Energy vs Momentum: Physics Examining the Difference

  • Thread starter Thread starter aloshi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Momentum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between energy and momentum in physics, particularly questioning why work is defined as force multiplied by distance rather than force multiplied by time. An example involving a 1 kg ant affected by a 10 N force illustrates how the ant's speed and distance traveled change over time, leading to increased energy consumption in the second second despite constant force. It highlights that while momentum is proportional to time, energy is proportional to distance traveled. The mathematical derivation shows that work done relates to kinetic energy, whereas momentum is linked to changes over time. This distinction clarifies the fundamental definitions in physics regarding energy and momentum.
aloshi
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Energy? or momentum?

a dorm ant crawled on 1kg affected by krfaften 10N, so it may be an acceleration of
10m / s ^ 2, then the following 1s have speeds 10m / s, and a movement of 5 m has taken place. continuing the body that are affected by the same power in 1 s to, it will then have the speed 20m / s and a total of a movement of 20 m, 15 m further. According to the work as it is defined as force * distance, has been eating more energy during the second second. but power over the other secondary was the same as in the first second. How can they actually require more energy to maintain the same effect during the second second??

why physics has chosen to define the work force multiplied by distance and not as a force multiplied by time (that is to say, momentum)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
aloshi said:
a dorm ant crawled on 1kg affected by krfaften 10N, so it may be an acceleration of
10m / s ^ 2, then the following 1s have speeds 10m / s, and a movement of 5 m has taken place. continuing the body that are affected by the same power in 1 s to, it will then have the speed 20m / s and a total of a movement of 20 m, 15 m further. According to the work as it is defined as force * distance, has been eating more energy during the second second. but power over the other secondary was the same as in the first second. How can they actually require more energy to maintain the same effect during the second second??

why physics has chosen to define the work force multiplied by distance and not as a force multiplied by time (that is to say, momentum)?

Hi aloshi! :smile:

Because work done = ∫F ds = ∫m dv/dt ds = (chain rule :wink:) ∫m dv/ds ds/dt ds
= ∫mv dv/ds ds = ∫mv dv = 1/2 mv2 + constant = kinetic energy + constant.

(and ∫F dt = ∫m dv/dt dt = ∫m dv = momentum + constant)

So the ant's speed (and momentum) is proportional to time, but its energy is proportional to distance. :smile:
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top