B Why is displacement the integral of acceleration with respect to time? [corrected in thread]

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter spaceman0x2a
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The equation s = ut + 1/2(at^2) describes displacement under constant acceleration, where the first term represents the area of a rectangle (constant velocity) and the second term represents the area of a triangle (additional displacement due to acceleration). The confusion arose from mistaking the integral of acceleration for that of velocity. Understanding that the displacement is the area under the velocity-time graph clarifies the relationship. Ultimately, the equation combines the effects of constant velocity and additional displacement from acceleration. This illustrates the concept of motion under constant acceleration effectively.
spaceman0x2a
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Question about s = ut + 1/2(at^2)
Looking at s = ut + 1/2(at^2), the first part makes sense to me, but I am confused about the 1/2(at^2). I can see that this is the integral of acceleration with respect to time, but I don't understand why. Is this simply a coincidence? I know that this is considering a linearly rising acceleration, but it feels like it means something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And yes, I know this is similar to my previous post here.
 
spaceman0x2a said:
TL;DR Summary: Question about s = ut + 1/2(at^2)

Looking at s = ut + 1/2(at^2), the first part makes sense to me, but I am confused about the 1/2(at^2). I can see that this is the integral of acceleration with respect to time, but I don't understand why. Is this simply a coincidence? I know that this is considering a linearly rising acceleration, but it feels like it means something.
This is only for constant acceleration. The displacement is the (signed) area under a velocity-time graph. For constant acceleration, the graph has two geometric components:

1) The ##ut## represents the area of a rectangle, of height ##u## and length ##t##.

2) The ##\frac 1 2 at^2## represents the area of a triangle of length ##t## and height ##at##. The area of a triangle being ##\frac 1 2## times base time height.
 
PeroK said:
This is only for constant acceleration. The displacement is the (signed) area under a velocity-time graph. For constant acceleration, the graph has two geometric components:

1) The ##ut## represents the area of a rectangle, of height ##u## and length ##t##.

2) The ##\frac 1 2 at^2## represents the area of a triangle of length ##t## and height ##at##. The area of a triangle being ##\frac 1 2## times base time height.
Thanks.

I just went and looked at this further and realized the mistake I was making - I thought it was the integral of acceleration with respect to time, when it was actually velocity (##at##) with respect to time. I feel really stupid now, but I guess this is how you learn.
 
Vee vs tee.webp
A simple way to look at this is to consider the displacement as the "area under the velocity vs. time curve" which is really the integral. The velocity under constant acceleration is a straight line ##v=u+at##. The plot on the right shows this and the colored area under the curve.

You can see that the total area under the curve is the area of the blue rectangle plus the area of the red triangle. Then in words, the equation $$s=ut+\frac{1}{2}at^2$$ says that the displacement under constant acceleration in time ##t## is the sum of two displacements: (a) the displacement as if the object moved at constant velocity and (b) the additional displacement due to the constant acceleration.
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345 and TSny
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Back
Top