Equations of Motion

 discussion
 summary
 practice
 problems
 resources

[close]

Discussion
constant acceleration
For the sake of accuracy, this section should be entitled
"One dimensional equations of motion for constant
acceleration". Given that such a title would be a stylistic
nightmare, let me begin this section with the following
qualification. These equations of motion are valid only
when acceleration is constant and motion is constrained
to a straight line.

Given that we live in a three dimensional universe in

which the only constant is change, you may be tempted
to dismiss this section outright. It would be correct to say
that no object has ever traveled in a straight line and with
a constant acceleration anywhere in the universe at any
time — not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not five
billion years ago, not thirty billion years in the future,
never. This I can say with absolute metaphysical
certainty.
So what good is this section then? Well, in many
instances, it is useful to assume that an object did or will
travel along a path that is essentially straight and with an
acceleration that is nearly constant. That is, any deviation
from the ideal motion can be essentially ignored. Motion
along a curved path may be considered effectively one-
dimensional if there is only one degree of freedom for the
objects involved. A road might twist and turn and explore
all sorts of directions, but the cars driving on it have only
one degree of freedom — the freedom to drive in one
direction or the opposite direction. (You can't drive
diagonally on a road and hope to stay on it for long.) In
this regard, it is not unlike motion restricted to a straight
line. Approximating real situations with models based on
ideal situations is not considered cheating. This is the way
things get done in physics. It is such a useful technique
that we will use it over and over again.

Our goal in this section, is to derive new equations that

can be used to describe the motion of an object in terms
of its three kinematic variables: velocity (v), position (s),
and time (t). There are three ways to pair them up:
velocity-time, position-time, and velocity-position. In this
order, they are also often called the first, second, and
third equations of motion, but there is no compelling
reason to learn these names.

Since we are dealing with motion in a straight line,

direction will be indicated by sign — positive quantities
point one way, while negative quantities point the
opposite way. Determining which direction is positive and
which is negative is entirely arbitrary. The laws of physics
are isotropic; that is, they are independent of the
orientation of the coordinate system. Some problems are
easier to understand and solve, however, when one
direction is chosen positive over another. As long as you
are consistent within a problem, it doesn't matter.

velocity-time
The relation between velocity and time is a simple one
during uniformly accelerated, straight-line motion. The
longer the acceleration, the greater the change in
velocity. Change in velocity is directly proportional to time
when acceleration is constant. If velocity increases by a
certain amount in a certain time, it should increase by
twice that amount in twice the time. If an object already
started with a certain velocity, then its new velocity would
be the old velocity plus this change. You ought to be able
to see the equation in your mind's eye already.

This is the easiest of the three equations to derive using

algebra. Start from the definition of acceleration.

Δv
a=
Δt

Expand Δv to v − v0 and condense Δt to t.

v − v0
a=
t

Then solve for v as a function of t.

v = v0 + at [1]
This is the first equation of motion. It's written like a
polynomial — a constant term (v0) followed by a first order
term (at). Since the highest order is 1, it's more correct to
call it a linear function.

The symbol v0 [vee nought] is called the initial velocity or

the velocity a time t = 0. It is often thought of as the "first
velocity" but this is a rather naive way to describe it. A
better definition would be to say that an initial velocity is
the velocity that a moving object has when it first
becomes important in a problem. Say a meteor was
spotted deep in space and the problem was to determine
its trajectory, then the initial velocity would likely be the
velocity it had when it was first observed. But if the
problem was about this same meteor burning up on
reentry, then the initial velocity likely be the velocity it had
when it entered Earth's atmosphere. The answer to
"What's the initial velocity?" is "It depends". This turns out
to be the answer to a lot of questions.

The symbol v is the velocity some time t after the initial

velocity. It is often called the final velocity but this does
not make it an object's "last velocity". Take the case of
the meteor. What velocity is represented by the symbol
v? If you've been paying attention, then you should have
anticipated the answer. It depends. It could be the velocity
the meteor has as it passes by the moon, as it enters the
Earth's atmosphere, or as it strikes the Earth's surface. It
could also be the meteorite's velocity as it sits in the
bottom of a crater. (In that case v = 0.) Are any of these
the final velocity? Who knows. Someone could extract the
meteorite from its hole in the ground and drive away with
it. Is this relevant? Probably not, but it depends. There's
no rule for this kind of thing. You have to parse the text of
a problem for physical quantities and then assign
meaning to mathematical symbols.

