Why isn't average speed defined as the magnitude of average velocity?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2












Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity. But instead it is defined as



$$s_textrmaverage = fractextrmtotal distance traveledtextrmtotal time needed$$



which generally speaking is not equal to the magnitude of the corresponding average velocity.



What historical, technical or didactic reasons are there to define average speed this way instead of as the magnitude of average velocity?










share|cite|improve this question























  • What are you trying to do? If you intend to add several velocities together, then divide by the number of velocities to arrive at an average velocity, you will find that this is an incorrect method.
    – David White
    Sep 2 at 20:28






  • 4




    As an aside, the average velocity of any given air molecule in a still room is 500m/s. This is useful if you want to know about air pressure, but not if you care about wind speed.
    – Turksarama
    Sep 2 at 22:58






  • 14




    I drive around in a circle at a constant speed of 50km/h. What is my average speed?
    – immibis
    Sep 3 at 4:20










  • It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
    – csiz
    Sep 3 at 12:12










  • @Turksarama: That's the average speed. The average velocity is essentially 0 in a still room, or equal to wind velocity when there's wind.
    – Meni Rosenfeld
    Sep 3 at 15:23














up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2












Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity. But instead it is defined as



$$s_textrmaverage = fractextrmtotal distance traveledtextrmtotal time needed$$



which generally speaking is not equal to the magnitude of the corresponding average velocity.



What historical, technical or didactic reasons are there to define average speed this way instead of as the magnitude of average velocity?










share|cite|improve this question























  • What are you trying to do? If you intend to add several velocities together, then divide by the number of velocities to arrive at an average velocity, you will find that this is an incorrect method.
    – David White
    Sep 2 at 20:28






  • 4




    As an aside, the average velocity of any given air molecule in a still room is 500m/s. This is useful if you want to know about air pressure, but not if you care about wind speed.
    – Turksarama
    Sep 2 at 22:58






  • 14




    I drive around in a circle at a constant speed of 50km/h. What is my average speed?
    – immibis
    Sep 3 at 4:20










  • It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
    – csiz
    Sep 3 at 12:12










  • @Turksarama: That's the average speed. The average velocity is essentially 0 in a still room, or equal to wind velocity when there's wind.
    – Meni Rosenfeld
    Sep 3 at 15:23












up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2






2





Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity. But instead it is defined as



$$s_textrmaverage = fractextrmtotal distance traveledtextrmtotal time needed$$



which generally speaking is not equal to the magnitude of the corresponding average velocity.



What historical, technical or didactic reasons are there to define average speed this way instead of as the magnitude of average velocity?










share|cite|improve this question















Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity. But instead it is defined as



$$s_textrmaverage = fractextrmtotal distance traveledtextrmtotal time needed$$



which generally speaking is not equal to the magnitude of the corresponding average velocity.



What historical, technical or didactic reasons are there to define average speed this way instead of as the magnitude of average velocity?







kinematics velocity vectors speed






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 2 at 20:47









Qmechanic♦

97.3k121631044




97.3k121631044










asked Sep 2 at 20:24









ThePolynom

14815




14815











  • What are you trying to do? If you intend to add several velocities together, then divide by the number of velocities to arrive at an average velocity, you will find that this is an incorrect method.
    – David White
    Sep 2 at 20:28






  • 4




    As an aside, the average velocity of any given air molecule in a still room is 500m/s. This is useful if you want to know about air pressure, but not if you care about wind speed.
    – Turksarama
    Sep 2 at 22:58






  • 14




    I drive around in a circle at a constant speed of 50km/h. What is my average speed?
    – immibis
    Sep 3 at 4:20










  • It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
    – csiz
    Sep 3 at 12:12










  • @Turksarama: That's the average speed. The average velocity is essentially 0 in a still room, or equal to wind velocity when there's wind.
    – Meni Rosenfeld
    Sep 3 at 15:23
















  • What are you trying to do? If you intend to add several velocities together, then divide by the number of velocities to arrive at an average velocity, you will find that this is an incorrect method.
    – David White
    Sep 2 at 20:28






  • 4




    As an aside, the average velocity of any given air molecule in a still room is 500m/s. This is useful if you want to know about air pressure, but not if you care about wind speed.
    – Turksarama
    Sep 2 at 22:58






  • 14




    I drive around in a circle at a constant speed of 50km/h. What is my average speed?
    – immibis
    Sep 3 at 4:20










  • It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
    – csiz
    Sep 3 at 12:12










  • @Turksarama: That's the average speed. The average velocity is essentially 0 in a still room, or equal to wind velocity when there's wind.
    – Meni Rosenfeld
    Sep 3 at 15:23















What are you trying to do? If you intend to add several velocities together, then divide by the number of velocities to arrive at an average velocity, you will find that this is an incorrect method.
– David White
Sep 2 at 20:28




What are you trying to do? If you intend to add several velocities together, then divide by the number of velocities to arrive at an average velocity, you will find that this is an incorrect method.
– David White
Sep 2 at 20:28




