How was the formula for kinetic energy found?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The formula for kinetic energy, expressed as ##E_k = \frac{1}{2}mv^{2}##, was derived through the principles of energy conservation and the work-energy theorem. The discussion highlights the historical context of this derivation, emphasizing the contributions of Newton's laws and the relationship between work, force, and distance. Key insights include the necessity of defining potential energy functions and the mathematical rigor required to connect kinetic energy with the work done by forces. The conversation also references Leonard Susskind's lectures and the importance of understanding the energy-work theorem in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Second Law of Motion
  • Familiarity with the concepts of work and energy
  • Knowledge of calculus, particularly integration
  • Basic understanding of potential energy functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the work-energy theorem in classical mechanics
  • Study the relationship between force and potential energy in conservative systems
  • Explore the historical development of energy conservation principles
  • Learn about the implications of kinetic energy in different physical contexts, such as electromagnetism
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching mechanics, and anyone interested in the historical development of energy concepts in classical physics.

Ganesh Ujwal
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
How was the formula for kinetic energy found, and who found it?

My questions mostly concern the history of physics. Who found the formula for kinetic energy
##E_k =\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}##
and how was this formula actually discovered? I've recently watched Leonard Susskind's lecture where he proves that if you define kinetic and potential energy in this way, then you can show that the total energy is conserved. But that makes me wonder how anyone came to define kinetic energy in that way.

My guess is that someone thought along the following lines:

Energy is conserved, in the sense that when you lift something up you've done work,
but when you let it go back down you're basically back where you started.
So it seems that my work and the work of gravity just traded off.

But how do I make the concept mathematically rigorous? I suppose I need functions ##U## and ##V##, so that the total energy is their sum ##E=U+V##, and the time derivative is always zero, ##\frac{dE}{dt}=0##.

But where do I go from here? How do I leap to either

a) ##U=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}##
b) ##F=-\frac{dV}{dt}?##

It seems to me that if you could get to either (a) or (b), then the rest is just algebra, but I do not see how to get to either of these without being told by a physics professor.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hhhmmm...well, I don't know what came first either...how about the formula for Work=Force x Distance? Because that along with Newton's Second Law seems to yield the equation for Kinetic Energy.
 
The history has not been discussed here, as far as I know. Wikipedia is a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

However, it doesn't answer the question, who first derived the energy-work theorem. With this I mean that from
$$m \dot{\vec{v}}=\vec{F}(\vec{r})$$
one gets
$$\frac{m}{2} (\vec{v}_2^2-\vec{v}_1^2)=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t \dot{\vec{r}} \cdot \vec{F}(\vec{r}).$$
The right-hand side is the line integral of the force along the trajectory of the particle under influence of this force.

The energy-conservation theorem in the stricter sense only holds for forces that have a potential (or cases like the Lorentz force of electromagnetism for time-independent electromagnetic fields, where the electric field has a potential and the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the velocity and thus doesn't contribute to work). In this case you have
$$\frac{m}{2} (\vec{v}_2^2-\vec{v}_1^2)=-\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t \vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla} U(\vec{r})=-U(\vec{r}_2)+U(\vec{r}_1).$$
Thus we have the conservation of total energy,
$$\frac{m}{2} \vec{v}_2^2 +U(\vec{r}_2) = \frac{m}{2} \vec{v}_1^2 + U(\vec{r}_1).$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K