thank you @PeroK !
 
PeroK said:
You can solve a quadratic equation by completing the square.
Which is equivalent to using the formula, no?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
haruspex said:
Which is equivalent to using the formula, no?
No. If you forget the formula you can still complete the square. Or, vice versa!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
haruspex said:
Which is equivalent to using the formula, no?
The formula is derived by completing the square for the general case of a 2nd degree polynomial. Regardless, completing the square is a technique that is good to know as you will sometimes have to rewrite expressions "in-place", i.e. by subtracting "zero" and what not rather than moving terms from LHS->RHS.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and PeroK
Callumnc1 said:
Homework Statement:: Please see below
Relevant Equations:: Please see below

For ## d = v_it + 0.5at^2##, can we solve for t without using the quadratic formula?

Many thanks!
$${v_f}^2={v_i}^2+2ad$$
$$t=\frac{v_f-v_i}{a}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and MatinSAR
neilparker62 said:
$${v_f}^2={v_i}^2+2ad$$
$$t=\frac{v_f-v_i}{a}$$
Again, not really any different from using the formula.
@Callumnc1 , why do you wish to avoid using the formula?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and MatinSAR
Callumnc1 said:
Homework Statement:: Please see below
Relevant Equations:: Please see below

For ## d = v_it + 0.5at^2##, can we solve for t without using the quadratic formula?

Many thanks!

So, you are asking if you can solve a quadratic equation without using the quadratic formula? Or it is something else?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #10
haruspex said:
Again, not really any different from using the formula.
@Callumnc1 , why do you wish to avoid using the formula?
I think it should have same result but the suggested method helps us find roots withhout knowing how to solve a quadratic equation. He finds them using constant acceleration equations ...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and SammyS
  • #11
haruspex said:
Which is equivalent to using the formula, no?
Thank you for your reply @haruspex !
 
  • #12
PeroK said:
No. If you forget the formula you can still complete the square. Or, vice versa!
Thank you for your reply @PeroK!
 
  • #13
Mayhem said:
The formula is derived by completing the square for the general case of a 2nd degree polynomial. Regardless, completing the square is a technique that is good to know as you will sometimes have to rewrite expressions "in-place", i.e. by subtracting "zero" and what not rather than moving terms from LHS->RHS.
Thank you for your reply @Mayhem!
 
  • #14
neilparker62 said:
$${v_f}^2={v_i}^2+2ad$$
$$t=\frac{v_f-v_i}{a}$$
Thank you for your reply @neilparker62 !
 
  • #15
haruspex said:
Again, not really any different from using the formula.
@Callumnc1 , why do you wish to avoid using the formula?
Thank you for your reply @haruspex !

I was just curious :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR
  • #16
nasu said:
So, you are asking if you can solve a quadratic equation without using the quadratic formula? Or it is something else?
Thank you for your reply @nasu! Yeah, I guess you think what I'm asking like that!
 
  • #17
MatinSAR said:
I think it should have same result but the suggested method helps us find roots withhout knowing how to solve a quadratic equation. He finds them using constant acceleration equations ...
Thank you for your reply @MatinSAR!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR
  • #18
Completing the square:

$$d=v_it+½ at^2$$ $$\frac{a}{2} \left(t^2 + \frac{2v_it}{a}-\frac{2d}{a}\right) = 0 $$ $$\frac{a}{2} \left[ \left(t+\frac{v_i}{a}\right)^2-\frac{2ad}{a^2} - \left(\frac{v_i}{a}\right)^2\right] = 0 $$ $$t=\frac{\sqrt{{v_i}^2+2ad} - v_i}{a}=\frac{v_f-v_i}{a}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016, PeroK and MatinSAR
  • #19
neilparker62 said:
Completing the square:

$$d=v_it+½ at^2$$ $$\frac{a}{2} \left(t^2 + \frac{2v_it}{a}-\frac{2d}{a}\right) = 0 $$ $$\frac{a}{2} \left[ \left(t+\frac{v_i}{a}\right)^2-\frac{2ad}{a^2} - \left(\frac{v_i}{a}\right)^2\right] = 0 $$ $$t=\frac{\sqrt{{v_i}^2+2ad} - v_i}{a}=\frac{v_f-v_i}{a}$$

