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
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
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...
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