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

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
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
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
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
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.
â 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.
â 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?
â immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20
It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
â 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.
â Meni Rosenfeld
Sep 3 at 15:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
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
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
kinematics velocity vectors speed
edited Sep 2 at 20:47
Qmechanicâ¦
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.
â 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.
â 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?
â immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20
It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
â 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.
â Meni Rosenfeld
Sep 3 at 15:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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.
â 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.
â 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?
â immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20
It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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?
â immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20
I drive around in a circle at a constant speed of 50km/h. What is my average speed?
â immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20
It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
â csiz
Sep 3 at 12:12
It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
â 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.
â 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.
â Meni Rosenfeld
Sep 3 at 15:23
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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.
3
The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
â Davis Herring
Sep 4 at 6:48
add a comment |Â
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 $x$.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
â 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.
â 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.)
â 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.
â 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).
â Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Sep 4 at 17:15
add a comment |Â
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 $|dmathbfr|$?
add a comment |Â
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,
$$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$
add a comment |Â
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?
add a comment |Â
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.
3
The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
â Davis Herring
Sep 4 at 6:48
add a comment |Â
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.
3
The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
â Davis Herring
Sep 4 at 6:48
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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.
â Davis Herring
Sep 4 at 6:48
add a comment |Â
3
The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
â Davis Herring
Sep 4 at 6:48
3
3
The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
â Davis Herring
Sep 4 at 6:48
The technical phrasing being that average and magnitude do not commute, as Meni Rosenfeld said.
â Davis Herring
Sep 4 at 6:48
add a comment |Â
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 $x$.
add a comment |Â
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 $x$.
add a comment |Â
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 $x$.
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 $x$.
answered Sep 2 at 20:39
Ponder Stibbons
43110
43110
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
edited Sep 3 at 4:02
Buzz
2,49821219
2,49821219
answered Sep 2 at 20:35
FGSUZ
3,0552520
3,0552520
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
â 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.
â 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.)
â 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.
â 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).
â Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Sep 4 at 17:15
add a comment |Â
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.
This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
â 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.
â 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.)
â 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.
â 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).
â Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Sep 4 at 17:15
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
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.
â 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.
â 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.)
â 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.
â 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).
â Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Sep 4 at 17:15
add a comment |Â
This is exactly how I would have answered the question. A circular orbit with a constant speed is a similar example.
â 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.
â 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.)
â 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.
â 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).
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.)
â 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.)
â 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.
â 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.
â 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).
â 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).
â Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Sep 4 at 17:15
add a comment |Â
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 $|dmathbfr|$?
add a comment |Â
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 $|dmathbfr|$?
add a comment |Â
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 $|dmathbfr|$?
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 $|dmathbfr|$?
edited Sep 2 at 23:00
answered Sep 2 at 22:51
The_Sympathizer
2,652620
2,652620
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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,
$$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$
add a comment |Â
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,
$$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$
add a comment |Â
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,
$$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$
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,
$$int_a^b|mathbbv(t)| dt neq left|int_a^bmathbbv(t) dtright|$$
answered Sep 3 at 14:19
Meni Rosenfeld
506310
506310
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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?
add a comment |Â
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?
add a comment |Â
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?
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?
edited Sep 2 at 21:53
answered Sep 2 at 20:47
Farcher
44.8k33388
44.8k33388
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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.
â 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.
â 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?
â immibis
Sep 3 at 4:20
It is however the weighted average, where the weight is the amount of time spent at each speed.
â 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.
â Meni Rosenfeld
Sep 3 at 15:23