Does a Moving Sphere's Kinetic Energy Affect Its Atomic Particles?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the kinetic energy of a moving sphere and the kinetic energy of its atomic particles. Participants explore whether the kinetic energy of the macroscopic object affects the energy of its constituent atoms, considering various models and assumptions related to uniform density and internal energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the total kinetic energy of the sphere can be thought of as the sum of the kinetic energies of its atomic particles.
  • Others argue that the kinetic energy of a macroscopic object does not include the internal kinetic energy of its atoms, suggesting that this distinction is important.
  • A later reply questions how the macroscopic motion of the sphere influences the kinetic energy of its atoms, indicating a need for clarification on this relationship.
  • Some participants mention that if the object is treated as a classical rigid body, one can divide it into pieces and sum the kinetic energies of these pieces to obtain the total macroscopic kinetic energy.
  • There is a suggestion that the internal energy and random thermal motion of the molecules can often be ignored when focusing on macroscopic mechanical energy.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the validity of their model, which involves dividing the sphere into smaller masses and calculating the total energy based on uniform density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between the kinetic energy of the sphere and its atomic particles. Multiple competing views remain, with some emphasizing the separation of macroscopic and microscopic kinetic energy, while others explore the implications of treating the sphere as a collection of smaller masses.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include assumptions about uniform density, the treatment of internal energy, and the implications of ignoring molecular structure. These factors contribute to the complexity of the topic and the uncertainty expressed by participants.

Quarlep
Messages
257
Reaction score
4
Lets think we have a sphere and it moves a constant veloctity v.So it will have a kinetic energy.Is this kinetic energy efectts spheres particle energy.(sphere made up but atoms)

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Quarlep said:
Is this kinetic energy efectts spheres particle energy.(sphere made up but atoms)

Sure, the sum of the kinetic energy of each atom equals the total kinetic energy of the sphere.
 
Not in the common definition. The KE of a macroscopic object does not include the internal KE. Not that you cannot think about it this way, too.
 
nasu said:
Not in the common definition. The KE of a macroscopic object does not include the internal KE. Not that you cannot think about it this way, too.

Hmm, I suppose that the KE of the atoms would be part of its temperature then?
 
Lets think another way we have a object uniform density then this object moves.then the kinetic energy will be sum of the small mass of the sphere.then we get it what's wrong in this model
 
Quarlep said:
Lets think another way we have a object uniform density then this object moves.then the kinetic energy will be sum of the small mass of the sphere.then we get it what's wrong in this model
Can you rephrase your question. I'm not sure what you are asking.
 
Lets suppose we have a sphere.Sphere has a uniform density.When v=0 the total energy of sphere will be U(lets describe it that way).Now If we move the object with speed v then total energy will be U+1/2Mv2.Now we can divide M small m's like M=m1+m2... so then total energy will described that way.Like 1/2m1v2+1/2m2v2...=1/2Mv2.Important think is uniform density.Whats wrong in this model ?
 
Quarlep said:
Lets suppose we have a sphere.Sphere has a uniform density.When v=0 the total energy of sphere will be U(lets describe it that way).Now If we move the object with speed v then total energy will be U+1/2Mv2.Now we can divide M small m's like M=m1+m2... so then total energy will described that way.Like 1/2m1v2+1/2m2v2...=1/2Mv2.Important think is uniform density.Whats wrong in this model ?
I don't see anything wrong with that model. (We are ignoring any molecular structure and internal energy, just treating it as a classical continuum.)

Why do you think it's wrong?
 
I am not telling wrong but nasu says its not correct.So I am confused.
 
  • #10
Quarlep said:
I am not telling wrong but nasu says its not correct.So I am confused.
nasu was just pointing out that that would ignore the random thermal motion of the molecules. Which is often done.

If all you are interested in is the macroscopic mechanical energy (such as gravitational PE and macro KE), then you can safely ignore the details of internal energy.
 
  • #11
Thank you
 
  • #12
You can't add up the particle KE to get the bulk KE but you can add up all the momentums.
 
  • #13
sophiecentaur said:
You can't add up the particle KE to get the bulk KE
But if you treat the object as classical rigid body, ignoring any molecular-level structure and internal energy, you can divide it into pieces and add the KE of each piece to get the total macroscopic KE of the object.
 
  • #14
Doc Al said:
But if you treat the object as classical rigid body, ignoring any molecular-level structure and internal energy, you can divide it into pieces and add the KE of each piece to get the total macroscopic KE of the object.
Well, it would give you an answer but what could you do with number you got? I can't think it would give you a measure of how much energy you might extract from the system, for instance. (Except, perhaps, for a hot cannonball hitting a bucket of water and producing loads of hot, fast moving droplets of water. :wink: ?)
 
  • #15
Doc Al said:
But if you treat the object as classical rigid body, ignoring any molecular-level structure and internal energy, you can divide it into pieces and add the KE of each piece to get the total macroscopic KE of the object.
Yes, if you divide it into pieces, all moving with the same velocity, the total KE is the sum of the KE of the pieces. But this is quite trivial.
These pieces are not the atoms or molecules, as hinted in the OP.

My understanding was that he asks how the macroscopic motion influences the KE of atoms. But I am not sure.
 
  • #16
nasu said:
Yes, if you divide it into pieces, all moving with the same velocity, the total KE is the sum of the KE of the pieces. But this is quite trivial.
These pieces are not the atoms or molecules, as hinted in the OP.
It might be trivial, but it is essential to understand. And it doesn't just work for pure translation, where every piece has the same velocity (that would be quite trivial).

nasu said:
My understanding was that he asks how the macroscopic motion influences the KE of atoms. But I am not sure.
I'm not sure what he's asking.
 
  • #17
A sphere moves a constant velocity.This sphere has a volume.Each per volume in the sphere has a mass and If we calculate all this mass kinetic energy we get total kinetic energy of object. Post 7 If object type change thinks I want you to focus galaxy.Lets consider galaxy is a sphere and stars are atoms so galaxy total energy can be the sum of stars kinetic energy.Galaxy has a uniform density.
 
  • #18
Quarlep said:
A sphere moves a constant velocity.This sphere has a volume.Each per volume in the sphere has a mass and If we calculate all this mass kinetic energy we get total kinetic energy of object post 7
Sure. I assume you mean that you subdivide the sphere into pieces and calculate the kinetic energy of each piece and add them up. That will give you the total KE.
 
  • #19
Yeah I mean exactly that. Can somebody tell me last decision of it ?
 
  • #20
Quarlep said:
Can somebody tell me last decision of it ?
What do you mean?
 
  • #21
My idea is true isn't it (I mean this cause everybody says different things)
 
  • #22
Quarlep said:
My idea is true isn't it (I mean this cause everybody says different things)
I'm not sure what your idea is. (Beyond what I've already stated.)
 
  • #23
Doc Al said:
Sure. I assume you mean that you subdivide the sphere into pieces and calculate the kinetic energy of each piece and add them up. That will give you the total KE.
This idea
 
  • #24
Post 18 which you wrote that's my idea
 
  • #25
Quarlep said:
This idea
Well, I certainly agree with that (since you are quoting me!).
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Same old question, I still don't get it: E=1/2mv^2 - more E with V?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
High School About verification on Kinetic energy and work
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
High School Curious about the work - energy theorem
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about Momentum vs. Kinetic Energy vs. Deforming In Collisions
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Why Do Objects Bounce? Exploring Momentum and Energy Conservation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Work done in lifting and lowering an object
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Graduate Formulating the kinetic energy of an object - helical motion
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Graduate Kinetic energy distribution in high speeds and large scales
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School How does an object gain potential energy?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Undergrad Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K