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
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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