Condition of the work energy theorem

AI Thread Summary
The work-energy theorem's applicability is debated, with varying interpretations across textbooks. Some assert it applies only to particles, while others argue it should encompass both internal and external work. Additionally, there is a viewpoint that limits the theorem's application to changes in kinetic energy alone. In non-relativistic mechanics, the theorem holds that external forces' work correlates with total energy increase, while internal forces' work relates to kinetic energy changes in an isolated system. Clarifying these conditions is essential for proper application in physics.
bgq
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Hi,

After reading several resources about work and energy, I am confused about the conditions that should be satisfied in order to be able to apply work energy theorem. It seems that textbooks have different arguments about this issue. I can summarize what textbooks say in three different opinions about the condition to apply work energy theorem:

1) Work energy theorem is only applied to particles.
2) Work energy theorem should include both internal and external works.
3) The change in the system should be restricted to only kinetic energy.

Which is true? Which is accepted by the physics community?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are more situations, hence more theorems.

In non-relativistic mechanics, these two are valid:

If the system is under action of external forces, total work done by these external forces equals to increase of total energy of the system.

If the system is isolated, total work done by internal forces equals to increase of kinetic energy of the system and also to decrease of potential energy, so the total energy is constant.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top