The last part of this equation at is the change in the

velocity from the initial value. Recall that a is the rate of
change of velocity and that t is the time after some initial
event. Rate times time is change. Given an object
accelerating at 10 m/s2, after 5 s it would be moving
50 m/s faster. If it started with a velocity of 15 m/s, then
its velocity after 5 s would be…

15 m/s + 50 m/s = 65 m/s

position-time
The displacement of a moving object is directly
proportional to both velocity and time. Move faster. Go
farther. Move longer (as in longer time). Go farther.
Acceleration compounds this simple situation since
velocity is now also directly proportional to time. Try
saying this in words and it sounds ridiculous.
"Displacement is directly proportional to time and directly
proportional to velocity, which is directly proportional to
time." Time is a factor twice, making displacement
proportional to the square of time. A car accelerating for
two seconds would cover four times the distance of a car
accelerating for only one second (22 = 4). A car
accelerating for three seconds would cover nine times the
distance (32 = 9).

Would that it were so simple. This example only works

when initial velocity is zero. Displacement is proportional
to the square of time when acceleration is constant and
initial velocity is zero. A true general statement would
have to take into account any initial velocity and how the
velocity was changing. This results in a terribly messy
proportionality statement. Displacement is directly
proportional to time and proportional to the square of time
when acceleration is constant. A function that is both
linear and square is said to be quadratic, which allows us
to compact the previous statement considerably.
Displacement is a quadratic function of time when
acceleration is constant

Proportionality statements are useful, but not as concise

as equations. We still don't know what the constants of
proportionality are for this problem. One way to figure
them out is to use algebra.

Start with the definition of velocity.

Δs
v̅ =
Δt

Expand Δs to s − s0 and condense Δt to t.

s − s0
v̅ =
t

Solve for position.

s = s0 + v̅t [a]

To continue, we need to resort to a little trick known as

the mean speed theorem or the Merton rule. I prefer the
latter since the rule can be applied to any quantity that
changes at a uniform rate — not just speed. The Merton
rule was first published in 1335 at Merton College, Oxford
by the English philosopher, mathematician, logician, and
calculator William Heytesbury. When the rate of change of a
quantity is constant, the quantity changes at a uniform
rate so that its average value is halfway between its initial
and final values.

v̅ = ½(v + v0) [4]

Substitute the first equation of motion [1] into this

equation [4] and simplify with the intent of eliminating v.

v̅ = ½[(v0 + at) + v0]

v̅ = ½(2v0 + at)

v̅ = v0 + ½at [b]

Now substitute [b] into [a] to eliminate v̅ [vee bar].

s = s0 + (v0 + ½at)t

And finally, solve for s as a function of t.

s = s0 + v0t + ½at2 [2]

This is the second equation of motion. It's written like a

polynomial — a constant term (s0), followed by a first
order term (v0t ), followed by a second order term (½at2).
Since the highest order is 2, it's more correct to call it a
quadratic.
The symbol s0 [ess nought] is often thought of as the
initial position. The symbol s is the position some time t
later. You could call it the final position if you wished. The
change in position (∆s) is called the displacement or
distance (depending on circumstances) and some people
prefer writing the equation like this.

∆s = v0t + ½at2

velocity-position
The first two equations of motion each describe one
kinematic variable as a function of time. In essence…

1. Velocity is directly proportional to time when

acceleration is constant (v ∝ t).
2. Displacement is proportional to time squared
when acceleration is constant (∆s ∝ t2).

Combining these two statements gives rise to a third —

one that is independent of time. By substitution, it should
be apparent that…

3. Displacement is proportional to velocity squared

when acceleration is constant (∆s ∝ v2).

This statement is particularly relevant to driving safety.