4




4




As an aside, the average velocity of any given air molecule in a still room is 500m/s. This is useful if you want to know about air pressure, but not if you care about wind speed.
– Turksarama
Sep 2 at 22:58




As an aside, the average velocity of any given air molecule in a still room is 500m/s. This is useful if you want to know about air pressure, but not if you care about wind speed.
– Turksarama
Sep 2 at 22:58




14




14




I drive around in a circle at a constant speed of 50km/h. What is my average speed?
– immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20




I drive around in a circle at a constant speed of 50km/h. What is my average speed?
– immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20












It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
– csiz
Sep 3 at 12:12




It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
– csiz
Sep 3 at 12:12












@Turksarama: That's the average speed. The average velocity is essentially 0 in a still room, or equal to wind velocity when there's wind.
– Meni Rosenfeld
Sep 3 at 15:23




@Turksarama: That's the average speed. The average velocity is essentially 0 in a still room, or equal to wind velocity when there's wind.
– Meni Rosenfeld
Sep 3 at 15:23










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
41
down vote













People already answered your question from a usefulness standpoint, but I just want to add that your reasoning isn't correct:




Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity.




That's not how it works. If we have




[speed] = [magnitude of velocity]




then logic dictates that we should have




average [speed] = average [magnitude of velocity]




and not




average [speed] = magnitude of [average velocity]




and, indeed, this is what we have.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 3




    The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
    – Davis Herring
    Sep 4 at 6:48


















up vote
15
down vote













Given a velocity as a function of time, the speed as a function of time is the magnitude of the velocity at each point in time. The average speed is then the average of this magnitude, as it would be for any function of time - such as density or temperature. The question of whether the average magnitude of the velocity is equal to the magnitude of the average of the velocity then becomes a conjecture to check. Since an object can move around at high speed while returning to the same place, and so have an zero average velocity with a high average speed, this shows by counter example that the average speed, defined just like any other average, is actually not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity.



It is very common to find that the average of some function is not the function of the average. For example, the average $x^2$ is not typically the square of the average of $x$.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    8
    down vote













    You can compute the mean value of the velocity vector.



    However, it turns out to be useless sometimes. A trivial example is a circular motion.



    The mean velocity of a full loop in a circular motion is $vec0$, as velocity is pointing in one direction at first, and $pi$ radians later it's pointing in the opposite one, so their contributions cancel out. So the average "velocity" is $vec0$.



    Nevertheless, this is not giving us much information. In contrast, the ratio of "circumference" to "time elapsed" gives us the actual "mean speed".



    Sometimes, anyways, it can be useful to give them both. The more information, the better.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      up vote
      7
      down vote













      The simple reason is that velocity can go negative, and this will affect the average. The clearest example of the difference would be a pendulum (or any other resonating system).



      A pendulum swings backwards and forwards. It follows its track in one direction, accelerating, then decelerating to a momentary stop; and then reverses direction to repeat the exact same trajectory in reverse.



      The pendulum follows the same path each time, in opposite directions. Since velocity is signed, the average velocity for going one way is exactly equal in magnitude to and the opposite sign to the average velocity going the other way. The average velocity is therefore zero.



      The average speed of course will not be zero. It will be equal to the magnitude of the average velocity for one half of the pendulum's trajectory, because both halves have the same magnitude of velocity.






      share|cite|improve this answer




















      • This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
        – Dr Sheldon
        Sep 3 at 1:09











      • Yep, true. I thought a pendulum would be easier to explain to start with, because an equal and opposite trajectory on one axis is more clearly equal and opposite. A circle needs understanding of splitting vectors into sin/cos on two axes, although I like that that is a constant speed which makes the average speed obvious. It'd make a great second example.
        – Graham
        Sep 3 at 7:23











      • In the last sentence, maybe you assume that the pendulum follows a 1-dimensional path? If the pendulum has large amplitude so that we cannot neglect the vertical component of the movement, the average speed of a half-period going from one extreme angle to the opposite one, is not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity. (In my head, I consider a "fictive" particle following a horizontal straight-line path, always being directly above the actual pendulum. Its average speed will be lower, because it needs not go up and down.)
        – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
        Sep 4 at 13:48










      • @JeppeStigNielsen Yes, I'm assuming a perfect non-decaying pendulum. For the OP's purposes, we can probably disregard pendulum decay.
        – Graham
        Sep 4 at 14:28










      • I did not explain myself clearly enough. I am not talking about the decay. I am talking about a perfect (mathematically ideal, hence non-decaying) arbitrary-amplitude pendulum. The point mass of the idealized pendulum will not move back and forward along a straight line. It will trace out an arc of a circle. Therefore, in the circular movement, it is not true that the average speed is the magnitude of the average velocity, not even when the circular arc is traversed in only one direction (say, clockwise).
        – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
        Sep 4 at 17:15

















      up vote
      3
      down vote













      There error is the magnitude of velocity is not actually a definition, but is better appreciated as a consequence of the actual definition, and any materials that say it is are problematic study materials.



