Why is the distance calculation multiplied by one half in this physics problem?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mapa
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies why the distance calculation in physics problems involving constant acceleration includes a factor of one half. This factor arises from the use of average velocity, calculated as the mean of initial and final velocities. Specifically, the formula for displacement is derived as x = x_0 + v_{av}t, where v_{av} = (v_0 + v)/2. This leads to the familiar equation x = x_0 + v_0t + (1/2)at^2, demonstrating that the one half is essential for accurately representing the area under the velocity-time graph, which forms a triangle in uniformly accelerated motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly kinematics.
  • Familiarity with the equations of motion for constant acceleration.
  • Basic knowledge of algebra and geometry, specifically area calculations.
  • Introduction to calculus for deeper insights into motion and acceleration.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the equations of motion for constant acceleration.
  • Learn about the relationship between velocity, acceleration, and displacement in physics.
  • Explore the concept of average velocity and its applications in kinematics.
  • Investigate the geometric interpretation of motion using velocity-time graphs.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching kinematics, and anyone interested in understanding the mathematical foundations of motion and acceleration in physics.

mapa
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
When I learn physics I like to visualize what is happening in my head.
I can understand why this problem is multiplied by t^2; from my rational
it is to get (m/s^2) just to meters. But why is this equation multiplied by
one half? I do not understand why this happens. Can someone please explain
the reasoning behind this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mapa said:
When I learn physics I like to visualize what is happening in my head.
I can understand why this problem is multiplied by t^2; from my rational
it is to get (m/s^2) just to meters. But why is this equation multiplied by
one half? I do not understand why this happens. Can someone please explain
the reasoning behind this?

There are a couple of reasons that could be given. One involves calculus. More simply though, you can just use algebra. You know that for constant acceleration in one dimension:

v = v_0 + at

v_{av} = \dfrac{v_0 + v}{2}

Now, if you have a body that accelerates but has a known average velocity, then its displacement is:

x = x_0 + v_{av}t

So, you can plug in the average velocity formula:

x = x_0 + \dfrac{v_0 + v}{2}t

But since we're considering constant acceleration, we can substitute the equation for v and get:

x = x_0 + \dfrac{v_0 + (v_0 + at)}{2}t

x = x_0 + \dfrac{2v_0 + at}{2}t

And finally, after distributing, we end up with the familiar position function formula:

x = x_0 + v_0t + \dfrac{1}{2}at^2

If you just set the initial position and velocity equal to zero, this reduces to the equation you cited. So you can see that the factor of 1/2 comes because we can conside the average velocity of a moving body by simply taking half the sum of its initial and present velocities.
 
Many first Physics courses do not show the math behind the formulas, you just have to take them as presented and learn to use them. When you get some more math under your belt, specifically calculus the equations you have memorized will be derived.

The answer to your question is calculus. Since clearly you are not there yet we cannot explain very well. At present your observation that it makes the units work is an excellent one. Keep seeing things like that and you do well.
 
Integral said:
The answer to your question is calculus. Since clearly you are not there yet we cannot explain very well.

Though there are many places in physics where calculus is indispensable, (e.g., deriving the electric potential from Coloumb's law), this doesn't happen to be one of them. In fact, arunma answered the OP nicely:

arunma said:
You know that for constant acceleration in one dimension:
...
v_{av} = \dfrac{v_0 + v}{2}
...
So you can see that the factor of 1/2 comes because we can consider the average velocity of a moving body by simply taking half the sum of its initial and present velocities.

This is worth understanding because it will come up again at least twice. First in the definition of kinetic energy, \frac12 mv^2, and second in the potential energy of a spring, \frac12 kx^2.
 
mapa said:
I like to visualize what is happening in my head.
OK, let's show you :)

When you imagine v(t) graph, distans is representing as an area under the curve.

In motion with constans velocity it is clear: v(t) is horizontal line and s=v*t (see picture below)

In uniformly accelerated linear motion v(t)=a*t, so each point have coordinates (t, a*t).

Then area under the curve it triangle. Area of the triangle equals 1/2*a*h where a is the length of the base of the triangle, and h is the height or altitude of the triangle.

In this case s=1/2*t*(a*t) = 1/2*a*t^2 (see image)

regards
 

Attachments

  • droga_w_ruchu.jpg
    droga_w_ruchu.jpg
    14.3 KB · Views: 3,742
Last edited:
If you're accelerating at 10m/s^2 for 1 second: in that one second, you started out going 0m/s and you ended up going 10m/s. Your average speed would be right in between, at 5m/s.

If your average speed is 5m/s for 1 second...your distance is 5m. And there's your half.
 
Lsos said:
If you're accelerating at 10m/s^2 for 1 second: in that one second, you started out going 0m/s and you ended up going 10m/s. Your average speed would be right in between, at 5m/s.

If your average speed is 5m/s for 1 second...your distance is 5m. And there's your half.

This is helpful, but be careful: this argument only works when the initial speed is zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
875
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
818
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K