How was the formula for kinetic energy found?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the historical development of the kinetic energy formula, specifically ##E_k = \frac{1}{2}mv^{2}##. Participants explore the origins of this formula, the reasoning behind its formulation, and the connections to concepts such as work and energy conservation.

Discussion Character

  • Historical
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the formula for kinetic energy was discovered and suggests that the concept of energy conservation might have influenced its development.
  • Another participant proposes that the formula for work, defined as Force times Distance, along with Newton's Second Law, could lead to the kinetic energy equation.
  • A third participant references previous discussions on the topic and provides a link to a related thread on Physics Forums.
  • A later reply discusses the energy-work theorem and its derivation from Newton's laws, noting the conditions under which energy conservation holds, particularly for forces with potential energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the historical origins of the kinetic energy formula. Multiple viewpoints are presented regarding the reasoning and derivation processes involved, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations are noted, including the dependence on definitions of work and energy, and the specific conditions under which the conservation of energy theorem applies. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

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
2K
  • · 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