      The actual definition of speed in both cases really is distance traveled over the time taken to travel it. It's just that in the case of instantaneous speed, the absolute value of velocity happens to be equal to the speed because the magnitude of the differential of arc length ($ds$) - i.e. the tiny increment of distance traveled - is the same as the magnitude of the differential of displacement ($dmathbfr$), i.e. the vector from starting to current position. Mathematically, the correct definition of instantaneous speed is



      $$mathrmspeed = left| fracdsdt right|$$



      and velocity



      $$mathrmvelocity = fracdmathbfrdt$$



      However now (for two dimensions at least) we have that $ds = sqrtdx^2 + dy^2$, but also $dmathbfr = dx mathbfi + dy mathbfj$. What is $|dmathbfr|$?






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        It's quite simple really. "Average speed" is the average of the speed. In general, the average of any function $f(t)$ is



        $$fracint_a^b f(t) dtb-a$$



        In the case of $f(t)$ being the speed $s(t)$, The integral of the speed $int_a^b s(t) dt$ gives the total distance traveled, and $b-a$ is the time elapsed, resulting in the formula you mention.



        Thought of another way, "Average speed" is "average magnitude of velocity", which is quite different from "magnitude of average velocity" - The modifiers "average" and "magnitude" don't commute. There is no reason to use one term when you really mean the other. In other words,



        $$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$






        share|cite|improve this answer



























          up vote
          1
          down vote













          As you wrote these quantities are different and give you different information so why would you want to call the magnitude of the average velocity the average speed?



          If you are travelling in a car it is the average speed for the journey which you might want even if the start and finish point were the same.

          What use would it be to say that the magnitude of the average velocity was zero?






          share|cite|improve this answer






















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f426366%2fwhy-isnt-average-speed-defined-as-the-magnitude-of-average-velocity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes








            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            41
            down vote













            People already answered your question from a usefulness standpoint, but I just want to add that your reasoning isn't correct:




            Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity.




            That's not how it works. If we have




            [speed] = [magnitude of velocity]




            then logic dictates that we should have




            average [speed] = average [magnitude of velocity]




            and not




            average [speed] = magnitude of [average velocity]




            and, indeed, this is what we have.






            share|cite|improve this answer
















            • 3




              The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
              – Davis Herring
              Sep 4 at 6:48















            up vote
            41
            down vote













            People already answered your question from a usefulness standpoint, but I just want to add that your reasoning isn't correct:




            Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity.




            That's not how it works. If we have




            [speed] = [magnitude of velocity]




            then logic dictates that we should have




            average [speed] = average [magnitude of velocity]




            and not




            average [speed] = magnitude of [average velocity]




            and, indeed, this is what we have.






            share|cite|improve this answer
















            • 3




              The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
              – Davis Herring
              Sep 4 at 6:48













            up vote
            41
            down vote










            up vote
            41
            down vote









            People already answered your question from a usefulness standpoint, but I just want to add that your reasoning isn't correct:




            Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity.




            That's not how it works. If we have




            [speed] = [magnitude of velocity]




            then logic dictates that we should have




            average [speed] = average [magnitude of velocity]




            and not




            average [speed] = magnitude of [average velocity]




            and, indeed, this is what we have.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            People already answered your question from a usefulness standpoint, but I just want to add that your reasoning isn't correct:




            Speed is usually defined as the magnitude of (instantaneous) velocity. So one could assume that average speed would be defined as the magnitude of average velocity.




            That's not how it works. If we have




            [speed] = [magnitude of velocity]




            then logic dictates that we should have




            average [speed] = average [magnitude of velocity]




            and not




            average [speed] = magnitude of [average velocity]




            and, indeed, this is what we have.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Sep 3 at 6:44









            Mehrdad

            2,14711529




            2,14711529







            • 3




              The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
              – Davis Herring
              Sep 4 at 6:48













            • 3




              The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
              – Davis Herring
              Sep 4 at 6:48








            3




            3




            The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
            – Davis Herring
            Sep 4 at 6:48





            The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
            – Davis Herring
            Sep 4 at 6:48











            up vote
            15
            down vote













            Given a velocity as a function of time, the speed as a function of time is the magnitude of the velocity at each point in time. The average speed is then the average of this magnitude, as it would be for any function of time - such as density or temperature. The question of whether the average magnitude of the velocity is equal to the magnitude of the average of the velocity then becomes a conjecture to check. Since an object can move around at high speed while returning to the same place, and so have an zero average velocity with a high average speed, this shows by counter example that the average speed, defined just like any other average, is actually not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity.