Using constant acceleration equations you have mentioned in post #7 we can find both roots without formula:
##d=v_it+\frac 1 2 at^2## ##\rightarrow## ##v_f=v_i+at## ##\rightarrow## ##t=\frac {v_f-v_i}{a}##
##v_f=±\sqrt {v_i^2+2ad}##

##t=\frac {±\sqrt {v_i^2+2ad}-v_i}{a}##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: neilparker62, member 731016 and PeroK
  • #20
neilparker62 said:
Completing the square:

$$d=v_it+½ at^2$$ $$\frac{a}{2} \left(t^2 + \frac{2v_it}{a}-\frac{2d}{a}\right) = 0 $$ $$\frac{a}{2} \left[ \left(t+\frac{v_i}{a}\right)^2-\frac{2ad}{a^2} - \left(\frac{v_i}{a}\right)^2\right] = 0 $$ $$t=\frac{\sqrt{{v_i}^2+2ad} - v_i}{a}=\frac{v_f-v_i}{a}$$
Thank you @neilparker62 for showing me the completing square method! I was thinking how I would do that!
 
  • #21
MatinSAR said:
Using constant acceleration equations you have mentioned in post #7 we can find both roots without formula:
##d=v_it+\frac 1 2 at^2## ##\rightarrow## ##v_f=v_i+at## ##\rightarrow## ##t=\frac {v_f-v_i}{a}##
##v_f=±\sqrt {v_i^2+2ad}##

##t=\frac {±\sqrt {v_i^2+2ad}-v_i}{a}##
Thank you @MatinSAR for showing me your method!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR
  • #22
MatinSAR said:
Using constant acceleration equations you have mentioned in post #7 we can find both roots without formula:
##d=v_it+\frac 1 2 at^2## ##\rightarrow## ##v_f=v_i+at## ##\rightarrow## ##t=\frac {v_f-v_i}{a}##
##v_f=±\sqrt {v_i^2+2ad}##

##t=\frac {±\sqrt {v_i^2+2ad}-v_i}{a}##
Yes - I should have included the ##\pm##. Then you might call it the kinematics version of the quadratic formula! Good idea to reflect upon when you would use "+" and when "-" in the formula. Also consider the physical meaning of the quadratic's axis of symmetry and its maximum value in the context of projectile motion: $$h(t) = v_it - ½gt^2=\frac{-g}{2} \left[ \left(t-\frac{v_i}{g}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{v_i}{-g}\right)^2\right].$$ Assume up is the positive direction and g is the standard acceleration of gravity: $$g = 9.806 65 ms^{-2} \approx 9.8 ms^{-2}$$.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and MatinSAR
  • #23
neilparker62 said:
Yes - I should have included the ##\pm##. Then you might call it the kinematics version of the quadratic formula! Good idea to reflect upon when you would use "+" and when "-" in the formula. Also consider the physical meaning of the quadratic's axis of symmetry and its maximum value in the context of projectile motion: $$h(t) = v_it - ½gt^2=\frac{-g}{2} \left[ \left(t-\frac{v_i}{g}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{v_i}{-g}\right)^2\right].$$ Assume up is the positive direction and g is the standard acceleration of gravity: $$g = 9.806 65 ms^{-2} \approx 9.8 ms^{-2}$$.
Thank you for your reply @neilparker62 !

Sorry, could please explain how you got from ##h(t) = v_it - ½gt^2## to ##h(t) = \frac{-g}{2} \left[ \left(t-\frac{v_i}{g}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{v_i}{-g}\right)^2\right]##?

Many thanks!
 
  • #24
Largely the same process as in post #18. I just wrote d as "h(t)" and did not move it onto the right hand side. Otherwise followed standard procedure for completing the square (remove coefficient of t^2 and add/subtract "half the coefficient of t" ^2.)

In Latex, I simply copied the line from post #18 and edited it to remove the term with d in it and replace "a" with "-g" everywhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #25
neilparker62 said:
Largely the same process as in post #18. I just wrote d as "h(t)" and did not move it onto the right hand side. Otherwise followed standard procedure for completing the square (remove co-efficient of t^2 and add/subtract "half the coefficient of t" ^2.)

In Latex, I simply copied the line from post #18 and edited it to remove the term with d in it and replace "a" with "-g" everywhere.
Ok thank you very much for your help @neilparker62 !
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K