When you double the speed of a car, it takes four times
more distance to stop it. Triple the speed and you'll need
nine times more distance. This is a good rule of thumb to
remember.
The conceptual introduction is done. Time to derive the
formal equation. Combine the first two equations together
in a manner that will eliminate time as a variable. The
easiest way to do this is to start with the first equation…

v = v0 + at [1]

solve it for time…

v − v0
t=
a

and then substitute it into the second equation…

s = s0 + v0t + ½at2 [2]

like this…

⎛v − v0⎞ ⎛v − v0⎞2
s = s0 + v0 + ½a
⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ a ⎠
vv0 − v02 v2 − 2vv0 + v02
s − s0 = +
a 2a
2a(s − s0) = 2(vv0 − v02) + (v2 − 2vv0 + v02)

2a(s − s0) = v2 − v02

That wasn't very pleasant, but it was the easy way. The
reverse substitution of [2] into [1] is an algebraic
nightmare. In either case, when you're done, you get
this…

v2 = v02 + 2a(s − s0) [3]

This is the third equation of motion. Once again, the
symbol s0 [ess nought] is the initial position and s is the
position some time t later. If you prefer, you may write the
equation using ∆s — the change in position,
displacement, or distance as the situation merits.

v2 = v02 + 2a∆s

calculus derivations
Calculus is an advanced math topic, but it makes deriving
two of the three equations of motion much simpler. By
definition, acceleration is the first derivative of velocity
with respect to time. Take the operation in that definition
and reverse it. Instead of differentiating velocity to find
acceleration, integrate acceleration to find velocity. This
gives us the velocity-time equation. If we assume
acceleration is constant, we get the so-called first
equation of motion [1].

dv
a=
dt
dv = a dt
v t
⌠ ⌠
dv = a dt
⌡ ⌡
v0 0

v − v0 = at
v = v0 + at [1]

Again by definition, velocity is the first derivative of

position with respect to time. Reverse the operation in the
definition. Instead of differentiating position to find
velocity, integrate velocity to find position. This gives us
the position-time equation for constant acceleration, also
known as the second equation of motion [2].

ds
v=
dt
ds = v dt

ds = (v0 + at) dt
s t
⌠ ⌠
ds = (v0 + at) dt
⌡ ⌡
s0 0

s − s0 = v0t + ½at2
s = s0 + v0t + ½at2 [2]

Unlike the first and second equations of motion, there is

no obvious way to derive the third equation of motion (the
one that relates velocity to position) using calculus. We
can't just reverse engineer from the definitions. We need
to play a rather sophisticated trick.

The first equation of motion relates velocity to time. We

essentially derived it from this derivative…

dv
=a
dt

The second equation of motion relates position to time. It

came from this derivative…
ds
=v
dt

The third equation of motion relates velocity to position.

By logical extension, it should come from a derivative that
looks like this…

dv
=?
ds

But what does this equal? Well nothing by definition, but

like all quantities it does equal itself. It also equals itself
multiplied by 1. We'll use a special version of 1 (dtdt) and a
special version of algebra (algebra with infinitesimals).
Look what happens when we do this. We get a derivative
equal to acceleration (dvdt) and another equal to the inverse
of velocity (dtds).

dv dv
= 1
ds ds
dv dv dt
=
ds ds dt
dv dv dt
=
ds dt ds
dv 1
= a
ds v

Next step, separation of variables. Get things that are

similar together and integrate them. Here's what we get
when acceleration is constant…

dv = a1
 ds v
v dv = a ds
v s
⌠ ⌠
v dv = a ds
⌡ ⌡
v0 s0

½(v2 − v02) = a(s − s0)

v2 = v02 + 2a(s − s0) [3]

Certainly a clever solution, and it wasn't all that more

difficult than the first two derivations. However, it really
only worked because acceleration was constant —
constant in time and constant in space. If acceleration
varied in any way, this method would be uncomfortably
difficult. We'd be back to using algebra just to save our
sanity. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Algebra
works and sanity is worth saving.

v = v0 + at [1]
+
s = s0 + v0t + ½at2 [2]
=
v2 = v02 + 2a(s − s0) [3]