Confusion with work and energy

AI Thread Summary
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work, with work represented as the integral of force over a path. The relationship between work and energy is explored through the work-energy theorem, which connects changes in a system's properties, such as temperature and velocity, to the work done. Observations show that when work is performed, certain properties of the system change in a way that compensates for the work done. This leads to the conclusion that work and energy are interdependent, with energy serving as a way to account for these changes. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding this relationship for a clearer grasp of physical systems.
Entr0py
Messages
102
Reaction score
1
This is something that's bugged me since I've read about it. What does it mean to say "energy is the capacity to do work"? I've read somewhere that work is some sort of integral. But I'm still confused, what do we mean when we say "the energy of object x is so and so"? I know the two quantities are related by the work-energy theorem, but I think there's a difference between knowing that such an equation exists and actually understanding it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You start by defining work as the integral of force over some path:
##W=\int_C Fds##
You get a quantity W out of it - it tells you something about how a force acts on an object. You wonder if it's ever going to be useful to you.

When you calculate this quantity to be non-zero for some system, you also make an observation that some other properties of the analysed system changed at the same time. Be it temperature distribution in the system, position of masses in a force field, velocity of those masses, etc.

You try and quantify by how much these properties change when you do work, and you end up with equations for heat transfer, potential energy, kinetic energy etc.

Since you observe that at least one of these properties changes by the exactly right amount to compensate for the work quantity, you conclude that work cannot be done without expanding those (and vice versa).

You call these properties energy for the lack of a better word. You end up happy you've managed to find a way to connect various properties of a system though the single quantity of work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Nugatory and Entr0py
Bandersnatch said:
You start by defining work as the integral of force over some path:
##W=\int_C Fds##
You get a quantity W out of it - it tells you something about how a force acts on an object. You wonder if it's ever going to be useful to you.

When you calculate this quantity to be non-zero for some system, you also make an observation that some other properties of the analysed system changed at the same time. Be it temperature distribution in the system, position of masses in a force field, velocity of those masses, etc.

You try and quantify by how much these properties change when you do work, and you end up with equations for heat transfer, potential energy, kinetic energy etc.

Since you observe that at least one of these properties changes by the exactly right amount to compensate for the work quantity, you conclude that work cannot be done without expanding those (and vice versa).

You call these properties energy for the lack of a better word. You end up happy you've managed to find a way to connect various properties of a system though the single quantity of work.
Awesome explanation. You clarified some things for me. Thank you
 
I've always thought of "energy" as a "bookkeeping device". Any time a new situation occurs in which the previously defined types of energy are not conserved, we define a new kind so that it is!
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top