How to intuitively see the v^2 relation to kinetic energy?

AI Thread Summary
Kinetic energy (KE) is proportional to the square of velocity (v^2), as expressed mathematically by the equation KE = 1/2 mv^2. To intuitively grasp this relationship, consider that accelerating a fast-moving object requires more power than accelerating a slow-moving one, leading to greater energy accumulation for the faster object. Observations from car collisions illustrate that momentum (p = mv) has a directional component, while energy remains positive, reinforcing the idea that momentum is proportional to v^1 and energy to v^2. This understanding aligns with everyday experiences, such as the fuel needed to accelerate a car, which is always positive regardless of direction. Thus, both kinetic energy and momentum can be intuitively understood without formal physics study.
ForTheGreater
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
KE is proportional to v^2. In a gravitational field KE=1/2 m*v^2.
It's easy to find mathematically Work=Fd=mad=m(v/t)(v*t)=m*v^2.

But how to visualize it or get an intuitively "feel" for this v^2 relationship?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The amount of power it takes to push something is equal to how hard you push times how fast you push. So far that's pretty intuitive right?

Accelerating something that's moving fast requires me to push fast.
Accelerating something that's moving slow requires that I push slow.

If I push equally hard on the fast thing and the slow thing, then I'll put more power into the fast thing, so, it will be accumulating more kinetic energy while accelerating at the same rate.
 
mrspeedybob said:
If I push equally hard on the fast thing and the slow thing, then I'll put more power into the fast thing, so, it will be accumulating more kinetic energy while accelerating at the same rate.

Yes, thank you.

Funny you should respond today. I was thinking about this again today and I reason as such that momentum is m*v and the rate at which momentum is traveling is (m*v)*v which is kinetic energy. I like the way you put it very much too.
 
There is a completely different way to approach a semi-intuitive understanding that agrees with everyday observations.

Consider two cars colliding while traveling 60 mph. If they were traveling in the same direction, the consequences are very different than if they were traveling in opposite directions. Thus, momentum has a +- sign. ##v^1## has a +- sign.

Consider the energy needed to accelerate a car to 60 mph. You could measure that by the fuel consumed during acceleration. The fuel needed is always positive regardless of the +- orientation of the drag strip. ##v^2## is always positive.

Using these arguments, momentum must be proportional to an odd power of v and energy proportional to an even power of v. 1 and 2 are the smallest (simplest) nonzero powers that fit. If you always guess the simplest possible solution, you will nearly always be correct.

Therefore, based only what you observe at the drag strip, your intuition should make you guess ##v^2## for K.E. and ##v^1## for momentum. Further search of your intuitive knowledge of car collisions (based on watching Mythbusters on TV) should lead you to conclude that both momentum and K.E. must also be proportional to mass.

##p=mv## and ##K.E.=mv^2## can be completely intuitive without studying physics. Do you agree?
 
  • Like
Likes physics user1
Good Definitions are a good place to start.
##Work=\int v dp## is a very general definition.
Now use p=mv. Then work = the change in kinetic energy. The important factor of 1/2 shows up.

The same definition works in special relativity... but you don't get a quadratic relation.
 
  • Like
Likes physics user1
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top