            It is very common to find that the average of some function is not the function of the average. For example, the average $x^2$ is not typically the square of the average of $x$.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              up vote
              15
              down vote













              Given a velocity as a function of time, the speed as a function of time is the magnitude of the velocity at each point in time. The average speed is then the average of this magnitude, as it would be for any function of time - such as density or temperature. The question of whether the average magnitude of the velocity is equal to the magnitude of the average of the velocity then becomes a conjecture to check. Since an object can move around at high speed while returning to the same place, and so have an zero average velocity with a high average speed, this shows by counter example that the average speed, defined just like any other average, is actually not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity.



              It is very common to find that the average of some function is not the function of the average. For example, the average $x^2$ is not typically the square of the average of $x$.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                up vote
                15
                down vote










                up vote
                15
                down vote









                Given a velocity as a function of time, the speed as a function of time is the magnitude of the velocity at each point in time. The average speed is then the average of this magnitude, as it would be for any function of time - such as density or temperature. The question of whether the average magnitude of the velocity is equal to the magnitude of the average of the velocity then becomes a conjecture to check. Since an object can move around at high speed while returning to the same place, and so have an zero average velocity with a high average speed, this shows by counter example that the average speed, defined just like any other average, is actually not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity.



                It is very common to find that the average of some function is not the function of the average. For example, the average $x^2$ is not typically the square of the average of $x$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Given a velocity as a function of time, the speed as a function of time is the magnitude of the velocity at each point in time. The average speed is then the average of this magnitude, as it would be for any function of time - such as density or temperature. The question of whether the average magnitude of the velocity is equal to the magnitude of the average of the velocity then becomes a conjecture to check. Since an object can move around at high speed while returning to the same place, and so have an zero average velocity with a high average speed, this shows by counter example that the average speed, defined just like any other average, is actually not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity.



                It is very common to find that the average of some function is not the function of the average. For example, the average $x^2$ is not typically the square of the average of $x$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Sep 2 at 20:39









                Ponder Stibbons

                43110




                43110




















                    up vote
                    8
                    down vote













                    You can compute the mean value of the velocity vector.



                    However, it turns out to be useless sometimes. A trivial example is a circular motion.



                    The mean velocity of a full loop in a circular motion is $vec0$, as velocity is pointing in one direction at first, and $pi$ radians later it's pointing in the opposite one, so their contributions cancel out. So the average "velocity" is $vec0$.



                    Nevertheless, this is not giving us much information. In contrast, the ratio of "circumference" to "time elapsed" gives us the actual "mean speed".



                    Sometimes, anyways, it can be useful to give them both. The more information, the better.






                    share|cite|improve this answer


























                      up vote
                      8
                      down vote













                      You can compute the mean value of the velocity vector.



                      However, it turns out to be useless sometimes. A trivial example is a circular motion.



                      The mean velocity of a full loop in a circular motion is $vec0$, as velocity is pointing in one direction at first, and $pi$ radians later it's pointing in the opposite one, so their contributions cancel out. So the average "velocity" is $vec0$.



                      Nevertheless, this is not giving us much information. In contrast, the ratio of "circumference" to "time elapsed" gives us the actual "mean speed".



                      Sometimes, anyways, it can be useful to give them both. The more information, the better.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        8
                        down vote










                        up vote
                        8
                        down vote









                        You can compute the mean value of the velocity vector.



                        However, it turns out to be useless sometimes. A trivial example is a circular motion.



                        The mean velocity of a full loop in a circular motion is $vec0$, as velocity is pointing in one direction at first, and $pi$ radians later it's pointing in the opposite one, so their contributions cancel out. So the average "velocity" is $vec0$.



                        Nevertheless, this is not giving us much information. In contrast, the ratio of "circumference" to "time elapsed" gives us the actual "mean speed".



                        Sometimes, anyways, it can be useful to give them both. The more information, the better.






                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        You can compute the mean value of the velocity vector.



                        However, it turns out to be useless sometimes. A trivial example is a circular motion.



                        The mean velocity of a full loop in a circular motion is $vec0$, as velocity is pointing in one direction at first, and $pi$ radians later it's pointing in the opposite one, so their contributions cancel out. So the average "velocity" is $vec0$.



                        Nevertheless, this is not giving us much information. In contrast, the ratio of "circumference" to "time elapsed" gives us the actual "mean speed".



                        Sometimes, anyways, it can be useful to give them both. The more information, the better.







                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        edited Sep 3 at 4:02









                        Buzz

                        2,49821219




                        2,49821219










                        answered Sep 2 at 20:35









                        FGSUZ

                        3,0552520




                        3,0552520




















                            up vote
                            7
                            down vote













                            The simple reason is that velocity can go negative, and this will affect the average. The clearest example of the difference would be a pendulum (or any other resonating system).



                            A pendulum swings backwards and forwards. It follows its track in one direction, accelerating, then decelerating to a momentary stop; and then reverses direction to repeat the exact same trajectory in reverse.



                            The pendulum follows the same path each time, in opposite directions. Since velocity is signed, the average velocity for going one way is exactly equal in magnitude to and the opposite sign to the average velocity going the other way. The average velocity is therefore zero.



