## Force... What is energy's role?

Hallo,

When force is acted upon a certain object it could change its direction,movement. Does force require energy to be produced?

Looking at all the natural forces they seem to be created and force comes along with them. If force can move an object or stop an object or ever accelerate one. What is energy's role in all of them? Is it like this example:

Magnetic fields producing a natural force that can only be triggered by energy, same as gravity.

Are natural force only triggered by energy?
 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Study provides better understanding of water's freezing behavior at nanoscale>> Soft matter offers new ways to study how ordered materials arrange themselves>> Making quantum encryption practical

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Momento Hallo, When force is acted upon a certain object it could change its direction,movement. Does force require energy to be produced?
The short answer is no, but it is kind of a complicated question.

 Looking at all the natural forces they seem to be created and force comes along with them. If force can move an object or stop an object or ever accelerate one. What is energy's role in all of them? Is it like this example: Magnetic fields producing a natural force that can only be triggered by energy, same as gravity. Are natural force only triggered by energy?
I think you have a misunderstanding of what energy is. Energy is simply the ability for one system to perform work on another. Energy does not cause things to happen, that is the result of forces.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by Momento When force is acted upon a certain object it could change its direction,movement. Does force require energy to be produced?
The key word is could. If it does not in fact change anything, no work has been done. Work = force * distance through which the force produced movement of the point of application, in the direction of the force.

## Force... What is energy's role?

 Quote by Drakkith The short answer is no, but it is kind of a complicated question. I think you have a misunderstanding of what energy is. Energy is simply the ability for one system to perform work on another. Energy does not cause things to happen, that is the result of forces.
If force is produced over a distance is there energy being stored/converted...?

 Quote by haruspex The key word is could. If it does not in fact change anything, no work has been done. Work = force * distance through which the force produced movement of the point of application, in the direction of the force.
So force is crucial for a system to do work right?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Momento If force is produced over a distance is there energy being stored/converted...? So force is crucial for a system to do work right?
In as far as it's included in the definition, you can't have one without the other.
If the car's not in gear (to transmit a force), the engine can't do any work in getting it moving.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by Momento So force is crucial for a system to do work right?
That doesn't logically follow. I stated how a force does work. Perhaps things other than forces can do work. Heat flow, e.g.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Nope. 'Work' is a strictly defined quantity, involving force and displacement. You are trying to associate work with energy in general, which is not precise.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by sophiecentaur Nope. 'Work' is a strictly defined quantity, involving force and displacement. You are trying to associate work with energy in general, which is not precise.
That's not universal. Many authorities distinguish between mechanical work, electrical work, chemical work and thermodynamic work (heat).
 Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor That's not how I am used to it. Do you have a reference to these other uses of the word? There seems little point in expanding its meaning so that it becomes synonymous with 'Energy' or 'Potential'. I do know that 'work function' is used in respect of the energy required to remove photo-electrons but even that involves a mechanical idea, albeit small scale. (And it is a fairly ancient concept along with Electro Motive Force)
 I am far from an authority, but I have never heard heat referred to as thermodynamic work. In fact, the two are strictly different according to the first law of thermodynamics. Electrical work is the work done on a charged particle by the electric field. A charged particle feels a force in an electric field. These specific cases of work can be distinguished, but the definition of work requires a force. If you don't explicitly define a force, it follows from the definition that $-\frac{dW}{dr}=F$. I would be surprised to see work used in a situation where a force could not be easily defined unless the author was explicitly being loose with definitions.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by sophiecentaur That's not how I am used to it. Do you have a reference to these other uses of the word? There seems little point in expanding its meaning so that it becomes synonymous with 'Energy' or 'Potential'. I do know that 'work function' is used in respect of the energy required to remove photo-electrons but even that involves a mechanical idea, albeit small scale. (And it is a fairly ancient concept along with Electro Motive Force)
It's not so much a matter of expanding the meaning. It's more that the meaning of the word "work" has tended to contract to cover only mechanical work in most usage. It's a bit like the use of "forensic" to mean specifically forensic science. It really means "pertaining to law".
Early statements of the laws of thermodynamics included "heat is work and work is heat". The term energy was not so widespread.
But I was wrong to say thermodynamic work meant heat - it's everything except heat. For the rest, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29.
 Ok, Some of you are realting work to energy and I doubt their the same. I'm kinda confused and stuck in the middle here... All I know now is a system that is able to work will always require "Force" to do so. In many system their are countless forces that have to come into account. Some forces are already being generated from a system's energy and other may have forces upon them such as you and I and all objects that have gravitational force on them. "sophiecentaur" has a good point about the matter so far.

 Quote by haruspex It's not so much a matter of expanding the meaning. It's more that the meaning of the word "work" has tended to contract to cover only mechanical work in most usage. It's a bit like the use of "forensic" to mean specifically forensic science. It really means "pertaining to law". Early statements of the laws of thermodynamics included "heat is work and work is heat". The term energy was not so widespread. But I was wrong to say thermodynamic work meant heat - it's everything except heat. For the rest, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29.
But isn't heat energy from its origins? I mean heat is the act of atoms having a lot of movement isn't it, so thats energy right?

 Quote by Momento But isn't heat energy from its origins?
Heat and work are exchange of energy.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by Momento All I know now is a system that is able to work will always require "Force" to do so.
If you only consider work to cover mechanical work then, yes, force will be required.
The references I've found show that 'work' nowadays means any form of energy other than heat, and that if you care about the specific form of work then you should qualify it as mechanical, chemical, electrical, and so on.
For some of these it is not so clear that there would always be a force involved in transfer. Is there a force involved when a photon excites an electron in an atom? Maybe.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by haruspex For some of these it is not so clear that there would always be a force involved in transfer. Is there a force involved when a photon excites an electron in an atom? Maybe.
The interaction by which any transfer of energy takes place is the result of a force. Without a force there would be no interaction between two particles and no energy would be exchanged.

 Quote by Drakkith The interaction by which any transfer of energy takes place is the result of a force. Without a force there would be no interaction between two particles and no energy would be exchanged.
I would say force is a result of interaction not the other way around.