Undergrad Deriving formula for kinetic energy

Click For 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
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}.##
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
2K