                            The average speed of course will not be zero. It will be equal to the magnitude of the average velocity for one half of the pendulum's trajectory, because both halves have the same magnitude of velocity.






                            share|cite|improve this answer




















                            • This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
                              – Dr Sheldon
                              Sep 3 at 1:09











                            • Yep, true. I thought a pendulum would be easier to explain to start with, because an equal and opposite trajectory on one axis is more clearly equal and opposite. A circle needs understanding of splitting vectors into sin/cos on two axes, although I like that that is a constant speed which makes the average speed obvious. It'd make a great second example.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 3 at 7:23











                            • In the last sentence, maybe you assume that the pendulum follows a 1-dimensional path? If the pendulum has large amplitude so that we cannot neglect the vertical component of the movement, the average speed of a half-period going from one extreme angle to the opposite one, is not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity. (In my head, I consider a "fictive" particle following a horizontal straight-line path, always being directly above the actual pendulum. Its average speed will be lower, because it needs not go up and down.)
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 13:48










                            • @JeppeStigNielsen Yes, I'm assuming a perfect non-decaying pendulum. For the OP's purposes, we can probably disregard pendulum decay.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 4 at 14:28










                            • I did not explain myself clearly enough. I am not talking about the decay. I am talking about a perfect (mathematically ideal, hence non-decaying) arbitrary-amplitude pendulum. The point mass of the idealized pendulum will not move back and forward along a straight line. It will trace out an arc of a circle. Therefore, in the circular movement, it is not true that the average speed is the magnitude of the average velocity, not even when the circular arc is traversed in only one direction (say, clockwise).
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 17:15














                            up vote
                            7
                            down vote













                            The simple reason is that velocity can go negative, and this will affect the average. The clearest example of the difference would be a pendulum (or any other resonating system).



                            A pendulum swings backwards and forwards. It follows its track in one direction, accelerating, then decelerating to a momentary stop; and then reverses direction to repeat the exact same trajectory in reverse.



                            The pendulum follows the same path each time, in opposite directions. Since velocity is signed, the average velocity for going one way is exactly equal in magnitude to and the opposite sign to the average velocity going the other way. The average velocity is therefore zero.



                            The average speed of course will not be zero. It will be equal to the magnitude of the average velocity for one half of the pendulum's trajectory, because both halves have the same magnitude of velocity.






                            share|cite|improve this answer




















                            • This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
                              – Dr Sheldon
                              Sep 3 at 1:09











                            • Yep, true. I thought a pendulum would be easier to explain to start with, because an equal and opposite trajectory on one axis is more clearly equal and opposite. A circle needs understanding of splitting vectors into sin/cos on two axes, although I like that that is a constant speed which makes the average speed obvious. It'd make a great second example.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 3 at 7:23











                            • In the last sentence, maybe you assume that the pendulum follows a 1-dimensional path? If the pendulum has large amplitude so that we cannot neglect the vertical component of the movement, the average speed of a half-period going from one extreme angle to the opposite one, is not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity. (In my head, I consider a "fictive" particle following a horizontal straight-line path, always being directly above the actual pendulum. Its average speed will be lower, because it needs not go up and down.)
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 13:48










                            • @JeppeStigNielsen Yes, I'm assuming a perfect non-decaying pendulum. For the OP's purposes, we can probably disregard pendulum decay.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 4 at 14:28










                            • I did not explain myself clearly enough. I am not talking about the decay. I am talking about a perfect (mathematically ideal, hence non-decaying) arbitrary-amplitude pendulum. The point mass of the idealized pendulum will not move back and forward along a straight line. It will trace out an arc of a circle. Therefore, in the circular movement, it is not true that the average speed is the magnitude of the average velocity, not even when the circular arc is traversed in only one direction (say, clockwise).
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 17:15












                            up vote
                            7
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            7
                            down vote









                            The simple reason is that velocity can go negative, and this will affect the average. The clearest example of the difference would be a pendulum (or any other resonating system).



                            A pendulum swings backwards and forwards. It follows its track in one direction, accelerating, then decelerating to a momentary stop; and then reverses direction to repeat the exact same trajectory in reverse.



                            The pendulum follows the same path each time, in opposite directions. Since velocity is signed, the average velocity for going one way is exactly equal in magnitude to and the opposite sign to the average velocity going the other way. The average velocity is therefore zero.



                            The average speed of course will not be zero. It will be equal to the magnitude of the average velocity for one half of the pendulum's trajectory, because both halves have the same magnitude of velocity.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            The simple reason is that velocity can go negative, and this will affect the average. The clearest example of the difference would be a pendulum (or any other resonating system).



                            A pendulum swings backwards and forwards. It follows its track in one direction, accelerating, then decelerating to a momentary stop; and then reverses direction to repeat the exact same trajectory in reverse.



                            The pendulum follows the same path each time, in opposite directions. Since velocity is signed, the average velocity for going one way is exactly equal in magnitude to and the opposite sign to the average velocity going the other way. The average velocity is therefore zero.



