Does an Object Lose Potential Energy as It Gains Kinetic Energy?

AI Thread Summary
An object loses potential energy (PE) at the same rate it gains kinetic energy (KE) when there are no dissipative forces like friction or air resistance. This principle applies not only to free-falling objects but also to objects sliding down frictionless surfaces. The net force acting on an object in free fall is its weight, meaning the resultant force is not zero. Therefore, as long as these conditions are met, the conversion between PE and KE is consistent. Understanding this relationship is crucial in physics.
anthroxy
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi i was just wondering if a object loses potential energy at the same rate as it gains kinetic engergy. Does the object have to be in free fall and are all the resulting forces equal to zero at this point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anthroxy said:
Hi i was just wondering if a object loses potential energy at the same rate as it gains kinetic engergy. Does the object have to be in free fall and are all the resulting forces equal to zero at this point?
No, the object need not be in free fall--a box sliding down a frictionless ramp will also gain KE at the same rate as it loses gravitational PE. All that matters is that there's no dissipative forces like friction or air resistance.

And no, the resultant force is not zero! An object in free fall has a net downward force --its weight.
 
So if we neglect air resistance we can more or less say that we lose PE at the same rate as we gain KE, thanks a lot!
 
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...
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...
Back
Top