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 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top