                            The average speed of course will not be zero. It will be equal to the magnitude of the average velocity for one half of the pendulum's trajectory, because both halves have the same magnitude of velocity.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Sep 2 at 23:31









                            Graham

                            87839




                            87839











                            • This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
                              – Dr Sheldon
                              Sep 3 at 1:09











                            • Yep, true. I thought a pendulum would be easier to explain to start with, because an equal and opposite trajectory on one axis is more clearly equal and opposite. A circle needs understanding of splitting vectors into sin/cos on two axes, although I like that that is a constant speed which makes the average speed obvious. It'd make a great second example.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 3 at 7:23











                            • In the last sentence, maybe you assume that the pendulum follows a 1-dimensional path? If the pendulum has large amplitude so that we cannot neglect the vertical component of the movement, the average speed of a half-period going from one extreme angle to the opposite one, is not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity. (In my head, I consider a "fictive" particle following a horizontal straight-line path, always being directly above the actual pendulum. Its average speed will be lower, because it needs not go up and down.)
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 13:48










                            • @JeppeStigNielsen Yes, I'm assuming a perfect non-decaying pendulum. For the OP's purposes, we can probably disregard pendulum decay.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 4 at 14:28










                            • I did not explain myself clearly enough. I am not talking about the decay. I am talking about a perfect (mathematically ideal, hence non-decaying) arbitrary-amplitude pendulum. The point mass of the idealized pendulum will not move back and forward along a straight line. It will trace out an arc of a circle. Therefore, in the circular movement, it is not true that the average speed is the magnitude of the average velocity, not even when the circular arc is traversed in only one direction (say, clockwise).
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 17:15
















                            • This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
                              – Dr Sheldon
                              Sep 3 at 1:09











                            • Yep, true. I thought a pendulum would be easier to explain to start with, because an equal and opposite trajectory on one axis is more clearly equal and opposite. A circle needs understanding of splitting vectors into sin/cos on two axes, although I like that that is a constant speed which makes the average speed obvious. It'd make a great second example.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 3 at 7:23











                            • In the last sentence, maybe you assume that the pendulum follows a 1-dimensional path? If the pendulum has large amplitude so that we cannot neglect the vertical component of the movement, the average speed of a half-period going from one extreme angle to the opposite one, is not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity. (In my head, I consider a "fictive" particle following a horizontal straight-line path, always being directly above the actual pendulum. Its average speed will be lower, because it needs not go up and down.)
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 13:48










                            • @JeppeStigNielsen Yes, I'm assuming a perfect non-decaying pendulum. For the OP's purposes, we can probably disregard pendulum decay.
                              – Graham
                              Sep 4 at 14:28










                            • I did not explain myself clearly enough. I am not talking about the decay. I am talking about a perfect (mathematically ideal, hence non-decaying) arbitrary-amplitude pendulum. The point mass of the idealized pendulum will not move back and forward along a straight line. It will trace out an arc of a circle. Therefore, in the circular movement, it is not true that the average speed is the magnitude of the average velocity, not even when the circular arc is traversed in only one direction (say, clockwise).
                              – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                              Sep 4 at 17:15















                            This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
                            – Dr Sheldon
                            Sep 3 at 1:09





                            This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
                            – Dr Sheldon
                            Sep 3 at 1:09













                            Yep, true. I thought a pendulum would be easier to explain to start with, because an equal and opposite trajectory on one axis is more clearly equal and opposite. A circle needs understanding of splitting vectors into sin/cos on two axes, although I like that that is a constant speed which makes the average speed obvious. It'd make a great second example.
                            – Graham
                            Sep 3 at 7:23





                            Yep, true. I thought a pendulum would be easier to explain to start with, because an equal and opposite trajectory on one axis is more clearly equal and opposite. A circle needs understanding of splitting vectors into sin/cos on two axes, although I like that that is a constant speed which makes the average speed obvious. It'd make a great second example.
                            – Graham
                            Sep 3 at 7:23













                            In the last sentence, maybe you assume that the pendulum follows a 1-dimensional path? If the pendulum has large amplitude so that we cannot neglect the vertical component of the movement, the average speed of a half-period going from one extreme angle to the opposite one, is not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity. (In my head, I consider a "fictive" particle following a horizontal straight-line path, always being directly above the actual pendulum. Its average speed will be lower, because it needs not go up and down.)
                            – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                            Sep 4 at 13:48




                            In the last sentence, maybe you assume that the pendulum follows a 1-dimensional path? If the pendulum has large amplitude so that we cannot neglect the vertical component of the movement, the average speed of a half-period going from one extreme angle to the opposite one, is not equal to the magnitude of the average velocity. (In my head, I consider a "fictive" particle following a horizontal straight-line path, always being directly above the actual pendulum. Its average speed will be lower, because it needs not go up and down.)
                            – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                            Sep 4 at 13:48












                            @JeppeStigNielsen Yes, I'm assuming a perfect non-decaying pendulum. For the OP's purposes, we can probably disregard pendulum decay.
                            – Graham
                            Sep 4 at 14:28




