I Deriving formula for kinetic energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the formula for kinetic energy, specifically the expression \( \frac{1}{2}mv^2 \), from given assumptions in classical physics. The user starts with the equations \( \ddot{z} = 0 \) and \( m\ddot{\textbf{r}} \cdot \dot{\textbf{r}} = 0 \), leading to the conclusion that kinetic energy is constant when no work is done. A constant applied force implies that acceleration and velocity maintain a consistent direction, allowing for the manipulation of the equations. The conversation emphasizes the relationship between the time derivative of kinetic energy and the conditions under which it remains unchanged. Ultimately, the thread seeks clarification on completing the derivation under these assumptions.
billard
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Issue deriving 1/2 *mv^2 from some pre-assumed equations
Hello! I am new to the differential version of classical physics, and I am trying to work how to derive kinetic energy from some pre-assumed equations:

Assume that we know: ##\ddot{z} = 0## and ##m\ddot{\textbf{r}} \cdot \dot{\textbf{r}} = 0##This results in $$\frac{1}{2}m\dot{r}^2 = W = const.$$

How is the kinetic energy given here with our pre-assumptions? I am sure this is very simple, forgive me, I am a beginner.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Work done per time is innerproduct of Force F and velocity v. F =ma. When no work done, you can deduce that KE is conserved.
 
Last edited:
billard said:
TL;DR Summary: Issue deriving 1/2 *mv^2 from some pre-assumed equations

Hello! I am new to the differential version of classical physics, and I am trying to work how to derive kinetic energy from some pre-assumed equations:

Assume that we know: ##\ddot{z} = 0## and ##m\ddot{\textbf{r}} \cdot \dot{\textbf{r}} = 0##This results in $$\frac{1}{2}m\dot{r}^2 = W = const.$$

How is the kinetic energy given here with our pre-assumptions? I am sure this is very simple, forgive me, I am a beginner.
If the applied force is constant, then ##\ddot{\textbf{r}}## is constant, and in particular, so is the direction of ##\dot{\textbf{r}}##, ala Newton's 2nd.

So
##\ddot{\textbf{r}} \cdot \dot{\textbf{r}} = \ddot{r} \dot{r} \, cos( \theta )##
where ##\theta## is the angle between the acceleration and the velocity is constant.

So now you have
##m\ddot{r} \dot{r} cos( \theta ) = ( m \, cos( \theta ) ) \ddot{r} \dot{r} = 0##

Now note that
##\dfrac{d}{dt} ( \dot{r} )^2 = 2 \ddot{r} \dot{r}##

Can you finish?

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes exponent137
Start with ##K=\frac{1}{2}m(\mathbf{\dot r}\cdot \mathbf{\dot r}).##
Can you show that ##\dfrac{dK}{dt}=0~## if ##~\mathbf{\dot r}\cdot \mathbf{\ddot r}=0~?##

Here assume that ##\mathbf{r}=x~\mathbf{\hat x}+y~\mathbf{\hat y}+z~\mathbf{\hat z}.##
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top