Exploring the Mechanics of Energy Conservation: Understanding the Paradox

In summary: I mean, they do, but...it's ve...I mean...well, not really. See, what...they really have is energy stored in the...well, see, ATP is hydrolyzed by enzymes...that is, it's split into ADP and a phosphate...and the energy of that reaction is used to power...well, I mean, the energy is used to power the contraction of the muscle fibers. But the ATP has to be remade...by...well, by oxidizing glucose or fat or something...and...well, I mean, the ATP has to be remade for the muscle to keep working. So, I mean, the energy has to come from somewhere. I mean, the food you eat
  • #1
Chenkel
482
108
TL;DR Summary
I give a thought experiment of a rollercoaster and a ball in the hand.
Hello everyone! I've been studying work and energy, and one problem I have is understanding conservation of mechanical energy. If on a rollercoaster you have two points A and B you expect the mechanical energy at A to be equal to the mechanical energy at point B, makes sense to me; but I started wondering, what if I have a ball in my hand and move it from above my head to below my head, the potential energy changes at the two points, but the kinetic energy is 0 at both points, it makes me wonder what the non conservative forces are and why they are considered non conservative, how can I explain this lack of conservation of mechanical energy? Let me know what you guys think, thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What is your system? Choose any number from (a) rollercoaster; (b) ball; (c) you; (d) Earth.

Whatever you choose, your muscles exert a non-conservative force on the ball.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, malawi_glenn and Chenkel
  • #3
Chenkel said:
Summary: I give a thought experiment of a rollercoaster and a ball in the hand.

Hello everyone! I've been studying work and energy, and one problem I have is understanding conservation of mechanical energy. If on a rollercoaster you have two points A and B you expect the mechanical energy at A to be equal to the mechanical energy at point B, makes sense to me; but I started wondering, what if I have a ball in my hand and move it from above my head to below my head, the potential energy changes at the two points, but the kinetic energy is 0 at both points, it makes me wonder what the non conservative forces are and why they are considered non conservative, how can I explain this lack of conservation of mechanical energy? Let me know what you guys think, thank you!
Wowie.

What is "mechanical energy"? Please post a link and give an exact mathematical definition. Thank you.

Is the roller coaster car moving? If so, why is the ball's KE zero?
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel
  • #4
I just found this on Google

"Non-conservative forces are dissipative forces such as friction or air resistance. These forces take energy away from the system as the system progresses, energy that you can't get back. These forces are path dependent; therefore it matters where the object starts and stops."

I suppose because the hand is slowing down the ball, the energy of the hand takes the energy away from the ball, but it's a little unclear to me how this is happening because two objects interacting does not necessarily mean transfer of energy from one system to another.
 
  • #5
berkeman said:
Wowie.

What is "mechanical energy"? Please post a link and give an exact mathematical definition. Thank you.

Is the roller coaster car moving? If so, why is the ball's KE zero?
Apologies if I wasn't clear enough, the ball throwing is happening outside the rollercoaster ride, I'm just making a comparison between the rollercoaster and the ball, an example where kinetic energy is conserved vs an example where it's not.

The definition of mechanical energy from Wikipedia:

"In physical sciences, mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy. The principle of conservation of mechanical energy states that if an isolated system is subject only to conservative forces, then the mechanical energy is constant"
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #6
Presumably by "mechanical energy" you mean the sum of the kinetic energy KE and potential energy PE?

As @kuruman points out, the muscles are exerting a non-conservative force so that mechanical energy is not conserved, and this makes the problem a bit harder to think through. Nonetheless, the total energy (which is the sum of KE, PE, the chemical potential energy in your muscles, and the heat dissipated in your muscles as they move) will be conserved.
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel
  • #7
Nugatory said:
Presumably by "mechanical energy" you mean the sum of the kinetic energy KE and potential energy PE?

As @kuruman points out, the muscles are exerting a non-conservative force so that mechanical energy is not conserved, and this makes the problem a bit harder to think through. Nonetheless, the total energy (which is the sum of KE, PE, the chemical potential energy in your muscles, and the heat dissipated in your muscles as they move) will be conserved.
So as my muscles bring something to a stop I imagine they heat up, can that heat be transferred back to the ball in the form of KE? How do muscles have potential energy relative to the ball? The muscles use calories, and the ball never gives energy back to the muscle so I'm having trouble invisionioning a system where the energy is conserved.
 
  • #8
Chenkel said:
So as my muscles bring something to a stop I imagine they heat up,
Yes.
can that heat be transferred back to the ball in the form of KE?
No.
How do muscles have potential energy relative to the ball?
Huh? They...don't. I don't know what your thought process is there.
The muscles use calories, and the ball never gives energy back to the muscle so I'm having trouble invisionioning a system where the energy is conserved.
It's a good bet that any unaccounted for energy ends up as heat.
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel
  • #9
Chenkel said:
two objects interacting does not necessarily mean transfer of energy from one system to another
This is wise to notice. So, two objects interact (meaning they exert forces on each other), what determines if energy is being transferred?

The rate of energy transfer is known as power and is given by ##P=\vec F \cdot \vec v##. So energy is transferred whenever the force is in the direction of the velocity.

In the case of lowering a ball in your hand, the velocity is vertical and the force is vertical, so mechanical energy is indeed transferred in this scenario.

FYI, my recommendation is to avoid trying to analyze the human body in introductory physics courses. It is a very messy machine and more likely to confuse than illuminate. Always try to replace it with a simple machine. In your case, try thinking about lowering the ball using a spring.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Chenkel
  • #10
Chenkel said:
So as my muscles bring something to a stop I imagine they heat up, can that heat be transferred back to the ball in the form of KE?
No, but regenerative braking in electric cars does something of the sort. Instead of dissipating kinetic energy as heat they use it to turn a generator and charge the battery.
 
  • Like
Likes Chenkel

1. What is the mechanical energy paradox?

The mechanical energy paradox is a concept in physics that describes the apparent contradiction between the conservation of energy and the behavior of certain mechanical systems. It refers to situations where a system appears to have a constant amount of mechanical energy, yet its behavior suggests that energy is being lost or gained.

2. How does the mechanical energy paradox relate to the law of conservation of energy?

The mechanical energy paradox is a violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. In situations where the mechanical energy paradox occurs, it seems as though energy is being created or destroyed, which goes against this fundamental law of physics.

3. What are some examples of the mechanical energy paradox?

One example of the mechanical energy paradox is the behavior of a pendulum. As the pendulum swings back and forth, it appears to have a constant amount of mechanical energy, yet it gradually loses energy due to friction and air resistance. Another example is a ball rolling down a hill. Despite losing potential energy as it moves downhill, the ball's total mechanical energy remains constant.

4. How is the mechanical energy paradox resolved?

The mechanical energy paradox is resolved by taking into account all forms of energy involved in a system, including kinetic energy, potential energy, and any energy lost due to friction or other factors. By considering all forms of energy, the apparent contradiction can be explained and the law of conservation of energy is not violated.

5. Why is the mechanical energy paradox important in physics?

The mechanical energy paradox is important in physics because it highlights the complexity of energy and its interactions in different systems. It also demonstrates the need for a comprehensive understanding of all forms of energy in order to accurately describe and predict the behavior of physical systems. Additionally, it helps to further our understanding of the law of conservation of energy and its applications in various situations.

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
117
Replies
51
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
79
Replies
12
Views
853
Replies
10
Views
801
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
6
Views
827
Replies
1
Views
636
Back
Top