                            @JeppeStigNielsen Yes, I'm assuming a perfect non-decaying pendulum. For the OP's purposes, we can probably disregard pendulum decay.
                            – Graham
                            Sep 4 at 14:28












                            I did not explain myself clearly enough. I am not talking about the decay. I am talking about a perfect (mathematically ideal, hence non-decaying) arbitrary-amplitude pendulum. The point mass of the idealized pendulum will not move back and forward along a straight line. It will trace out an arc of a circle. Therefore, in the circular movement, it is not true that the average speed is the magnitude of the average velocity, not even when the circular arc is traversed in only one direction (say, clockwise).
                            – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                            Sep 4 at 17:15




                            I did not explain myself clearly enough. I am not talking about the decay. I am talking about a perfect (mathematically ideal, hence non-decaying) arbitrary-amplitude pendulum. The point mass of the idealized pendulum will not move back and forward along a straight line. It will trace out an arc of a circle. Therefore, in the circular movement, it is not true that the average speed is the magnitude of the average velocity, not even when the circular arc is traversed in only one direction (say, clockwise).
                            – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
                            Sep 4 at 17:15










                            up vote
                            3
                            down vote













                            There error is the magnitude of velocity is not actually a definition, but is better appreciated as a consequence of the actual definition, and any materials that say it is are problematic study materials.



                            The actual definition of speed in both cases really is distance traveled over the time taken to travel it. It's just that in the case of instantaneous speed, the absolute value of velocity happens to be equal to the speed because the magnitude of the differential of arc length ($ds$) - i.e. the tiny increment of distance traveled - is the same as the magnitude of the differential of displacement ($dmathbfr$), i.e. the vector from starting to current position. Mathematically, the correct definition of instantaneous speed is



                            $$mathrmspeed = left| fracdsdt right|$$



                            and velocity



                            $$mathrmvelocity = fracdmathbfrdt$$



                            However now (for two dimensions at least) we have that $ds = sqrtdx^2 + dy^2$, but also $dmathbfr = dx mathbfi + dy mathbfj$. What is $|dmathbfr|$?






                            share|cite|improve this answer


























                              up vote
                              3
                              down vote













                              There error is the magnitude of velocity is not actually a definition, but is better appreciated as a consequence of the actual definition, and any materials that say it is are problematic study materials.



                              The actual definition of speed in both cases really is distance traveled over the time taken to travel it. It's just that in the case of instantaneous speed, the absolute value of velocity happens to be equal to the speed because the magnitude of the differential of arc length ($ds$) - i.e. the tiny increment of distance traveled - is the same as the magnitude of the differential of displacement ($dmathbfr$), i.e. the vector from starting to current position. Mathematically, the correct definition of instantaneous speed is



                              $$mathrmspeed = left| fracdsdt right|$$



                              and velocity



                              $$mathrmvelocity = fracdmathbfrdt$$



                              However now (for two dimensions at least) we have that $ds = sqrtdx^2 + dy^2$, but also $dmathbfr = dx mathbfi + dy mathbfj$. What is $|dmathbfr|$?






                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                up vote
                                3
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                3
                                down vote









                                There error is the magnitude of velocity is not actually a definition, but is better appreciated as a consequence of the actual definition, and any materials that say it is are problematic study materials.



                                The actual definition of speed in both cases really is distance traveled over the time taken to travel it. It's just that in the case of instantaneous speed, the absolute value of velocity happens to be equal to the speed because the magnitude of the differential of arc length ($ds$) - i.e. the tiny increment of distance traveled - is the same as the magnitude of the differential of displacement ($dmathbfr$), i.e. the vector from starting to current position. Mathematically, the correct definition of instantaneous speed is



                                $$mathrmspeed = left| fracdsdt right|$$



                                and velocity



                                $$mathrmvelocity = fracdmathbfrdt$$



                                However now (for two dimensions at least) we have that $ds = sqrtdx^2 + dy^2$, but also $dmathbfr = dx mathbfi + dy mathbfj$. What is $|dmathbfr|$?






                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                There error is the magnitude of velocity is not actually a definition, but is better appreciated as a consequence of the actual definition, and any materials that say it is are problematic study materials.



                                The actual definition of speed in both cases really is distance traveled over the time taken to travel it. It's just that in the case of instantaneous speed, the absolute value of velocity happens to be equal to the speed because the magnitude of the differential of arc length ($ds$) - i.e. the tiny increment of distance traveled - is the same as the magnitude of the differential of displacement ($dmathbfr$), i.e. the vector from starting to current position. Mathematically, the correct definition of instantaneous speed is



                                $$mathrmspeed = left| fracdsdt right|$$



                                and velocity



                                $$mathrmvelocity = fracdmathbfrdt$$



                                However now (for two dimensions at least) we have that $ds = sqrtdx^2 + dy^2$, but also $dmathbfr = dx mathbfi + dy mathbfj$. What is $|dmathbfr|$?







