- #1
g.lemaitre
- 267
- 2
Energy causes objects to move. Force causes object to change direction, accelerate or decelerate, correct?
g.lemaitre said:Energy causes objects to move.
g.lemaitre said:Force causes object to change direction, accelerate or decelerate, correct?
g.lemaitre said:Energy causes objects to move. Force causes object to change direction, accelerate or decelerate, correct?
sophiecentaur said:You are raising and trying to answer a "what is it really" question and there is no answer to that sort of question.
g.lemaitre said:I want to know what energy and force are related to.
ZapperZ said:[tex] \mathbf F = - \mathbf \nabla U[/tex]
There you go!
Zz.
g.lemaitre said:I guess what I'm trying to answer is why do sub atomic particles move? I thought it was because they have energy. I'm not going to ask why they have energy because I know that can not be answered. I just want to make sure that that idea of mine was correct.
Energy causes objects to move. Force causes object to change direction, accelerate or decelerate, correct?
ZapperZ said:This question cannot be answered because it is vague and loaded with undefined situations.
What "sub-atomic particles"? Are you referring to electrons in atoms? Are you referring to conduction electrons in metals? Are you referring to quarks in nucleus? These are all very different situations and have different physics associated with them!
Secondly, "force" is not well defined concept, especially in QM and QFT. Yet, you are still playing with that word and demanding how they all fit in.
Finally, look back at your original question:
Rather than trying to figure out how "sub-atomic particles" move, I think you should make many steps back, way back, and start with basic classical mechanics first. You are not yet equipped to understand how the concept of energy and force are applicable (or not) for those sub-atomic particles.
Zz.
g.lemaitre said:But every day a student of physics should ask 2 or 3 questions in physicsforums in order to really progress and understand.
ZapperZ said:Says who? Who made up such a rule? You?
One can also sit back and learn from existing discussions rather than ask something way beyond one's head!
Zz.
g.lemaitre said:Remember the phrase I think by Twain better to be a fool and keep silent than open your mouth and prove it. If you just read physics and never open your mouth you'll never find out if you're a fool.
g.lemaitre said:Well, is there any subatomic particle that is ever not moving? Isn't the property that we use to account for particles perpetual motion that they have energy? I realize of course that I could go back and study classical mechanics. You can always do that. But every day a student of physics should ask 2 or 3 questions in physicsforums in order to really progress and understand.
This is an incorrect way of thinking about motion. A body in motion has energy. It is not the cause of the motion. A particle can be moving at constant body with nothing causing it to move.g.lemaitre said:Energy causes objects to move. Force causes object to change direction, accelerate or decelerate, correct?
sophiecentaur said:So, in the past, no one could have understood anything as a result of personal effort and reading? PF just wasn't around in the formative years of the really bright Scientists around today. The instant gratification in the form of answers from someone who has identified your personal mis-conceptions and then answering in just the right way would be an immense luxury, I think.
If you were prepared to PAY a personal tutor to be taught by the one-to-one question and answer method then you might find someone to indulge you. But it would cost you. If you lived locally, I would even offer, myself but I doubt whether you live in the South of England (statistically). Have you thought of reading all the faqs and searching the threads on this topic before leaping in half way through, trying to make spurious connections between random ideas?
If you are interested in making connections between Energy and Motion of particles, look up kinetic theory in any good textbook or on the hyperphysics site (very well put together). There is a lot of info available for those who are prepared to read it.
If you feel like helping others is a waste of time, then why are you here?Vanadium 50 said:Easier for you. Not easier for the experts whose patience you are testing. This is why we discourage this mode of behavior.
And just out of curiosity, exactly how much more valuable do you think your time is than ours?
This assumes that the 'experts' are actually disagreeing. In a matter as basic as this and at the level of your questions, can you say that the experts do actually disagree?g.lemaitre said:It is easier to rid yourself of false beliefs by posing questions to experts than it is to read books written by experts. Let me prove this logically.
1. Expert says A and B are true, therefore I believe A and B mean that C is true.
2. If C is false and an expert is present, the expert will tell me
3. If C is false and an expert is not present, then the expert will not tell me.
4. Therefore, uttering beliefs in the presence of experts is the more likely to remove falsity of belief than uttering beliefs in the absence of experts.
Ultimately however a student can read A and B and falsely conclude C. Of course under rare occasions the student can read D and find out that C is false, but those occasions take time and are rare. And of course it is also the case that a student will believe C and one expert will say that C is true and another will say C is false but fortunately those situations are in the minority. Nevertheless, it is also true that the best way to liberate yourself from false belief is to utter your belief and see what people think of them. That's why I'm here trying to get my beliefs on energy straight.sophiecentaur said:This assumes that the 'experts' are actually disagreeing. In a matter as basic as this and at the level of your questions, can you say that the experts do actually disagree?
It seems to me that the main problem here is not bothering to read the small print in the definitions of the equantities involved. Only at a quasi philosophical level is there any possible discussion here.
It seems to have been a matter of asking rather than reading and thinking first.
g.lemaitre said:Ultimately however a student can read A and B and falsely conclude C. Of course under rare occasions the student can read D and find out that C is false, but those occasions take time and are rare. And of course it is also the case that a student will believe C and one expert will say that C is true and another will say C is false but fortunately those situations are in the minority. Nevertheless, it is also true that the best way to liberate yourself from false belief is to utter your belief and see what people think of them. That's why I'm here trying to get my beliefs on energy straight.
I have decided however that my real area of misunderstanding is a false interpretation of HUP and the Law of Conservation of Momentum, which is why I have a thread open at the QM forum. I more or less consider this thread resolved.
IMO, that is a very poor way. If you state a false belief to the wrong person they will think it is a great idea and correct.g.lemaitre said:Nevertheless, it is also true that the best way to liberate yourself from false belief is to utter your belief and see what people think of them.
DaleSpam said:IMO, that is a very poor way. If you state a false belief to the wrong person they will think it is a great idea and correct.
g.lemaitre said:Ultimately however a student can read A and B and falsely conclude C. Of course under rare occasions the student can read D and find out that C is false, but those occasions take time and are rare. And of course it is also the case that a student will believe C and one expert will say that C is true and another will say C is false but fortunately those situations are in the minority. Nevertheless, it is also true that the best way to liberate yourself from false belief is to utter your belief and see what people think of them. That's why I'm here trying to get my beliefs on energy straight.
I have decided however that my real area of misunderstanding is a false interpretation of HUP and the Law of Conservation of Momentum, which is why I have a thread open at the QM forum. I more or less consider this thread resolved.
Vanadium 50 said:Don't put words in my mouth.
You didn't answer my question. Exactly how much more valuable do you think your time is than ours?
Force is a push or pull on an object, while energy is the ability to do work. In simple terms, force causes objects to move and energy is what makes that movement possible.
Force can cause objects to accelerate, decelerate, or change direction. The magnitude and direction of the force applied to an object determines how it will move.
There are four main types of forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Gravitational force is responsible for the attraction between objects, while electromagnetic force is responsible for interactions between charged particles. Strong nuclear force holds the nucleus of an atom together, and weak nuclear force is involved in certain types of radioactive decay.
Energy can be transferred from one object to another through the application of force. When a force is applied to an object, work is done and energy is transferred. For example, when kicking a soccer ball, the energy from your leg is transferred to the ball, causing it to move.
Force is typically measured in Newtons (N) and energy is measured in Joules (J). A force can be measured using a spring scale or force sensor, while energy can be measured using a variety of instruments such as a calorimeter or a dynamometer.