2 Things: Work-Energy theorem and parabolic trajectories.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the work-energy theorem and the conditions under which a particle follows a parabolic trajectory under the influence of a constant force. Participants explore the mathematical derivation of these concepts and their implications in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to show that the integral of force over displacement equals the change in energy, suggesting a need for clarification on the work-energy theorem.
  • Another participant asserts that a constant (non-zero) force results in a parabolic trajectory, providing a mathematical derivation involving integration of acceleration and velocity.
  • A later reply reiterates the same point about parabolic trajectories, emphasizing that the net force is always the only force acting on an object.
  • One participant claims that the work formula cannot be derived as it is a definition, but suggests that logical reasoning can justify its validity.
  • Another participant counters that the Work-Energy theorem can indeed be derived under specific conditions, presenting a mathematical approach to support this claim.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the work formula can be derived or is merely a definition, indicating a lack of consensus on this point. There is agreement on the relationship between constant force and parabolic trajectories, though the details of the derivation are discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of forces acting on particles and the conditions under which the work-energy theorem is applied. Some mathematical steps and definitions remain unresolved or are subject to interpretation.

misogynisticfeminist
Messages
370
Reaction score
0
Hi,

When reading through the work-energy thread, i just got reminded of something bugging me for quite a while. I don't think this is mentioned in the work-energy thread, firstly, how can we show that,

[tex]\int f \bullet ds = \Delta E[/tex]

also,

I've heard that there's a way to show that when only one force acts on a particle or something, the particle follows a parabolic trajectory. Is there a way to show this?

thanks...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If there is a constant (non-zero) force acting on something, it follows a parabolic trajectory. That's because, taking the x-axis perpendicular to the constant force, integrating a constant twice (from [itex]\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}= \frac{F}{m}[/itex] to [itex]\frac{dy}{dt}= \frac{F}{m}t+ v_0[/itex] to [itex]y= \fra{F}{2m}t^2+ v_0t+ y_0[/tex]) we get a quadratic in t while x, with 0 acceleration, is linear in t.<br /> <br /> (There's <b>always</b> "only one force" on something- the net force.)[/itex]
 
HallsofIvy said:
If there is a constant (non-zero) force acting on something, it follows a parabolic trajectory. That's because, taking the x-axis perpendicular to the constant force, integrating a constant twice (from [itex]\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}= \frac{F}{m}[/itex] to [itex]\frac{dy}{dt}= \frac{F}{m}t+ v_0[/itex] to [itex]y= \fra{F}{2m}t^2+ v_0t+ y_0[/tex]) we get a quadratic in t while x, with 0 acceleration, is linear in t.<br /> <br /> (There's <b>always</b> "only one force" on something- the net force.)[/itex]
[itex] <br /> ohhhh ok, that helped a lot, thanks..<br /> <br /> Anyone with the work question?[/itex]
 
You can't derive the work formula, as it is a definition. You can, however justify why the definition is a good one with a little bit of logical reasoning.

Claude.
 
But you can certainly derive the Work-Energy theorem. Taking the simplest case, where the direction of the net force remains fixed:
[tex]\int f \bullet ds = \int m a \bullet ds = m \int \frac{dv_s}{dt} ds = m \int v_s \ dv_s = \Delta (1/2 m v_s^2)[/tex]
 
oh ok thanks, that's what I'm looking for.

: )
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
7K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
24K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K