                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                edited Sep 2 at 23:00

























                                answered Sep 2 at 22:51









                                The_Sympathizer

                                2,652620




                                2,652620




















                                    up vote
                                    3
                                    down vote













                                    It's quite simple really. "Average speed" is the average of the speed. In general, the average of any function $f(t)$ is



                                    $$fracint_a^b f(t) dtb-a$$



                                    In the case of $f(t)$ being the speed $s(t)$, The integral of the speed $int_a^b s(t) dt$ gives the total distance traveled, and $b-a$ is the time elapsed, resulting in the formula you mention.



                                    Thought of another way, "Average speed" is "average magnitude of velocity", which is quite different from "magnitude of average velocity" - The modifiers "average" and "magnitude" don't commute. There is no reason to use one term when you really mean the other. In other words,



                                    $$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                                      up vote
                                      3
                                      down vote













                                      It's quite simple really. "Average speed" is the average of the speed. In general, the average of any function $f(t)$ is



                                      $$fracint_a^b f(t) dtb-a$$



                                      In the case of $f(t)$ being the speed $s(t)$, The integral of the speed $int_a^b s(t) dt$ gives the total distance traveled, and $b-a$ is the time elapsed, resulting in the formula you mention.



                                      Thought of another way, "Average speed" is "average magnitude of velocity", which is quite different from "magnitude of average velocity" - The modifiers "average" and "magnitude" don't commute. There is no reason to use one term when you really mean the other. In other words,



                                      $$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer






















                                        up vote
                                        3
                                        down vote










                                        up vote
                                        3
                                        down vote









                                        It's quite simple really. "Average speed" is the average of the speed. In general, the average of any function $f(t)$ is



                                        $$fracint_a^b f(t) dtb-a$$



                                        In the case of $f(t)$ being the speed $s(t)$, The integral of the speed $int_a^b s(t) dt$ gives the total distance traveled, and $b-a$ is the time elapsed, resulting in the formula you mention.



                                        Thought of another way, "Average speed" is "average magnitude of velocity", which is quite different from "magnitude of average velocity" - The modifiers "average" and "magnitude" don't commute. There is no reason to use one term when you really mean the other. In other words,



                                        $$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$






                                        share|cite|improve this answer












                                        It's quite simple really. "Average speed" is the average of the speed. In general, the average of any function $f(t)$ is



                                        $$fracint_a^b f(t) dtb-a$$



                                        In the case of $f(t)$ being the speed $s(t)$, The integral of the speed $int_a^b s(t) dt$ gives the total distance traveled, and $b-a$ is the time elapsed, resulting in the formula you mention.



                                        Thought of another way, "Average speed" is "average magnitude of velocity", which is quite different from "magnitude of average velocity" - The modifiers "average" and "magnitude" don't commute. There is no reason to use one term when you really mean the other. In other words,



                                        $$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$







                                        share|cite|improve this answer












                                        share|cite|improve this answer



                                        share|cite|improve this answer










                                        answered Sep 3 at 14:19









                                        Meni Rosenfeld

                                        506310




                                        506310




















                                            up vote
                                            1
                                            down vote













                                            As you wrote these quantities are different and give you different information so why would you want to call the magnitude of the average velocity the average speed?



                                            If you are travelling in a car it is the average speed for the journey which you might want even if the start and finish point were the same.

                                            What use would it be to say that the magnitude of the average velocity was zero?






                                            share|cite|improve this answer


























                                              up vote
                                              1
                                              down vote













                                              As you wrote these quantities are different and give you different information so why would you want to call the magnitude of the average velocity the average speed?



                                              If you are travelling in a car it is the average speed for the journey which you might want even if the start and finish point were the same.

                                              What use would it be to say that the magnitude of the average velocity was zero?






                                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                                up vote
                                                1
                                                down vote










                                                up vote
                                                1
                                                down vote









                                                As you wrote these quantities are different and give you different information so why would you want to call the magnitude of the average velocity the average speed?



                                                If you are travelling in a car it is the average speed for the journey which you might want even if the start and finish point were the same.

                                                What use would it be to say that the magnitude of the average velocity was zero?






                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                As you wrote these quantities are different and give you different information so why would you want to call the magnitude of the average velocity the average speed?



                                                If you are travelling in a car it is the average speed for the journey which you might want even if the start and finish point were the same.

                                                What use would it be to say that the magnitude of the average velocity was zero?







                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                                edited Sep 2 at 21:53

























                                                answered Sep 2 at 20:47









                                                Farcher

                                                44.8k33388




                                                44.8k33388



























                                                     

                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded















































                                                     


                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded














                                                    StackExchange.ready(
                                                    function ()
                                                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f426366%2fwhy-isnt-average-speed-defined-as-the-magnitude-of-average-velocity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                                    );

                                                    Post as a guest













































































                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    Peggy Mitchell

                                                    Palaiologos

                                                    The Forum (Inglewood, California)